What is the central idea? Well, that we are moving from a culture of neurosis to a culture of perversion. So what? The object in the first one acquires meaning from what it represents. It acquires meaning from a ‘background of absence’, because the original object (of satisfaction) has been lost, because primal repression has taken place (Verdrängung) and also interdiction (by the Other, the metaphor of the Father etc.). This background of absence is the context in which desire will be possible, acquisition of symbolic means of representation of the real (language) and phantasy — and, of course, all the neurotic insignia.
In the culture of perversion, the object is less and less involved in the representation of referential meanings, it is evaluated by its uses and functions. The economic “progress” and expansion throughout the globe requires that these “outmoded” ways of representation (references, narratives, affiliations and causes) make way for the organization of communities of consumers in a direct relationship with the objects (much more profitable than the former situation). Addition is definitely a plausible horizon in this new culture. Perversion entails a mechanism of denying the interdiction of the original object (of satisfaction). To be more precise: dennies and accepts at the same time (Verleugnung). Fetishism is its best model. The psychic economy of perversion requires a constant proximity to the object.
In this new culture, subjectivity is drastically transformed. Subjects (just like objects) also tend to be evaluated in relation to their success and efficacy — in the social and economic realms, their “use”. A high performance is expected from everybody. Those who fail to respond to this requirement are left behind. Depression and phobias or panic attacks, which have become extremely common, are a natural reaction to this situation. Without interdiction the subject will not depend on ideals and references for the construction of identity, he will have to do that for himself, or among his equals. The reference is no longer an ideal, it’s an object, and it requires constant satisfaction (remember, no causes or teleologies to postpone jouissance).
In this new psychic economy the variety of incredible objects available, ready to convey satisfaction, is amazing. The celebrity is certainly one of its best examples. It inherits from the romantic/modernist hero several features, but the celebrity is no longer involved with any ’causes’ as the hero was — unless he invents one as a plus to his image. As a global phenomenon celebrities interfere (and even destroy) the network of traditional regional or local references and meanings.
The main question can thus be revisited: how the friction between these two cultures and modes of existence impact the critical tradition of contemporary music? How does it impact the modes of composition? The postponement of satisfaction being such an important feature of modernism — Who cares if you listen? — will inevitably clash with the urgency of satisfaction, and the appeal to the exhibition of jouissance. The appeal of the object has greatly simplified language. What will happen (or perhaps better, what has happened) to the structuralist drive so characteristic of the modernist enterprise, with its high investment in the critique of representation?
How many different positions could be registered in face of the statement – “Language used is language dead”? You can confirm or deny it, but can you possibly confirm and deny it at the same time? How many degrees of confirmation or denial could be recognized?
So, what is in the horizon? Well, the discussion of perversion in the realm of a theory of culture, and composition as a form of resistance against the destruction of our critical tradition, with a renewed political perspective for the superego.
Fine, but now tell me how!
See, Charles Melman (2003) – O homem sem gravidade, Companhia de Freud.
“Who cares if you listen” – is obviously a citation of Babbitt’s discourse, and “Language used is language dead” is a construction used by Herbert Brün in the piece Futility 1964.
Colloquium: Contemporary Brazilian Music and Thought 