Massey Documents by Type

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/294

Browse

Has files: YesSubject: search.filters.subject.Capitalism

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Practicing concrete universality : psychoanalysis as a political method : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Sociology, Massey University, Albany, New Zealand
    (Massey University, 2006) McMillan, Christopher Ward
    Lacanian psychoanalysis, embodied in contemporary thought by Slavoj Žižek's dialectical materialist rehabilitation of universality, enables a form of political analysis based on the possibility of structural change. Many political theorists argue that because psychoanalysis stresses the negative ontological base of the social (the Real) it is fundamentally conservative and nihilistic. Conversely, the very political value of psychoanalysis lies in its accent on the Real. However, there are two separate psychoanalytic perspectives on the Real. The idealist approach, which contends that every social construction is essentially conditional, is politically and theoretically limited. In contrast, Žižek's materialist perspective emphasises the fundamental fixity which lies in the necessary exclusion from a universal horizon. Thus, the main political insight of Lacanian psychoanalysis is not to reveal the contingency of the social, but rather the disavowed foundation on which these constructions are based; the concrete universal. This thesis argues for a Žižek-inspired psychoanalytic approach to the political which 'practices concrete universality'. Conversely, while Žižek himself considers his own theoretical endeavours as an application of this task, his work can appear to be at times abstract and obscure, such that the reader is not sure exactly what it is that Žižek is arguing. As such, this thesis seeks to develop a methodological position that practices concrete universality, taking on the fundamental insights of Žižek's position whilst grounding them in a methodology which can be applied for political intervention. The methodology analyses both the manner in which universal imaginaries domesticate the effect of the symptom (that which represents the concrete universal) and the possibilities for practicing concrete universality and in doing so evoking radical structural change. These possibilities are considered against global capital, which Žižek describes as a modality of the Real. Capital has produced a paradoxical and pressing condition in humanity is living both well beyond and beneath its material needs and the finite capacity of the planet to provide for those needs. Rather than seeking an impossible utopian revolution (the removal of all lack), by evoking the concrete universal it is hoped that humanity can rid itself of that lack which is historical contingent; global capital.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The production and consumption of history : a discourse on heritage and nostalgia in the 1990s : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Geography at Massey University
    (Massey University, 1998) Brown, Annette Margaret
    The dialectic of history as an ideology and history as a commodity can underpin a discourse on the production and consumption of history as heritage and nostalgia in the 1990s. History as an ideology is erased from the dominant space of representation, by history as a commodiy; therefore, history as an ideology needs to be discussed separately from history as a commodity even though they are not independent categories; this is because they are mutually constitutive of each other. The processes and structures that underwrite this dialectic, Capitalism and Modernity, produce different outcomes in different places and at different times; outcomes such as the cabinets of curiosity during early modernity, modernist and postmodernist museums, heritage sites such as country houses, a shopping mall and a disneyfied theme park arranged around a historic locale and the gentrification of some parts of the inner City of London. These objects of history are produced, reproduced and consumed by social actors in different places and at different times. The production and consumption of history as an object does not explain why these particular outcomes exist in the places and the times that they do. These outcomes need to be explained, and can be explained, by using a dialectical methodology. Such an explanation would look at the underlying processes and structures of Capitalism and modernity.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Social practice within a capitalist state : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Massey University
    (Massey University, 1986) Shirley, Ian F.
    This thesis set aside conventional occupational distinctions between scientists, administrators and managers, in an examination of social practice within a capitalist State. It explored both the limits of State power and the capacity of State practitioners for transformative action. The central proposition being examined, suggested that State practitioners inevitably engage in forms of action which tend to perpetuate existing social and economic relationships. The epistemology of Jurgen Habermas provided the framework for this analysis in which distinctions were made between different forms of scientific enquiry and corresponding modes of social action. These distinctions equated the empirical-analytic tradition with strategic action, the historical-hermeneutic tradition with communicative action, and the critical tradition with emancipatory action. Distinctions were also made between two alternative but related levels of practice; namely, interaction, defined as the communicative and strategic actions of knowledgeable participating subjects, and societal action which emanates out of the forces and relations of production and which represents the institutionalisation of behavioural patterns established by society as a whole. In an examination of the social indicators movement it was revealed that crucial questions relating to economic and political structures interest group manoeuvrings, and social conflict in general, had been omitted. Practitioners appeared to exclude the possibility of political motivation from both the design and construction of social indicator systems. By accepting the structural limitations imposed by capitalist economic and social relations and by agreeing to operate within the selective limitations established by the dominant class, practitioners inadvertently aligned themselves with the empirical tradition and with strategic action. Although the Habermasian distinctions between different scientific traditions proved adequate in evaluating the outcome of practice, it was necessary to reappraise the theoretical logic of class so as to account for those locations within the State which could not be defined by ownership of the means of production. This reappraisal identified practitioners as members of the auxiliary class occupying contradictory locations between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Whereas bourgeois and proletarian locations are occupied by classes which are diametrically opposed, the auxiliary class draws its characterictics from a simultaneous and partial location in two classes. As a consequence, the class actions of State practitioners are infused with ambiguities. These ambiguities became evident when the examination focussed on strategic and communicative action. Although the cognitive interests of the auxiliary class seemed to coincide with the values and interests of the bourgeoisie any instrumental association between the actions of State practitoners and the dominant class was rendered problematic. Whereas the cognitive interests of State practitioners exemplified the distinctive characteristics of different forms of knowledge, the class practices in which they engaged stemmed from their structural locations within the State, their contradictory class interests, and their mediating capacities. These mediating capacities were examined by analysing the practices of an N.R.A.C. Working Party which was commissioned to report on unemployment. Although the Working Party demonstrated the potential of the critical tradition for transformative practice, the expression of this theorem in action was less than conclusive. Whilst the Working Party displayed a primary interest in the emancipation of those disadvantaged by unemployment, the contradictions identified in the report were displaced by the dominant class and by State managers around the boundary of the bourgeoisie. Although the cognitive interests of the Working Party were consistent with the critical tradition, there was no evidence to suggest that the practices of the Working Party promoted either personal or political emancipation. Thus any instrumental association between the critical tradition and emancipatory action could not be sustained. As a consequence of these examinations it became apparent that the central reality for practitioners within the State was the contradictory nature of practice. Habermasian theory was then extended in an attempt to resolve the problematic relationship between theory and practice.