#lagache

[detournementsmineurs]

Le "Rang des Drapiers" composé des hôtels particuliers construits par les "Capitaines d'Industrie" avec leurs colonnades et bow-windows dont l'"Hôtel Motte-Lagache" et son unique cour côté rue (XIXe siècle) à Roubaix, octobre 2024.

[johnhamon]

@la_gache_lyon 2017 #johnhamon #lagache #lyon . @sunnyjimart @marcantoineleval (à Place Mazagran - Lyon)

[johnhamon]

@la_gache_lyon 2017 #johnhamon #lyon #lagache (à Place Mazagran - Lyon)

[canutolibros]

La unidad de la psicologia

[ileane]

10 paintings of my favorites in no order:

1. Proserpine, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, 1873-77, London, Tate Gallery

2. Enigme, Alfred Lagache, 1888, Rouen, Musée de Rouen

3. The Lady of Shalott, John William Waterhouse, 1888, London, Tate Gallery

4. Ophelia, John Everett Millais, 1851-52, London, Tate Gallery

5. Peter, A Young English Girl, Romaine Brooks, 1923-24, Washington, Smithsonian American Art Museum

6. Carnation, Lily, Lily, Rose, John Singer Sargent, 1886, London, Tate Gallery

7. Danaé, Gustav Klimt, 1907-08, Vienne, Leopoldmuseum 8. Old Woman in the Woods, Arthur Rackham, Louisville, Arthur Rackham Memorial Collection

9. L'Île des Morts, Arnold Böcklin, 1880, Bâle, Kunstmuseum 10. Madonna, Evard Munch, 1895-1902, New York, MoMa (not really a painting...)

[luxfoks]

Identity: essential or performative?

cloudnoise said: Do you believe that identity is essential, performative, what? Sorry I can’t be more eloquent, I’m exhausted (and a strong believer in performative identity). LOVE your Tumblr. - Mehron

Long story short: I believe that it is performative. But because I feel obligated to make this interesting. I am going to say that just because it is performative it is no less essential. Because I am a bit of a psychoanalysis bro I will follow Freud and Lacan here and  say that there is a complex series of 'identifications' that constitute the subject's ego/ego-ideal/ideal-ego. Lacan was actually heavily inspired by Lagache on this point:

"In a subject's relation to the other as an authority, the ego-ideal, obeying the law to please, leads the subject to displease himself as the price of obeying the commandment; the ideal ego, at the risk of displeasing, triumphs only by displeasing in spite of the commandment" (Oeuvres IV, 1956-1962, p. 671)

The ideal-ego for Lacan is a function of the mirror stage: the subject gains awareness of themselves and believes the mythology of a unified subject - their ego is 'idealized' in this sense and more or less the autonomous rational subject of the enlightenment is produced (a perfectly coherent subject with command over their body and thoughts). This is why, perhaps, for Lagache the ideal-ego is rebellious: it does not want to be commanded or acted upon risking the disruption of its mythology of unity (pleasure) so it purposefully displeases. The ego-ideal is a symbolic construction (one of the Other's desire and a product of linguistic identifications). It is the 'place' from which the subject-as-perfect looks at themselves. In Lagache's formulation, this would be why the ego-ideal is obedient: it is comprised already by the subjects internalization of the Others desire, approval, and expectations. Described is the push and pull of the mechanisms of hysteria: displeasing the Other for the pleasure of the subject (ideal-ego) displeasing the subject for the expense of the Other (ego-ideal).

So! What we have in theories of performative identity (such as Judith Butler's) is an over-emphasis on the function of the ego-ideal on the subject and not the ideal-ego. The ideal-ego, for such theorists, manifests not as something formative of the subject but rather the 'truth' of the subject (that autonomous figure of the enlightenment that retains rights and is in control of itself). The ego-ideal, meanwhile is revealed, correctly, to be a linguistic/symbolic/cultural formation that shapes the subject. While it is forgotten that this 'agency' is not real and is incapable of enjoyment. Ultimately it becomes something inauthentic to be reacted against. This evil formation takes the myriad forms of oppressive gender roles, christian morality, sexual monogamy, bourgeoisie lifestyle demands of employment, social status, acceptable dress, hygiene, sleeping habits, etc... We thus perform our role based on social expectation and internalized cultural notions of self-worth or perceived value (for the pleasure of the Other). For such theorists the Lacanian 'Big Other' conforms with social expectation rather than its classic role of prohibition. So for them it is within their right to refuse these cultural identifications and 'rebel'. What they are confusing is the degree to which these cultural expectations and identifications are produced by the subject themselves, they are the subjects own criteria for self-worth.

This is perhaps why some feminists seem to be constantly at war with themselves. I knew a girl who would be offended by feminine identifiers (someone once called her a "girly girl" and she blew up about it); possibly what tormented her was

The degree to which she felt this did not adequately apply to her opening up the way for

the degree to which she would be unhappy if it actually did because it would go against her feminist beliefs.

The degree to which this was an actual desire for her (to be considered feminine) and her failure to identify as such.

The divide between what she perceived as a cultural expectation and a genuine personal desire.

Should her desire to be feminine be a personal desire it would a.) go against her feminist beliefs b.) perhaps force her to confront her feelings of anger towards other women as psychological (jealousy) rather than ideological. 

That her sexual attraction to women might be motivated by a failure to identify as attractive to men 

The degree to which her attraction to women is resembles male desire (her being attracted to girls that she is jealous of because of their femininity). 

That the possibility of actually being feminine might negate the whole legitimating structure of her desire/anger and force her to confront 1-7. 

BAM! In short, we have a if than structure guided by a network of internalized identifications. The ideal-ego wants to be free (make genuine choices free from cultural expectation) but at every step it confronts an ego-ideal identification that forces the ideal-ego to resist it. This model, of course, does not account for drives, the super-ego, the actual 'Big Other' and the other forces that make these identifications so powerful but it does adequately show the dynamic that occurs on the ego level. 

The ego-ideal and the Big Other coincide theoretically (but not actually). The ideal-ego resists and we get the explosion of identity and alternative lifestyle youth cultures that exist today. Trying to enjoy at the expense of the Other. Or weirdly, the paradox of the male hysteric (when the Big Other manifests as a super-ego injunctive to enjoy and the ego-ideal manifests as a 'will-to-enjoy': the subject's ideal-ego resists and hysterically refuses to enjoy as a threat to its autonomy).

Back to whether identity is essential or performative: the function of identification is essential (the act of saying "I am that", "I want to be that" or in the negative "I am not that", "I don't want to be that"). Meanwhile, the identity is produces is not. As well, the ego-ideal/ideal-ego can similarly be considered 'essential' in so far as it is constituent of the subject. The subject's navigation through these identifications is indeed performative. There is nothing you could say about said subject based on their actions that is essential (in the sense of getting to the 'truth' of their identity). Their actions could only be interpreted and at best give some insight into the identifications that they are navigating with their actions.

Hope that answers your question.