Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:34:05 -0500 |
Content-type: |
multipart/mixed;
Boundary="0__=8XnCU5RlXsGq6y54KPhhiEhWssdo7JjjQkgLV8hNjTnSDYslzmh7a1xL" |
Comments: |
|
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
theory queory:
though the hip paradigms for thinking *
theoretically* about cinema
have shifted to reception and/or cognitive inquiries, i find myself
still at least somewhat stuck in the ten year old and thus now
ancient and hopelessly outdated older paradigm that, just
for convenience, i
’ll call the *althusserian" [i admit that the
newer paradigms are much more easily defensible and
occasionally compelling; still while i usually find them
very good at DESCRIBING things, they seem not much
help at EXPLAINING them] . . .
but of course the althuserrian model creates as many
problems as it solves, and there is one that i can’t see my
way past, so i'm hoping that someone out there might help
me think through it [if, in fact, anyone still cares about this
stuff at all] . . . the question, though a complex one, can be
put very simply:
In a post-structuralist and/or althusserian model, is
the Lacanian (or Freudian) phallus itself to be
understood as socially constructed?
it would seem that this should be a central question but i myself have not
found where it is addressed . . . any speculation about the question, or
directions as to where one might find an answer, would be very much
appreciated
mike frank
|
|
|