Reading Herbert Marcuse created a big impact over my understanding about psychoanalysis, social theory and the prevalent condition society’s undergone. Throughout history, certain shifts happened overtime. The victory of capitalism/mercantilism over monarchy, to some extent created the distinction and mainly segregated the subjects who are capable to those who are not. What I mean to say is the capability over the weapon, the capital. To which everything depends on, it is the spirit of the market. And to this extent the views of mine depends on the question why all of this things happened? Especially inequality, I really dwell my intellect on the fact that resources are enough but the execution of division of this certain resources are not equated in the same manner. Same with the social psychoanalysis, those critics of society created. My criticism over the said notion lies on what Freud discussed on his totem and taboo. That there is a primal horde wherein it seeks for the control on the herd; it seeks to maintain its status as the prime! It is the characteristic that holds all throughout by the status quo/capitalists in order to maintain the control on all aspects of the society e.g. media, education etc. and for this fact that they are hoarding this control, inequality are apparent.
On the other hand, to consider it as a social neurosis that exists only in the status quo, the remedy same as how Freud explain the Oedipus complex, the primal horde will soon to be overthrown by its sons. The sons are the masses, the ones who are controlled. The ones will create a destabilization in order to get rid of the tyrant. And as soon as the son’s revolt, the father will defend its throne for its survival. But the hard fact here to consider is there any ambivalence that will emerge from the sons after the uprising?
No comments:
Post a Comment