Anapus signifikanto principo : dekonstrucija, psichoanalizė, ideologijos kritika

LTMonografijos paantraštėje nurodytos dekonstrukcijos, psichoanalizės bei ideologijos kritikos disciplinos tyrinėja, rodosi, visiškai skirtingos prigimties reiškinius. Tačiau vos tik bandome surasti skirtumus', paaiškėja, jog jų negalime suvokti be panašumų. Patys bendriausi panašumai - šias teorijas vienijantis mąstymo stilius bei pagrindinė tema. Visas disciplinas sieja vientiso ir sau tapataus subjekto kritika: subjektas suvokiamas ne kaip save kontempliuojanti ir sau skaidri tapatybė, bet kaip nesibaigianti signifikacijų tėkmė, grįsta skirtumais. Savyje apribotas ir sau tapatus subjektas skyla į daugybę 'subjekto pozicijų' ar reikšmės nuorodų 'sankirtos taškus' (points de caption), kurie negali būti apibendrinti juos vienijančio koncepto. Šio skilimo priežastys visiškai aiškios: subjekto sąvoka siejama ne su vidiniu mąstymo judesiu, bet su mąstymo vidujybės atžvilgiu išoriška tekstine, psichine ar socialine veikla. Kiekviena disciplina savaip sprendžia šią subjekto skilimo problemą, siūlo vis kitus subjekto 'rekonstrukcijos' būdus. [...]. [Iš Įvado]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Signifikanto principas, dekonstrukcija, psichoanalizė, ideologijos kritika; Signifier Principle, Deconstruction, Psychoanalysis, Critique of Ideology.

ENThe book presents an outline of three different disciplines, - deconstruction, psychoanalysis and critique of ideology, - in order to reveal their theorethical coherence and continuity. All of them imply the critics of modern notion of subjectivity and presuppose an anti-essentialist approach to textual, psychical and social phenomena. This anti-essentialist approach imply that all discussed phenomena share discursive and symbolic nature. This means that they could not constitute themselves as objects outside any discursive conditions of emergence. Textual as well as psychical and social phenomena become meaningful only through the mediation of language and signification. The principle of discursivity was fortified in the field of deconstruction theory: after the Reconstructive turn' it is accepted that every identity is relative, that the process of signification is differential, that the principle of signifier is prior to any self-identical entity. The famous Derrida's statement, there is nothing outside the text' was interpreted as a proof that the structure of signification and representation is relatively autonomous and every reference to extra-discursive reality is illegal. The signifying system functions by means of its self-referential nature and not of its capacity to represent extra-discursive objects or subjective intentions. Every signifying unit refers to another signifying unit and this chain of references forms unlimited context of discursivity. The idea about the autonomy of signifying system and its unlimited context was criticized on the ground that this position excludes the dimension of truth, that is, it does not realize the place from which it speaks.On the one hand, deconstructive statement about unlimited context denies any meta-linguistical position; on the other hand, the statement, there is nothing outside the text', or, the signifying structure is differential and unlimited' already are meta-linguistic statements in most radical form. This position in fact double the system of representation, because besides this system of representation, which is autonomous and self-referential, there is another system, which enables us to decide about the first. This unlimited regression imply, that there can not be postulated any system or context without supposing their limits. Psychoanalysis and critique of ideology produce different answers to the request for the limitation of discourse. The psychoanalytical theory focuses the fundamental problem of anti-essentialist way of thinking: on the one hand, psychical phenomena become recognizable and intelligible only when they are represented in the symbolical field of language. On the other hand, psychoanalysis postulates this unrepresentable residue or surplus of the Real, which produces gaps in the symbolical field. Such Lacanian concepts as puissance or object a represents the elements of the Real which affect the symbolical field of language but can not be integrated by it. Psychoanalysis postulates the, outside' of signification, but in the same way assumes that the encounter with this, outside' can take place only by virtue of our imaginary and symbolic representations. The critique of ideology is also concerned with the problem of the limits and, outside' of discursive field. Though Enlightenment presupposes the distinction between reality and ideological representations, 'postmodern' critique of ideology reduces this distance and declares that ideology is the only means to apprehend otherwise dispersed and desintegrated social reality.This means that in the case of 'postmodern' approach to ideology we are concerned with the same problem as in the theory of deconstruction: if ideology is autonomous and self-referring system of representation, is the critique of ideology still possible? Though the distance between ideology and reality is impossible, nevertheless it is necessary to maintain some extra-ideological outside which makes critique of ideology possible. The thinking of the political and the experience of community can be interpreted in terms of this extra-ideological 'outside'. Psychoanalysis and critique of ideology postulate the 'outside' - reality and the Real - as the necessary limits of signification. In case of deconstruction theory the problem of the limit is solved by introducing the limits within discursive field. The unlimited process of signification can be stopped if we presuppose that differential relation has not only negative value, but can assume an objective form: the negative characteristics of signifying element makes its positive value; or antagonistic relation with the Other in the social field is the only way to posit my own identity. These objective and positive values in the signifying chain prove that signification should have its points of fixation, which temporarily fix partial identity. A discourse without fixation points would be psychotic, because only identity makes difference intelligible. Neither the attempt to limit the discourse from the 'outside', nor the attempt to find these limits within discursive field can not deny our fundamental presupposition that textual, psychical and social phenomena share discursive and symbolic nature; notwithstanding this we seek to expose these moments in the theorethical field which lead beyond the signifier principle. [From the publication]