This week, the B&R chapter is about desire. Dr. M gave us the following questions to consider while reading.
- B&R cite Freud saying desire is incompatible with satisfaction. Explain why and how?
- B&R contend that desire is always imitative. How?
- B&R present Sedgwick's ideas about homosocial desire. Define and explain the significance and implications.
Freud says desire is incompatible with satisfaction. B&R elaborate on this when they discuss Lacan's extensions of Freud. Freud's position seems to be based on his theory that desire is mobile -- that it shifts objects over time. Whenever we get what we want, we no longer want it (because we have it -- "want" may also mean "lack"), hence we no longer desire it. Desire moves on to another object.
I think the real-world application may be a little more subtle. Let's say we find an object that sates our current desire, but as time goes by, what was once "enough" will become boring. Desire shifts to want something more or different. Unless the object can change or innovate to follow our desire, we will move on to a new object that can. My modification of Freud would be that desire can be satisfied and generate a new desire that keeps the desirer and desired together until the desired no longer satisfies the desirer or can no longer change to satisfy the changed desire, at which point the desirer will search for a new object that satisfies the desire.
For example, consider this little story. A new book by Joe's favorite author is due out in six months. Joe really liked this author's previous books. Joe desires the book. He's all over it, reading about it online, looking at advance reviews, pre-ordering at his local bookstore (because he can't wait for shipping time from Amazon), standing in line at midnight to buy it. He rushes home and reads it through in one sitting. It's great.
So here's the question. How long before he reads it the second time? Or how long before he reads it the tenth time? Does he even read it ten times? Does he keep the book forever? Or does he sell it to his local used bookstore few months later? Computers, cars, cell phones, apartments, jobs, favorite restaurants and sexual partners are other examples that follow the same basic pattern. Unless a new desire spawns from the original desire, fulfillment of the desire will eventually lead to boredom and abandonment of the object.
The idea that desire is imitative is based on arguments by Sedgwick . She says that desire is always a triangular structure with two parties desiring the same object and imitating each other, even in rivalry. In other words, it isn't that either A or C desire B because B is desirable, it is because C desires B that A wants B.
Personally, I find this falling into the chicken-and-egg dilemma. B was born at some point in time. At some point, no one desired B. Someone has to desire B first, but by Sedgwick's argument, that can never happen because no one desires B and for someone to desire B, someone else must desire B first and that person, by definition of "first", cannot be basing their desire on some other person's desire because there is no one to imitate. From a literary perspective, however, we rarely come in at the beginning of time, so from a purely literary perspective it is not entirely unreasonable to suggest that desire-triangles roughly follow this pattern. I think Dr. M will need to explain this a little more and deal with the holes I see before I buy this.
Homosocial desire is desire for "people like me" – which is basically what "homosocial" means. This feeds into the imitative desire idea to some extent because it explains the significance of rivalry and the kinds of respect-for-rival or rival-as-friend relationships that can develop (at least in some literature, maybe even in real life). Sedgwick also notes that certain prototypically male enclaves, such as locker rooms and board rooms, are homosocial environments. It's important to note that this desire is for the association, not necessarily sexual – usually cannot be sexual and still truly be homosocial desire. The final conclusion of Sedgwick's argument is that, in the "triangular relationship" scenario, the important relationship is between the two men, not between either of the men and the woman, and the woman is just a "token of exchange" (object) to the two men.
Of course, it seems to me that Sedgwick ignores the literature that reverses the situation with two women fighting for a man. Also, how does this play out in homosexual literature where all three characters can the same gender? In other words, while I see the basic logic behind Sedgwick's (feminist) interpretation, I think she's letting her feminism lead her to express her conclusion in a sexist way. The more proper expression would be to suggest that the object of desire becomes exactly that, an object and a token of exchange between the two desirers, regardless of the characters' genders. Sedgwick's discussion also seems to ignore the case where the object of desire is not human. For example, if the desire is to win a race or to excel in school in which case there may be multiple rivals and the objectification of the object isn't necessarily bad. And, yes, there are plenty of stories out there where this is the case.
So, that wraps up the discussion of B&R's Desire chapter. I need to get back to Beckett and trying to figure out "The Calmative".
No comments:
Post a Comment