Perverse links, totalitarianism, and university discourse

Misery continues. Today's dilemma: is Stalinism properly characterized as based on university discourse or the discourse of the pervert? The university discourse is S2 over S1 on the first side, a over $ on the second side; the perverse discursive link (which is the same as the discourse of the analyst) is a over S2 on the first side, and $ over S1 on the second.

For they Know Not What They Do (236):

when the bureaucratic knowledge loses its support in the Master Signifier (S1) and is 'left to itself,' it runs amok and assumes the features of mischevious neutrality proper to superego. The theoretical point not to be missed here is that the apparently self-evident affinity between Master-Signifier (S1) and superego is misleading: the status of superego is that of a chain of knowledge (S2) and not that of a uniary point of symbolic authority (S1).

(235) offers the formula of the totalitarian subject as one side of the discourse of the master: thus, S2 over a. And, this makes sense: the lack of the first side of the Master's discourse is what renders the discourse totalitarian, S2 can run amok.

Yet, Zizek also says (234-235) that the Stalinist is a pervert, himself an instrument of the other's will. And, this would suggest, then, a different social link, the discourse of the pervert--not the formula he provides here.

To make matters worse, Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle (156):

The University discourse as the hegemonic discourse of modernity has two forms of existence in which its inner tension ('contradiction') is externalized: capitalism, with its logic of integrated excess, of the system reproducing itself through constant self-revolutionizing; and bureaucratic 'totalitarianism,' which is conceptualized in different guises as the rule of technology, of instrumental reason, of biopolitics, as the 'administered world.' How, precisely, do these two aspects relate to each other . . . we should insist, in the Marxian mode, that the capitalist logic of integrating the surplus into the functioning of the system is the fundamental facts. Stalinist 'totalitarianism' was the capitalist logic of self-propelling productivity liberated from its capitalist form, which is why it failed. Stalinism was a symptom of capitalism. Stalinism involved the matrix of the general intellect, of the planned transparency of social life, of total productive mobilization--and its violent purges and paranoia were a kind of repressed...'

and, (155--in context of discussion of contemporary society, yet still using university discourse as paradigmatic for modern/contemporary social link):

This brings us to the link between S2 and the agency of the superego: the superego is not directly S2; it is, rather the S1 of the S2 itself, the dimension of an unconditional injunction that is inherent to knowledge itself.

All of these claims cannot be true; or, differently put, they don't fit together without contradiction. Generally, one should go with a thinker's most recent statement as most definitive. But, it seems to me that the effort to analogize Stalinist bureaucracy with university discourse is not convincing--unless, one wants to say that here Stalinist bureaucracy means 'the bureaucratic structure of late socialism, particularly as it was institutionalized under the former Yugoslavia.' But, even that little bit of tweaking doesn't deal with the complex problems of the different statuses and positions attributed to superego.

Also, I wonder if one can say something about a split-Stalinism as a way of clarifying things: so, Stalin offered a perverse discourse, himself as instrument, etc; but, the general functioning of the bureaucracy proceeded as if this didn't really matter, particularly after WWII when the nomenklatura had consolidated its authority. Perhaps, then, a temporalization here would solve the problems.

God I hope so.

Comments

[hugh]

Well, they come to the same thing if you cross-multiply...

[pebird]

Hugh:

I did the same thing, but I never got Lacanian algebra, anyway.

[Marc]

Jodi,

I think you're on the right track at the end. It seems we have to distinguish (and not just terminologically) between the macro-level functioning of the Stalinist state in the 20th century, (in which it can be seen as another side of the University Discourse) and the actual experience of living under Stalinism (which could be called perverse). It could be argued that any "theory of Stalinism," should such a thing come to exist, would have to start from this point. Perhaps one could say, provided we have not already exhausted and over-extended the 4 Discourses, that what made the experience of Stalinism (in this case schematized by the Analytic Discourse) so perverse is that it was getting it's input from the University Discourse instead of the Hysteric's. This would make a good deal of sense, as S1 is in the position of "production" in the University Discourse... in other words, rather than taking the hysteric's overdetermined chain of signifiers as it's object, Stalinism is perverse precisely because its object is power as such (in this case, the seedy under-side of capitalism). Hope this helps your proof.

[Jodi]

That's a terrific insight. Thanks so much. I will be working with this over the next week or two (as I take kids to soccer games and have an American Girl Doll slummer party--heaven help us). But, your angle seems very, very smart. I like especially the way you explain the substitution of university discourse for hysterics--that is really good.

[Marc]

Something else to consider... how does this perverse link function now that the antagonism within the University Discourse (i.e. capitalism/communism) has been sublated? Is this the true legacy of Abu Ghraib, and if so how would a comparison of that perversity and the perversity of Stalinism enrich our understanding of each phenomenon?

[Jodi]

Wow--great idea.

I've been playing with a reading of the shift from lenin, to Stalin, to the bureaucracy in terms of a kind of movement through the 4 discourses, but, with your idea of replacing the hysteric's discourse with, perhaps, the perverse on, or simply with an inversion of the master's discourse (which fits well with the understanding of the democratic invention as creating the place for the totalitarian leader.