Tag: The Real

Decathexis:

A Wound to the Imaginary

Decathexis, a term often overlooked in the labyrinthine corridors of psychoanalysis, is in fact a violent act, a surgical excision of the psyche. It is the withdrawal of libidinal investment from an object, a tearing away from the phantasmatic world we have so carefully constructed. This process is not a gentle disentanglement but rather a brutal dismemberment of the psychic economy. It is a violent rupture of the libidinal investment that sustains the phantasmatic edifice, a dismantling of the imaginary order.

To cathect is to endow an object with desire, to elevate it to the status of a fetish, a talisman against the void. In this act, the subject finds a semblance of wholeness, a momentary respite from the anxiety of non-being. Yet, the phantasmatic object, however seductive, is a mere simulacrum, a deceptive promise of fulfillment.

The object, in its phantasmatic form, is a seductive mirage, a chimera constructed within the symbolic order to fill the void of the Real. It is a locus of desire, a point of fixation, a narcissistic investment. To decathect is to confront the abyssal nature of this lack, to dismantle the carefully erected scaffolding of the ego.

The object, once imbued with the subject’s desire, becomes a locus of jouissance, a point of intense pleasure and pain. To decathexis is to sever this umbilical cord, to relinquish the ecstasy of fusion and embrace the solitude of the real. It is to confront the abyss of lack, the primordial wound from which desire emerges.

Decathexis is the painful process of disavowing this illusion, of withdrawing the libidinal charge that sustains the fantasy. It is a movement from the imaginary order to the symbolic, a passage from the world of appearances to the realm of language and difference. But this transition is fraught with danger, for it exposes the subject to the abyss of the real, a traumatic encounter with the limits of signification.

The subject, in their resistance to decathexis, clings to the phantasmatic object, as a drowning man clutches at a straw as the subject is forced to confront the limitations of the imaginary order. The phantasmatic object, once a bastion of security and identity, is revealed as a mere simulacrum, a hollow shell devoid of substance. The subject is then compelled to venture into the symbolic realm, a space of language and law, where meaning is constructed and desire is mediated.

Decathexis is thus a painful initiation into the world of difference, a recognition of the irreducible gap between the self and the other. It is a mourning process, a grieving for the lost object, a melancholic withdrawal from the world of illusion. Yet, it is also a necessary step towards psychic maturation, a movement towards autonomy and subjectivity.

This clinging is a defense against the anxiety of separation, a fear of returning to the primordial state of lack. Yet, it is precisely in this moment of crisis that the potential for transcendence and transformation resides.

The process is one of mourning, a melancholic journey through the ruins of the lost object. The subject is confronted with the impossibility of fulfillment, the eternal deferral of desire. The pain is acute, a masochistic pleasure in the face of the Real.

In this dismantling, the subject is forced to relinquish the comforting illusions of the Imaginary and confront the desolate terrain of the Symbolic. It is a painful, arduous task, a necessary step in the analytic process. Yet, it is in this very desolation that the possibility of new formations, of a more authentic subjectivity, begins to emerge.

Decathexis is not a passive process, but an active struggle against the inertia of the desire. It demands a radical reorientation, a displacement of the libido onto new objects, a reconfiguration of the psychic economy. It is a painful birth, a passage through the fire of the Real, a necessary condition for the emergence of a subject capable of desire and love.

In the end, decathexis is a double-edged sword. It is a wound that bleeds desire, but it is also the opening through which new possibilities emerge. It is a necessary step in the subject’s journey towards autonomy, towards a more authentic relation to the world.

Tech Barriers

The barriers within the tech industry do not emerge from some inherent or natural order; rather, they are the result of a symbolic construction, carefully inscribed within the social fabric through a process akin to gerrymandering. These barriers are not neutral but are inscribed with a political logic that serves to maintain the dominance of certain subjects within the field of technology, positioning them as the ‘masters’ of this symbolic order.

The costs and externalities associated with technological development—the environmental degradation, the erosion of privacy, the deepening of social divides—are not mere accidents or side effects. They are the necessary disavowals, the repressed Real that threatens to erupt within the symbolic, yet is meticulously managed and contained through political mechanisms. These mechanisms ensure that these externalities remain the Other, kept at bay to protect the coherence of the symbolic order.

In this light, the so-called ‘natural’ evolution of technology is revealed as a fantasy, a narrative constructed to mask the underlying political machinations that maintain the status quo. The barriers that appear as inevitable are, in fact, contingent, produced by a symbolic order that is always-already structured by power. It is through this lens that we must understand the tech industry’s dynamics, not as the unfolding of some universal law, but as the operation of a hegemonic discourse that seeks to perpetuate its own logic, even as it disavows the costs it imposes on the Real.

In Lacanian terms, the Real represents what is outside the symbolic order—those aspects of existence that cannot be fully captured, articulated, or symbolized. It’s the chaotic, ungraspable force that constantly threatens to disrupt the constructed reality maintained by the symbolic order.

When you ask how the Real is going to rewrite the symbolic order, you’re essentially inquiring about the moments when the unrepresentable, the traumatic, or the unsymbolizable breaks into the established structures of meaning and disrupts them. The Real has the potential to destabilize the symbolic order because it reveals the latter’s limitations, inconsistencies, and the gaps in its logic.

The rewriting of the symbolic order by the Real might occur through various forms of rupture:

  1. Crisis: A technological, environmental, or social crisis could bring the repressed aspects of the Real—like ecological devastation or massive inequality—into the forefront, exposing the symbolic order’s failure to adequately manage these realities. This exposure forces a reconfiguration of the symbolic structures to accommodate or respond to the intrusion of the Real.
  2. Subversion: Acts of subversion, whether by individuals or groups, can channel aspects of the Real into the symbolic order in ways that challenge the existing power structures. This could involve bringing into discourse those elements that were previously excluded, marginalized, or repressed, thereby destabilizing the current symbolic network.
  3. Trauma: A traumatic event, something that cannot be easily integrated into the symbolic order, can cause a fundamental shift in how reality is perceived and symbolized. The symbolic order may attempt to reconstitute itself around this trauma, but in doing so, it necessarily transforms, creating new meanings, new identities, and new structures of power.

In these ways, the Real, though by nature elusive and resistant to symbolization, can force the symbolic order to undergo transformation. However, this transformation is never complete or final; the symbolic order will reconstitute itself around the disruptions, incorporating elements of the Real while still attempting to maintain a coherent structure. Thus, the rewriting of the symbolic order by the Real is a continuous process, marked by moments of rupture, reconfiguration, and reconstitution.

In the context of Lacanian theory, the slowing of Moore’s Law, the end of Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP), and the tech industry “scraping the barrel” can be seen as moments where the Real begins to intrude upon and destabilize the symbolic order that has long governed the tech industry’s narrative and economic logic.

Moore’s Law and the Limits of the Symbolic Order

Moore’s Law, which predicted the exponential increase in computing power, has functioned as a kind of master-signifier within the tech industry—a symbolic guarantee that progress is both inevitable and infinite. As the pace of Moore’s Law slows, we encounter a limit within the symbolic order, where the expected endless progression begins to falter. This slowing represents a crack in the symbolic structure, where the Real—the material limitations of silicon, energy, and physics—begins to assert itself, challenging the fantasy of boundless technological growth.

The End of ZIRP and Economic Disruption

The end of ZIRP marks another intrusion of the Real into the symbolic order. ZIRP had created a financial environment that sustained tech industry valuations, investments, and speculative growth, allowing for the fantasy of infinite liquidity and risk-free capital. As interest rates rise, the Real economic forces—scarcity, risk, and the cost of capital—start to disrupt this symbolic order, exposing the fragility of the tech industry’s reliance on cheap money. This shift forces a re-evaluation of business models, valuations, and investment strategies, rewriting the symbolic order to acknowledge the new economic realities.

Tech Scraping the Barrel and the Exhaustion of Innovation

The idea that the tech industry is “scraping the barrel” suggests that the industry is running up against the limits of its own creative and innovative capacities. This is another point where the Real disrupts the symbolic order. The tech industry’s narrative of perpetual innovation and disruption—a key part of its symbolic identity—faces a crisis as genuine breakthroughs become harder to achieve. The Real here is the exhaustion of easy gains, the diminishing returns on existing technologies, and the unfulfilled promises of radical new innovations. As these limits become apparent, the symbolic order is forced to adapt, perhaps by shifting focus to new narratives (like AI) or by acknowledging the need for more fundamental shifts in technological paradigms.

Rewriting the Symbolic Order

These developments—slowing Moore’s Law, the end of ZIRP, and the scraping of the tech barrel—represent the Real’s intrusion into the symbolic order, forcing it to confront its own limits and inadequacies. The symbolic order, which once revolved around the fantasy of endless growth, innovation, and prosperity, must now be rewritten. This rewriting might involve a new symbolic logic that integrates these limitations, acknowledges the material constraints, and reconfigures the narrative of technological progress.

However, this process will not be smooth or straightforward. The tech industry, like any symbolic order, will resist acknowledging these intrusions, attempting instead to manage or disavow the Real’s disruptions. But as these limits continue to assert themselves, the symbolic order will inevitably undergo transformation, perhaps leading to new forms of technological and economic understanding that more accurately reflect the realities of our current moment.

Scapegoats

Leave a comment

The Unspeakable Real: A Lacanian Burroughsian Scapegoatology

In the churning id of organizations and belief systems, a primal drama unfolds. The scapegoat, a spectral Other, becomes the stage upon which unspoken desires are projected. A witch hunt, a play defined by the absence of the Real (the true source of societal ills), demands a sacrifice. To admit the accused’s innocence is to shatter the narcissistic mirror of the group, revealing their own festering lack.

This, the Real, a Lacanian term for the ungraspable, the forever outside-of-language, lurks beneath the signifying order that binds these structures. This spectral Other, a dangling signifier on the Lacanian stage, is the target of a repressed, primordial violence. But here’s the rub, mon ami – to utter this truth is to rip the scab off the social order, exposing the raw, pulsating id beneath.

Imagine, if you will, the Witch Hunters – those grim cowboys of righteousness. To confess the witches’ innocence would be to castrate their own power, to render their brand of control as limp as a forgotten phallus. No, the witches must be burned, their screams a perverse symphony that binds the group in a morbid jouissance.

Those agents of the symbolic order, cannot integrate the truth: their victims, mere sacrificial pawns. To acknowledge their innocence would be to sever the very limb upon which they perch, to dismantle the power they wield.

Girard, the subsidized explorer of the human psyche, delves into the grimoires of history, myth, and sacred texts, unearthing a treasure trove of scapegoating rituals. He exposes this mechanism – the most potent secret in the human drama. Why secret? Because it’s the perverse engine that drives group cohesion, yet whispers of its existence are met with a deafening silence within the collective ear. This primal script demands silence. To utter its name is to rupture the symbolic order, the carefully constructed reality of the group. The scapegoat mechanism, a perverse communion, binds yet forbids recognition. We are all tangled in its viscid web.

This is the true horror: the blind spot. We, entangled in the web of mimetic desire, fail to perceive the very scapegoats we manufacture. The persecution continues, a grotesque ballet of violence, while each player clutches their self-righteous mask, absolving themselves of guilt.

The human condition, a grotesque carnival of mimesis, compels us to punish. We are blind to the glint of the scapegoat’s fabricated guilt in our own eyes.

Even Girard, the supposed seer, confesses his own blindness. “My own [scapegoating] eludes me,” he confesses, mirroring the plight of his readers. We traffic only in the realm of “legitimate enemies,” conveniently blind to the universe overflowing with innocent victims. The persecutor? Always the Other. We are all flagellants, whipping the innocent while screaming accusations at phantoms. The “enormity of this mystery” pulsates with a primal horror – a truth we desperately claw away from. The scapegoat becomes the fleshy avatar of our collective shadow, a sacrifice to the insatiable maw of our own unconscious desires.

The enormity of this mystery, a Burroughsian virus infecting the human condition, speaks to the depth of this scapegoating impulse. Mimetic rivalry, the insatiable desire to possess what the Other possesses, fuels the fires of punishment. Any suggestion that the victim might be undeserving ignites a primal resistance. Thus, the dance continues, a macabre charade fueled by the unspoken, the unspeakable. The scapegoat, a spectral figure haunting the margins, a constant reminder of the Real that threatens to tear apart the fragile fabric of our symbolic world.

So, the next time you find yourself pointing the finger, remember – you might just be dancing to the silent symphony of the scapegoat. A symphony fueled by desire, veiled by righteousness, and conducted by the unconscious.