Leo Bersani, The Freudian Body: Psychoanalysis and Art
“The social function of literature—its critical power—consists in its demystifying the force of argument, argument’s claim to truth.” (67)
In the pages surrounding this sentence, Bersani attempts to unpack literature’s connections to psychoanalysis. While he doesn’t hierarchize the two or attempt to link them in any coherent way (page 112), he does attempt to discuss the ways that literature reveals the function of language within psychoanalysis. Seemingly, then, this sentence is about literature and what it is, but a closer examination of the subject of this sentence removes some of the validity of that statement. The phrase “the social function of literature” can be culled down by removing the prepositional phrase “of literature,” leaving “the social function”. As “social” is an adjective here, the subject of the sentence then becomes “function.” Structurally, this word is a noun, but it takes on a connotation of a verb, as it is a noun that implies action. It’s a doing verb, but it’s also a being verb, as function implies something’s basic operation. When I hear the word “function,” I also think of math, where function connotes a connection between two variables, always in relation. That makes this noun’s connection to its adjective even stronger, as both “social” and “function” connote relationality. Thus, the function of “function” is inevitably social. The way that the possessive works in this phrase is also interesting. Instead of saying “literature’s social function,” the text makes the possessive slightly weaker here by using “of.” “Literature” and “social function” are still highly connected, but not as strongly as they would be if they were constructed otherwise.
This possessive structure is repeated in the sentence, with “force of argument”. What is interesting about “force of argument” is that the possessive structure is repeated in a reversed form immediately after. The two things that argument possesses, claim and force, are another two words with dual personalities: verb and noun. Unlike function, though, they are violent words, conjuring a relation of power. Where function connotes a strong relationality (and I think it’s important to note here that consists, the verb connected to function, means to hold together), claim and force connote a more resistant and hesitant relationality. I say this because the object of claim does not have much agency, and neither does the object of force. The function of literature makes clear this relationship.
Yet, what is strange about this sentence is that Bersani emphasizes literature’s power. The dashes make this renaming stand out. It seems like literature’s power, then, lies in its ability to make clear its own power. But I don’t think this sentence is as circular as the previous sentence might suggest. The two “its” don’t connect clearly to either “function” or “literature”. I could argue that “its” is a replacement of the subject “function,” but I’m hesitant to do that because of the fact that its is possessive here, too. Possessive structures occur frequently in this sentence, and in the same way that argument possesses claim and force, literature possesses function and critical power. This sentence is rather mystifying, then, because it forcefully makes certain claims that, at the same time it thinks it shouldn’t be doing. Rather than demystifying, it further obfuscates. I think it is performing the function of literature, but at the same time, there is no easy possession. Possession is reversed, turned back in on itself, making the possessor unidentifiable.
Additionally, the ontology of the sentence is also rather confused. Bersani claims frequently that attempts at locating (55) and defining (60) are problematic, actions that are clearly ontological. On one level, though, this sentence is also ontological, as literature’s function is to consist, or to be. In this way, I think the sentence fails.
I chose this sentence at first because I thought it made an interesting claim about what literature is and does in the context of psychoanalysis. But as a I read it more closely, I realized that in many ways it fails to do what I initially thought it was doing; it also fails at the thing it claims to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment