" On my understanding of D&G, the mother is a prime object
of desire NOT because she is prohibited (which she is as a
whole body, a
person), but because the nuclear family restricts desire so
drastically that
she is all that is left (and this as an assemblage of
part-objects, first and
foremost the breast). The prohibition only comes "later" when
the
part-objects are reconfigured as a whole person."
In reply to Gene's post, it's always disconcerting to find
oneself reduced to a metonymy. (And what on earth maternal
part do bottle fed babies internalise as the object of
desire?) Before you say, Jeez, women, no abstract thought
capacity, consider whether this isn't a problem, certainly of
Artaud's BwO, but possibly also of D&G. Isn't there a real
danger that the human body will somehow be metonymised into 'a
mouth', 'an ear', 'an anus'? Then the male body will be in the
same strange position that the female strives to escape.
On BwO generally, it occurred to me that there's a very
interesting example which many of you may not know. It also
links with our previous post, highways of desire. The
Australian Aboriginal people have a very complex relationship
with the land which translates itself as a sort of
internalised mapping of intensities. The salient points in
this physical and mental landscape and the possible pathways
between them form a rhizomatic pattern. This is translated
into their art, particularly the so-called dot art, which is
actually the representation of a BwO. It has many features in
common with the Dogon egg at the beginning of Plateau 6. Their
relation to the land was popularised in Bruce Chatwin's -
Songlines-, but I should warn you that anthropologists
consider the book poorly researched and superficial. The only
academic work I know of which links the Australian Aborigine
to D&G is that done by Stephen Muecke. For the details of
Stephen's work and one of the narratives see Ross Chambers'
-Room for Maneuver-, 1992.
Marie
------------------
of desire NOT because she is prohibited (which she is as a
whole body, a
person), but because the nuclear family restricts desire so
drastically that
she is all that is left (and this as an assemblage of
part-objects, first and
foremost the breast). The prohibition only comes "later" when
the
part-objects are reconfigured as a whole person."
In reply to Gene's post, it's always disconcerting to find
oneself reduced to a metonymy. (And what on earth maternal
part do bottle fed babies internalise as the object of
desire?) Before you say, Jeez, women, no abstract thought
capacity, consider whether this isn't a problem, certainly of
Artaud's BwO, but possibly also of D&G. Isn't there a real
danger that the human body will somehow be metonymised into 'a
mouth', 'an ear', 'an anus'? Then the male body will be in the
same strange position that the female strives to escape.
On BwO generally, it occurred to me that there's a very
interesting example which many of you may not know. It also
links with our previous post, highways of desire. The
Australian Aboriginal people have a very complex relationship
with the land which translates itself as a sort of
internalised mapping of intensities. The salient points in
this physical and mental landscape and the possible pathways
between them form a rhizomatic pattern. This is translated
into their art, particularly the so-called dot art, which is
actually the representation of a BwO. It has many features in
common with the Dogon egg at the beginning of Plateau 6. Their
relation to the land was popularised in Bruce Chatwin's -
Songlines-, but I should warn you that anthropologists
consider the book poorly researched and superficial. The only
academic work I know of which links the Australian Aborigine
to D&G is that done by Stephen Muecke. For the details of
Stephen's work and one of the narratives see Ross Chambers'
-Room for Maneuver-, 1992.
Marie
------------------