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ancient  and hopelessly outdated older paradigm that, just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