SCREEN-L Archives

December 1998, Week 4

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:34:05 -0500
Content-Type:
multipart/mixed
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (287 bytes) , text/plain (943 bytes)



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ancient  and hopelessly outdated older paradigm that, just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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2