The aesthetic unconscious (French L'inconscient esthétique, 2001) is the work of the French philosopher Jacques Ranciere , written on the basis of two lectures given in Brussels at the invitation of Didier Cronf in January 2000 as part of the School of Psychoanalysis.
In this work, Rancier sets himself the task of demonstrating why interpretations of literary texts occupy an important place in psychoanalytic works. He discovers in works of art (primarily of the 19th century) an unconscious , different from Freudian, aesthetic. Rancier shows the connection between the two types of the unconscious, revealing the internal tension between them. Rancier does not contrast the Freudian unconscious with another aesthetic unconscious, which the author claims at the very beginning. Ranciere’s task is to show how psychoanalysis invented by Freud became possible. This opportunity is provided by the aesthetic revolution that began in the 18th century and led to a new mode of artistic thought - the aesthetic mode.
Content
Modes of artistic thought
Rancier looks at art history as a successive change in the modes of art, which in turn are associated with a certain type of thinking. The art mode is one of the key concepts of Ranciere's aesthetics. Historically, there were three modes: ethical, visual, and aesthetic [1] . The ethical regime is based on the ideas of Plato. It is a mode of "effective speech", such speech affects the listener and induces action. Such a speech is possessed by the Platonic image of Socrates, which is present in each of his dilogues. The pictorial (mimetic, poetic) regime existed from the time of Aristotle 's Poetics right up to classicism, which again put dramatic laws formulated by the ancient philosopher at the forefront. Poetic mode - theatrical mode, in which the effective speech of the mentor was replaced by the effective speech [2] of the tragic hero and speaker. The regime rationalizes the tragic action, it should be harmonious and logical. The poem must correspond to the classical canon, which presupposes an image of a completed action, “striving for its resolution through a clash of characters pursuing conflicting goals and expressing desires and feelings in their speech according to a whole system of conventions” [2] .
In the era of the dominance of the classical canons of drama, psychoanalysis is impossible, as is Sophoclesian Oedipus . Rancier illustrates with the example of Cornel and Voltaire, who tried to shift the plot of Sophocles , flaws in the literal arrangement of the plot, which were essential for the era of classicism. Oedipus the King is a work that, thanks in large part to psychoanalysis, became the most famous and interpreted Greek drama in the 20th century, in the classical era it possessed a “flawed plot”. In Oedipus, according to the criteria of classicism, there is no successful development of intrigue and exposure of secrets; too much is shown to the viewer. The poetic system presupposes a certain relationship between the knowledge spoken and the action, which are rejected by Oedipus Sophocles.
It was this, rejected by the classical era, antique Oedipus that became the basis of psychoanalysis. This Oedipus is built into the aesthetic regime, which, like the plot of Sophocles, establishes the identity of opposites - knowledge and ignorance, the logo (λόγος - “word”, “thought”) and pathos (πάθος - suffering, passion). In aesthetic mode, all hierarchies are removed, it is antimimetic.
The aesthetic regime, according to Rancière, set the stage for the emergence of the Freudian unconscious. This is possible only as a result of the aesthetic revolution, which will transfer art from the field of poetics to the field of aesthetics. In the aesthetic configuration of artistic thought, the status of Freudian interpretations and their chosen objects changes. The new regime contrasts the effective speech of the previous modes with silent speech, that is, written speech. Therefore, it was in the 19th century that a huge number of large novels appeared, and literature came first. which is dual in itself:
In Plato, as you know, writing is not just the materiality of a sign written on a material substrate, but the specific status of speech. It is for him a silent logo, a speech that can neither say differently what she says, nor stop talking: neither give an account of what she is saying, nor draw a circle of those to whom it is appropriate or not appropriate to address .
- J. Ranciere [3]
Aesthetic Unconscious and Unconscious Psychoanalytic
The aesthetic unconscious is an unconscious thought that is present in the works of art of the aesthetic regime. For Ranciere, art and literature is that area in which the unconscious is most clearly manifested. The fact that Freud himself, developing his ideas, has repeatedly resorted to the analysis of works of art, only confirms this fact. And Oedipus has even become a central figure in his theory.
The two unconscious - aesthetic and psychoanalytic - are basically similar. They turn to myths, dreams, popular beliefs, so they do not divide the manifestations of the spirit into lower and higher. This was especially important for Freud, who broke with the previous scientific tradition, which did not take into account those manifestations of mental life that were considered low, regarding them as negligible data. Art, according to Ranciere, is the bearer of the aesthetic unconsciously, which can mediate between positive science and popular beliefs and myths. The aesthetic unconscious provides the possibility of combining thought with non-thought, knowledge with ignorance.
Therefore, Freud needs art to develop a new theory of the human psyche, but upon entering this territory the Freudian unconscious is forced to come into conflict with the aesthetic. Freud, rather, requires art and poetry to positively attest to the deep rationality of “fantasy” [2] . Therefore, the psychoanalytic unconscious cannot be considered the direct heir to the aesthetic. Freud, taking art as the source material, conflicts with the unconscious that it contains. It removes the identity of opposites, which establishes an aesthetic regime. Freud rationalizes unconscious processes, gives them an explanation, restoring understandable causal relationships [4] .
Notes
- ↑ Lapitsky V.E. Travel to the edge of politics // Rancier J. Aesthetic unconscious - St. Petersburg; M.: Machina, 2004 .-- S. 102-126.
- ↑ 1 2 3 Rancier J. Aesthetic unconscious / Comp., Trans. with french and after V.E. Lapitsky. - SPb .; M.: Machina, 2004 .-- S. 34-50.
- ↑ Rancier J. Aesthetic unconscious / Comp., Trans. with french and after V.E. Lapitsky. - SPb .; M.: Machina, 2004 .-- S. 34
- ↑ Rancier J. Aesthetic unconscious / Comp., Trans. with french and after V.E. Lapitsky. - SPb .; M.: Machina, 2004 .-- S. 74-82.