#ellman

[420am-wolftrap]

Du kannst nicht den Teufel rufen und dich dann ärgern, wenn er kommt.

[startingstrengthanalysis]

Maud Ellman’s Psychoanalytic Literary Criticism

Maud Ellman in her book Psychoanalytic Literary Criticism takes such critical stances on the foolishness of Freud and the obtuseness and priapism (yes, perpetually erect penis) of Lacan that I see (along with the abstruse articles collated within the book) why it is in the “For Advanced Readers” section on Psychoanalytic criticism in Lois Tyson’s book Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide (Tyson 50). Ellman says, “it is worth remembering that psychoanalysis frequently deserves the scorn with which it is repudiated” (2), arguing that classical psychoanalysis is reductive, not considering meaning beyond the “misadventures of the penis” (4). Ellman’s view that Freud is sexually focused is correct. In Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, Freud mentions that all dream symbolism has an underlying sexual component (201), and considering that the dream portion in these introductory lectures takes up an entire part of a 3 part book indicates the centrality of sexuality to Freud’s psychoanalysis as an entire concept.

Ellman’s criticism about Lacan’s obtuseness is less scathing than her criticisms of Freud’s sexual reductivity, but it still exists. Ellman contends that Lacan’s ideas as regards (“as regards” is a sadly underused version of regarding or concerning) as the ultimate signifier is “less than lucid” (19). And she notes Lacan’s fear of those who do not accept the phallus as psychotic with sarcastic contempt (Ellman 19-20). I love Ellman’s disdain, and her later framing of Julia Kristeva as a worthwhile arguer against a total acceptance of the phallic signifier makes me want to read more Kristeva (though the Kristeva sample in this collection of psychoanalytic essays made me less interested).  

[paineperdu]

August 31st - Ellman

Today I am reading Michael Ellman's Socialist Planning, and I am reminded at one particular juncture of Raymond Geuss' short text Philosophy and Real Politics. Ellman discusses the later periods of socialist planning, saying

Even in those countries where the situation after the reforms were introduced was better than before, there was still widespread dissatisfaction with the economic system. For example, in Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s there was widespread dissatisfaction with the steady increase in the gap between Hungarian and Austrian living standards. In China there was widespread dissatisfaction with corruption, oppression, and environmental deterioration. Similarly, policy makers in Hungary in the 1970s and 1980s were envious of the economic achievements of Western Europe, and in China were conscious both of the lag behind the advanced countries and the need for further economic reforms.

The careful reader may notice (as one would earlier in the text) the relatively unelaborated distinction between "advanced" and "backwards" nations and national economies, but we will leave that aside for now. I remember Geuss' advice to ask the question, after Lenin "Who, whom?" - who is doing what to whom? Political life is often characterized by propositions that hide human action - "unemployment has increased" disguises "some number of employers have chosen to fire some number of employees." The Ellman passage lacks a whom, but it nevertheless brings to mind the question "who is dissatisfied" - policy makers, perhaps? This is not to argue with Ellman on the level of the presence of dissatisfaction - this is not apologetics - but it seems to be a lacking detail that is not necessarily outside the scope of the text.

[bi-accident]

[oldfamilypics]

Charles Ellman, Jr., son of Mr and Mrs Charles Ellman of Wilkes-Barre, from the announcement saying that he had enlisted in the army and had left Sept 11, 1942. He was a graduate of Coughlin High School and had worked at the Wilkes-Barre Lace Company.

From the Wilkes-Barre Record, Wilkes-Barre, PA, Sept 15, 1942

[ojamesy]

Je suis au bout del'anglais"

 [I am at the end of English] 

--James Joyce, qtd. in Ellmann, 546

[ojamesy]

"Have you ever noticed," Joyce crowed to Frank Budgen, "when you get an idea, how much I can make of it?" ( Ellmann, 439)

[ojamesy]

"His method of composition was . . . the imaginative absorption of stray material. The method did not please Joyce very much because he considered it not imaginative enough, but it was the only way he could work" 

--Ellman, 250