I'm going to say that Lacan is wrong.
In terms of identity development.
He seems to assert that identity is universally formed by response to shaping and instruction from other people -- including the image of ourselves in the mirror.
That idea certainly appears to form the basis of the tabula rasa method of parenting most widely employed: Beat the uniqueness out of children. Make them fulfill the wishes and ideals of one or both parents. A good daughter is pleasing to men: one who knows how to buy and wear clothes, and is willing to subjugate her desire for intellectual fulfillment to the wishes of a man -- (almost) any man.
I'm going to assert that, for at least some people, identity seems to be inborn -- much like a sensitive nervous system that allows the possessor of it to see more distinctly, taste more exquisitely, feel more intensely, hear more keenly. (Who knows? Perhaps the two phenomena are married in these unusual individuals.) These are the people who appear to have a different take on the world: an artist among technical people, a literary mind amongst laborers, a woman who chooses to focus her attention on the phenomena she observes around her rather than the adorable high heels that pain her feet and inhibit her movement, tripping her up regularly.
It is uncanny that -- having been considering the problem of how other people consistently, forcefully, and insistently attempt to manipulate, intimidate, influence, shame, and otherwise persuade to conform to societal norms those whose behavior and other preferences are unusual -- that I should stumble across Lacan's response to Freud. I approached it from the end rather than from the beginning.
As a rule, humans, who are socially programmed for arrogance -- rather than welcoming the other, and making themselves open to learn who that person is, and what wisdom and joy that person brings with them to share and thereby enrich the lives of both the family and the community -- blindly forces their narrow views and experiences on the newcomer.
Everyone loses from this process. The children who bring a different perspective are emotionally (and often physically) harmed by it. The family and the community misses out on the benefits of allowing uniqueness and new thinking to flourish. And all kinds of evil eventually results. (In place of the beauty that might have.)
Some families seem to foster the development of individuality. Most don't. And the likelihood of the force-feeding of custom, tradition, and narrow belief on a child appears to be greater as the financial and social resources of the parents decline.
To understand that the pervasive presumption that children (and adults who live outside the norms) need socially programmed others to harass them into conformity -- whether they are parents, medical or other professionals, or just busy-bodies masquerading as would-be friends -- is not the positive thing that it is cracked up to be, might go a ways to explain why most people continue to believe that it is essential to keep up with the latest fashion, watch reality TV by the hour in order to be aware of the common gossip, etc., in place of what they might do with their resources if they ever developed their own interests apart from those dictated to them by others.
And it also could point to the foundations of the culture run amok that has already undermined many of the ideals upon which the U.S. was founded: the folks who are most strictly conformed to the social norms are the ones who are heading and running the corporations that are daily bleeding the last drops from our economy; they are our congressional representatives; they are the behind-the-scenes politicos; they are the kingpins of the black market; and they are the ones profiting most from the 24-hour gossip, self-promotion, and shame culture that has supplanted traditional journalism.
(Originally posted on Facebook May 18, 2015)
No comments:
Post a Comment