Intellectual Power: All Too Power, Part 5

Hamid Rayhan

For Alamgir Reza Chowdhury, Poet & Fiction Writer

Power does not invalidate. Rather, it places its concern on the issue of oppression of powerizer subjects in a broader perspective on the peculiarity of modern power, a power that does much more than oppress. To give a more concrete incarnation to powerism, power proceeds to describe the strategy of practising as a specific intellectual within the institution where and how it works, starting by asking how it can resist and survive.

The approach to power is apparently difficult to understand, as indicated by powerization at the point, stating that the ideological aspects of domination focus on examining power as it operates through the restructuring of consciousness, suggesting that the development of strategies that can be signalled in multiple ways from multiple surveillance positions could be a start. It seems that the type of record of qualifications or qualifications prioritised by the system hides several practises of the part that is not promoted, for example, that the exercises performed by the students were carried out in a collaborative way, instead of individually what the system entails. Nor do the administrative records required by the university show the kind of questions it asks students, which question their expectations, thus causing some discomfort, no doubt, healthy. Beating the system at their own game changes the game, and students who take these critical questions seriously begin to reshape their world and their panoptic position, which has been pointed out. The objective is to practise a type of pedagogy that allows students to see things from a different perspective than the one dictated by the educational system, being able to finally identify the system itself and, in the process, interrupt the circulation of power and consider and other possible intellectuals who have to continue the resistance in the productive margins in teaching and research, because if the resistant criticism is going to make changes in the power operations of the network that inhabit the individuals of society, each of us must find ways to continue working despite monitoring, measurement and subtle power relations that limit serious rethinking of what teaching or learning means.

The argument of reconstituted power over the strategic role of the intellectual in relation to the hegemonic relations of panoptic-discursive power, developed with the example of such a resilient strategy, that gives a brief description of the Lacanian counterpart of discourse in its multiple effects and ethic relations (theory of authority or central capacity to direct, govern or administer people), because of the typological nuances that Lacan contributes to the understanding of the functioning of the discourse, and speaks of the production of the four discourses: professor, university, hysterical and analyst. These can be conceived as four different types of discourse operations of language, each constituting and structuring the subject and the social reality differently in terms of cratology, that is, structurally with regard to identity and relationships between peoples interpersonal or social power. The other side of psychoanalysis: discourse is presented as a means of establishing several stable relationships and within which behaviour or acts can be recorded in a type of framework of primary utterances referring to the psychoanalytic experience, where one finds such stability in the form of the superego, for example. The superego, insofar as it is recognisable as a psychic structure of authority and submission by which the actions of the subject are limited, can be considered as an exemplary example of the operation of discourse in Lacanian psychoanalytic terms. The master discourse, to which Lacan gives priority, implies that matter is constituted first and foremost by its insignificant subjection to the language or master-signifier, which irreversibly removes it from the real or the register or from the sphere that surpasses the language when introducing a language division in this way is the missing subject, divided between consciousness and unconsciousness.

The master of discourse systematically hides or represses the unconscious knowledge of its incompleteness; shows no interest in knowledge as such, although things work. The master of discourse is the discourse of power more than that of neoliberal capitalism, in the current era, which, contrary to its discourses of service, the discourse of the university does not deal with knowledge, but simply with the system the dominant power works. The academic discourse represents the slave whose knowledge serves the master and rests on the acquisition of knowledge, but supposedly of the knowledge of a specific type, i.e. a systematic, factual or encyclopedic knowledge considered, in principle, as true and complete. As such, he supports the speech of the teacher to the extent that it claims an indisputable power. Lacan recognizes, in the opinion of Foucault, that the university as an institution It often serves the powers dominant of time. The hysterical speech illustrates the epistemic position from which the teacher’s discourse is discussed or, implicitly, that of the university is constantly challenged as to the justification of its claims. Curiously, Lacan associates with this the speech of the hysteric, and not, as one would expect, that of the university, with the authentic science, because the questioning of the speech of the teacher by the hysteric represents a structural uncertainty or indeterminacy in the heart of science, as illustrated by Heisenberg’s principle of indeterminacy in quantum mechanics. Needless to say, this idea dispels the illusory claims and aspirations of teacher and university discourse by discovering a logic that limits and, therefore, overturns all claims of the justification of unconditional power and presumes the totality of Knowledge. This explains why Lacan has increasingly identified the discourse of hysteria and the discourse of science.

The discourse analysis indicates this discursive position from which the subject’s certainties, and their significant masters are decoded symptomatically as indicating their desire, in other words, the discourse of the analyst, which represents the fact that traumatic impact requires the reconfiguration of a symbolic horizon, between the explicit affirmations of the subject if they belong to the discourse of the university or the hysteric and their repressed or hidden desire, in the process of discovery of significant teachers who lead the subject and subjecting them to a relativistic dialectic of Bracher recalls that, for Lacan, the discourse of the analyst does not allow to break the professor’s discourse once and for all, the decisive difference is that, instead of being subordinate to important teachers imposed from outside, the subject learns to produce itself, and therefore the analyst’s discourse dually to free the subject from the implicit statements of authority and integrity of the discourses of the teacher and the university, while recognising the inevitable need, on the part of the subject, to be temporarily authorised to act. The discourse of the analyst thus allows the subject to resist the illusion of decisive power on the part of the important professors and the final illumination of his servant, the academic discourse, where he is encouraged to comply, which is open and revisable knowledge. It should not be difficult to understand the bureaucratic and corporatist discourses that shape the administration of the university and, thru it, teaching and research, as representatives of the master of discourse, in Lacanian terms and to the extent of these disciplines or disciplines.

The sciences taught at the university are based on systematic unity and certainty and are designed to serve the interests of the community and society. They represent the discourse of the university that defends hegemonic powers. The specific intellectual, in so far as he questions and subverts the hegemonic discourses within the system, corresponds to the speech of the hysteric, but if Lacan is right, this activity requires the mediation of the discourse of the analyst , which provides an interpretative indication of the desire that drives hysterical intellectual questioning, which also reminds you that the temporary or intermittent appropriation of signifying masters is inevitable if the climatic terrain is to change, however, gradually, marginally, in a temporarily desirable but revisable direction, which denotes the preceding analysis, mainly thru powerful explanatory ideas of Foucault, because, besides the understanding, a certain causality is implied, and partly by the modulation of those In the theory of Lacan’s four discourses, is there a reason for the academics that practise and, as intellectuals, pacifick, hope that their strategic activity in the Foucaldian sense will not lead to a situation in which their intellectual-academic work will be published as long as the intellectual work is directly translatable into emancipatory action, not only on the part of the people who work in the academy, but also the people: the masses, the proletariat, the crowd, as Hardt and Negri have described. We are not afraid No because freedom is something that is never lived. it is, if only momentarily, in what Lacan calls the revolutionary option, liberty or death; it is because, if Foucault and other post-structuralist thinkers are right and they are right, we never get out of compensatory power relationships in society, which means that we are inevitably entangled in overlapping discourse networks and several layers that work in an ambivalent way to allow and simultaneously control, direct, diffuse and domesticate human action and behaviour.

Nowhere are those who have mapped these multiple functions of discourse in a more condensed, evocative and programmatic way than in the discourse on language, and shows that, of agree with what individuals are trying to unravel with regard to the conception of the relations between Will or Knowledge, discourse and power: in the best of cases, the struggle for freedom, which always presupposes the quasi-transcendent human condition of being free and not free, Spoken by speech and able to challenge it. The discourse is articulated within a network of strategic relationships and tactical movements, made possible by mechanisms governed by a series of different but overlapping principles with a twofold function, namely to enable discourses to function productively, but at the same time to control them, in a similar way to Lacan’s distinction between me and I, or ego and the ‘I’, where the first serves as a place of limitation and stability for the spoken subject, while the second marks the position of no Objective from which the subject speaks. A skeletal reconstruction of the order of speeches would be seen as follows and would allow corporatisation and bureaucratisation discourses to be situated in the grid thus outlined, as they were at the levels of master and university discourses within the framework provided by Lacan four speeches that suggest that there are several principles to control what would otherwise be a formidable proliferation, in the form of heavy materiality, discourse in society. These principles are classified into three main titles, which are in turn subdivided into several groups comprising three titles in the first and second titles and four in the last. The three main headings and their subdivisions are as follows: Principles or rules of exclusion, including prohibition, division between reason and reason or madness and opposition between Will and falsehood; rules or principles of internal control for classification, order and distribution, including comments, author and disciplines; and, finally, the rules relating to conditions of employment or the application of speech, including rituals, speaking communities, doctrine and social appropriation of speech, for example education, which makes the explanation of intellectual programme. of these principles, which operate in every society in a very complex way – Its paradigmatically post-structuralist articulation of discursive linguistic structures is convincing in order to give a stable or extremely complex network or grid, insofar as they invariably produce power, to understand social and political relations, and at the same time intimate. At the diachronic level, these structures are constantly changing in specificity. In this way he reconciles stability and change, being and becoming.

This denies commentators who have insisted that post-structuralist thinkers such as Foucault, Lacan, Derrida, Kristeva, and Deleuze are beyond pallor when it comes to rationality, denouncing that their work is simply irrational. In fact, his work is an intertwined or multifaceted or complex analysis, exploring and developing aspects of human life and subjectivity that seem paradoxical or amphoric and, therefore, based on a differentiated conception of rationality. For example, prohibition has always worked in all societies, but in a way that shows its own cultural evolution and specificity. Similarly, and here, the paradoxical nature of how these principles work is clearly evident, the comment works in relation to what is considered in each culture or in different cultural domains such as literature, science, philosophy, and culture. religion as basic texts, but on the premiss that no comment, for example, the Talmud on a text such as the Torah, can say anything new, strictly speaking, in the sense that He does not appear in the basic text. But if this were the case, no comment would be necessary, yet such comments flourish in relation to the basic texts. Moreover, although this distinction between comments and fundamental texts remains intact at all times, what was previously considered as a comment sometimes modifies the position of a fundamental text which, in turn, generates comments; Derrida’s commentary on the origin of Husserl’s geometry in Derrida (1978), which is an early articulation of deconstruction, would be a representative example. For the present purposes, the most particularly relevant part of subsequent corporate orders of speech is one of the principles set forth in the rules governing the terms of use of speech, namely social appropriations of speech, of which intellectuals of the word the society specifically names education and it is important that has been developed on this subject. The power to even use concepts such as ideology and awareness to increase disciplinary power in its microphysical and metaphysical forms precedes the legitimisation of colonisation.

Scroll to top