Eventually, Acker’s fiction does not want to determine whether, from the perspective that is female history is more accurately represented as being a fragmented variety of localized narratives, or being a monolithic single metanarrative from where females were methodically excluded.
10 Yet definately not compromising the time and effort to reform and repoliticize psychoanalysis, it really is properly this ambiguous mindset toward historic representation which becomes, in Acker, the dwelling regulating the connection between Freudian and Lacanian concept. Acker’s work assigns these representational different types of history to Freud and Lacan, wanting to force a difference from a totalizing Freudian metanarrative, and a contingent narrative that is lacanian of psychoanalytic truth. Needless to say, because Lacan fundamentally will depend on the facts of Freud, this might be an impossible task. Then again Acker’s search for a misconception beyond the phallus can be “impossible. ” It really is inside the framework of this acknowledged impossibility that Acker’s fiction overworks and stops working the old-fashioned relationship between the theoretical models she cites. Enforcing an impossible difference between Freud and Lacan is very important to affirming feminine fetishism as it supplies the necessary leverage with which to pry aside the exclusive symbolic bonds between the penis while the phallus. The rebuilding for the union between Freud and Lacan may then undergo the insertion of this impossible entity, the female fetish, into the new room launched between Freud’s imaginary penis and Lacan’s phallus that is symbolic.
11 To see this technique doing his thing, it is important to recontextualize Acker’s mention of feminine fetishism within her more comprehensive interrogation of feminine sexuality in Freud. (more…)