Today’s review item involves Althusser and Lacan. We must study the items named in the title of this post and come to a deeper understanding of them. I am writing about how political euphemism functions to undermine the integrity of the speaker, or rather, the subject(ivity) it interpellates. What I am saying is more naive than what Althusser or Lacan would say, I believe, because I am assuming some preexisting “integrity.”
Is this wrong? Who is the “I” who says “I shall not, I shall not be moved”?
3 thoughts on “Ideology, subjectivity, and the name of the father”
N.B.: worrying about this for the purposes of what I am writing is perfectionism and is to be avoided, but figuring it out for later is very important!
The I is the temporarily resistant I constructed by the force of oppression which, once moved, releases the I from its temporary fixity. … in other words, something has got to move, and it won’t be me this time — someone said.
Still, I want to study Althusser and Lacan and the name of the father more.
This is good.