A Psychoanalytical look at South Park: Analysis 3

Lacan details the being and the having properties of having a phallus. Lacan furthered the study of the mental emphasis we put on having a phallus—a study that was begun by Sigmund Freud. According to Freud, it was the shock of the mother not having a phallus that created incredible stress in the you boy. And, it was the lack of having a phallus that created much envy and animosity in women. Ultimately, the main psychological struggle in life is based in either fear of losing the phallus, or envy of never having one at all. Unlike Lacan, Freud infers that once the boy or girl recognizes the presence (or lack thereof) of the phallus, then ensues a mental conflict within the child.

With the arising complications of the phallus, Freud details the Oedipal and Elektra complexes. These mental conflicts are based on the mother-son relationship illustrated in Oedipus Rex. Of course, in the text, Oedipus is completely unaware of the fact that the queen he has married is his mother and the king he has killed was his father. Nevertheless, the story creates a tale of which the son is confronted and tested by another man for the heart of the desired woman. When growing up, especially during the phallus stage, the father becomes the threat to the bond created by the boy and the mother. To combat that, the boy considers, as Oedipus did, to off the father. But in fear that the boy may not succeed he will not act on his impulse to kick the father out of the family picture. Instead, the boy fears the backlash of his actions—castration by the father—and deals with the conflict and enters latency.

The phallus plays a huge role in the psychology of the human—whether it be with envy or fear of castration. And since the phallus plays on the mind in such a way, it ends up being the central focus of our thoughts, as Lacan describes.

The phallus plays a huge role in the psychology of the human—whether it be with envy or fear of castration. And since the phallus plays on the mind in such a way, it ends up being the central focus of our thoughts, as Lacan describes.

With that said, South Park plays on our concentration on the phallus in almost every show. In one show in particular, “Eek! It’s a Penis,” the conflicts surrounding the phallus is truly showcased. In this episode, Mr. Garrison, post-transgender surgery, struggles with her decision of becoming with a woman. She realizes the power that the phallus has in society and decides to have a penis grown in a laboratory for a reverse sex change surgery. This is a cartoon version of Lacan’s having and being concept for the phallus. Since the phallus is seen as the power symbol, women can be seen as being the phallus as opposed to having it. In this sense, Mr. Garrison struggles with identifying and differentiating the having and the being;  since, for Lacan, having the phallus isn’t everything—having the phallus is more of a mental characteristic rather than a physical one. 

Freud, Sigmund. Fetishism. Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2001.  

Lacan, Jacques. Significance of the Phallus. Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2001.

South Park. “Eek! It’s a Penis.” Season 12, 2008. 

Communism--A Classless Party?

Marx’s Communist Manifesto details a society where societal well being prevails over the work week and production.  In the Marxist society there are only two groups of people—the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. The Bourgeoisie is the “upper class,” and the Proletariat is the “working class.” The difference between the Marxist society and our current society is the recognition or desire for a middle class. In American society there the acceptance of a “middle class,” even though the existence of the middle class is not exactly distinct.  In the Marxist society, the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat differ mostly in the way they participate in labor. In the Communist system, the value of the worker is based on physical and mental labor. And ultimately, as Marx illustrates, the happier the worker the better production will be.

Communism, as described by Marx, is only applicable in industrial nations, where there would be a need for both physical and mental labor. Yet, the mental and physical labor would depend on the social class of the worker. In theory, the Bourgeoisie would use more mental labor and the Proletariat would use more physical labor. In this basic distinction is where the class separation would still remain—despite the efforts to create a classless society. And, in addition to this “invisible class distinction”  there will be a dispute over wages. Marx claims that wages should depend on need. However, it’s an inherent need of the human psyche is for higher gain that makes Marxism difficult to apply to society. Disregarding, of course, the vacation time Marx describes—where he explains that a well rested worker is a more productive worker, even if they have to swear that they will be available for the company twenty-four hours a day. Maybe in the end, Communism isn’t really a party. 
Marx, Karl. A Communist Manifesto. Norton Anthology. 2001. 

Offing the Author

            Roland Barthes’ “Death of the Author,” suggests that for a genuine criticism of a specific work, the reader must separate the work from its origin. Since the work then is completely separated from the time, place, and mind-set of the writer, the work then becomes a fluid piece—a piece that is not limited by time and space. Therefore, Barthes suggests, that to be an effective writer is to distance oneself from the assumed notions or correlations based on a collective consciousness. And then it is assumed then that the reader will not take into consideration the underlying social patters/stigmas that may have influences the piece. If the work does its job correctly, then it should be able to stand alone.

            I agree with the idea that a work of art should not rely on a “collective consciousness” or collective understanding. Yet, at the same time, I am a fan of New Historicism, which directly refutes Barthes’ argument. In New Historicism, the reader can use research to investigate what may have provoked the author’s direction in the piece. According to Barthes’, the piece is not completed until it is experienced by the reader. Without the reader, there is no real reason to write. It is with the reader that the real sub-text and meaning are reveal through the reading—and the destination of the piece cannot be controlled by the writer, because it lies with the reader.

            The most important concept in Barthes’ “Death of the Author” is multi-dimensional space. Even though it is almost impossible to create a completely original piece, writers have to be able to manipulate the elements to create their own take on a specific plot. If the writer is unable to acknowledge the “age old” aspects of a specific story, then they fall prey to a misinterpretation from the reader. The text has to be multi-dimensional in the respect that there has to be more to the story than just the time/context. Barthes explains that this multi-dimensional text must be able to use its words to explain its meaning, and not rely on what the reader can imply into the text. By doing this, the author would have created a solid Barthenian piece (yes, that is a made up word).

            Another way Barthes suggests to “kill off the author” is to create characters that are completely ambiguous. By having characters that are, as they were in Greek tragedies, completely free of an exact meaning, then the reader can become an integral part of the work. If a writer should push their agenda by having the character reveal the intent of the text, then the writer is committing a criminal act against the reader. Barthes infers that characters in a text should be free of messy archetypes, which would engage the reader with the analytic aspect of literature.

            In short, according to Barthes, literature (or any art for that matter) should not have all of the answers laid out for the reader. Reading a text should be an active process where the author does not inflect into the reader what the purpose of the text is. Since, it is with the reader that the meaning of the text resides. 

Work Cited

Barthes, Roland. "The Death of the Author." 

I=Me. You=Caregiver

According to Lacan, an infant cannot create an identity for themselves at birth. The child’s image resides in the mother, since the child has not seen itself. In addition to this, the child’s only concern is the need for food and comfort. Therefore, the caregiver becomes the ideal “self” for the child.  What is essential for development of the child’s identity is the need for eventual separation. Separation, as defined by Lacan, is the creation of the self by distancing oneself from the caregiver.  Since birth, the child creates a bond with the caregiver—and will continue to depend on the caregiver if separation is not achieved.

Lacan goes on to state that there are three basic principles of the mind: the real, the imaginary, and the symbolic.  The symbolic is the formation of the word “I” and the creation of the self. The real is the creation of the self-sufficient self, where there is no need for the caregiver, because the self can fulfill the needs. The imaginary is experienced during what Lacan describes is the Mirror Stage. During infancy, when a child comes into contact with a mirror they create a misrecognized image of itself. The subconscious creates the “I” identity with the image in the mirror. This, as Lacan describes, is a false understanding of the self. And, although the ego is satisfied with the image of the self, the overall consciousness cannot create a relationship with the imaginary image of the self. As a society, we insist that children should play with toys that have mirrors in them so that they can begin to recognize themselves. Yet, as Lacan explains, the recognition of the self is not reliant on the image but rather the subconscious ability to fulfill the needs of the id.

Structuralizing van (Analysis 2)

The man to the left is not only mourning his youth but also his decisions. She, a young girl of sixteen, doesn’t love the man in black. She is also not of nobility and is, instead, marrying into it. The house they are waiting in is not theirs but his mother’s—her mother in law’s. He is awaiting his mother’s decision of what royal position he will be anointed. She doesn’t care what position he gets, just as long as the money is stable and he is gone. The child she is carrying is unwanted by him but beloved by her. She had always wanted a child, but being that she is not of high class she, until now, hadn’t found a right suitor. 

According to the theory of Structuralism, the signs and symbols of a particular text can determine its meaning (1088). Looking at the painting, The Arnolfini Wedding, by Jan van Eych, with a structuralism lens many things will be uncovered. First off, by looking at the clothes, it can be determined that this painting is set during the Renaissance.  Also, by looking at the décor around the two characters it can be said that the characters come from money. Additionally, there is a sense of piety, or extreme religious devotion. The woman is covering her hair as many women of that time did in order to show their love for God. Furthermore, on the subject of religion, the mirror that is behind the couple is made of wood with several carving etched into the frame. Each circle within the frame has a different religious picture, and most of which are circling around the crucifixion of Jesus. Since this mirror is hanging over the “marital’ bed of sorts, it can be inferred that perhaps they are abiding by the religious laws of marriage, and following the Bible by procreating while consensually married. Also, in the mirror, the image of two other people other than the two main characters in our picture. There is a woman in a blue and white maid’s dress and another gentleman. This suggests that the pregnancy of the woman is being watched over and cared about. Ultimately, this painting is a sign of the time period in which it is set in and painted in.

 

Leitch, Vincent B. et al., ed. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York: Norton,

2001. Print.

Painting: Jan Van Eych, The Arnolfini Wedding. 1434. 

Words may Equal Images

According to Saussure, in his “Course in General Linguistics,” words and letters are signs. In our community, words signify the image of the object. The word tree automatically conjures up a picture of a tree in everyone’s mind.  However, the word to image connection is completely arbitrary. What this means is, the word tree is completely subjective to culture. We have developed the word Tree, yet in other cultures a different word would signify the same image. Take Spanish for example, arbol is Spanish for tree. Yet, like in English it signifies the a tree that is not a palm tree or cactus. Nevertheless, if said to someone, an image of a tree would emerge in their mind. 

The major issue with the signifier and the signified is the fact that a particular word may not induce the same image in everyone’s mind. Since the word to image concept is arbitrarily based, we are effected by our surroundings and associations. Cat, for example, may create different images or thoughts in everyone’s mind. I may think of my cat, whereas someone may think of their own, or jungle cat, or some crazy cat that attacked them when they were a child. Perhaps, even the word cat may not even create an image in the mind of the listener. This is where language is dependant of the social aspect of life. Someone who has never seen a cat may not have a tangible image in their mind—and would instead depend on the other adjectives the writer or speaker uses to create the image in their mind.