The student who came to class yesterday was interested in how the use of "beautiful" women as opposed to "normal" women in advertising played into the advertisement's effectiveness in marketing its product. I got to thinking about how funny it is that the word "beautiful" is clearly used to segregate this one population from the usual, but the positive connotation of this word places this group into a class of "other" which is not abject. This made me think of Lacan and his concept of the "little other" and the "big other."
If normal is defined as "conforming to the standard or common type; usual" (which it is because I looked it up LOL), then anything that does not meet those parameters is by default "abnormal." When we saw the picture of the man in women's clothing, we agreed the depiction was "abnormal," yet we did not use this term to define the beautiful women. Why? Because the "abnormal" women represented a state of achievement, an illustration of "the best" within the construction of our current culture. It was an "other" which we desire. Society finds value in those differences.
In cases in which society does not find value in the quality which makes someone/thing "other", those in possession of that quality are cast out -- they become the abject; therefore, the abject does not define all "other" as we have used it, but a specific category of "other" that implies intentional exclusion by the "normal" population; whereas, this other population of "other" possesses traits which we desire, but lack, leading to an exclusion by consequence rather than intent.
This deliniation is the basis of Lacan's concept of the "Little Other" and the "Big Other."
These women fall into the category of "Little Other."Although they meet the criteria of "other" as contrasted to "normal", the desire to emulate them thrusts them into a specialized category within that larger group. The "Big Other" contains all other "others", be they scorned (the abject) or simply different (not like us, but without any contention).
I know a football allegory is probably not the most effective in a class full of women, but to put into perspective -- I like Alabama. This is my "little other". I very much dislike Auburn. This is my abject. I don't particularly care either way about Clemson. This is simply "other." Both Auburn and Clemson fall into my "Big Other."
You might argue that you have no desire to look like these women. This can be very true. You may not want to look like them per se, but everyone wants to achieve this state of "beauty." When considering this argument, you have to really understand what symbology the word "beauty" really implies. It is not necessarily a physical manifestation observed by others, but rather a more ambiguous state of "something pleasing." The word "beauty" is defined as "the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind," so the state we are trying to achieve is this intangible element of satisfaction, "the state of fulfilling the desires, expectations, needs, or demands of." If you think of "beauty" in this broader context, we all want to be beautiful.
This is why we didn't consider these women as the abject in yesterday's discussion. How coincidental was the timing of this exercise with the explanation of Lacan's theory? LoL
Posts
Okay -- so I wrote a whole long comment following this post trying to reconcile what I read about Lacan online with my rationalization above. And now it's gone!
ReplyDeleteAnyway - what I was trying to decipher (and this is most likely VERY wrong!) is Lacan's theory and language.
Prior to the conscious conceptualization of language, there exists the Imaginary. The Imaginary is then defined through language which is constructed through symbology. The Imaginary can never truly be understood because it is limited by that which can be defined through language.
The way I understand it is the "little other" relates to personal conception of ideas, thoughts, and interpretation. It relates the the mirror stage in that we can see ourselves in the mirror but the image is not an actual representation of the way others see us. We cannot actually see ourselves, so we must use our perception and observations of others applied to ourselves to define and identify ourselves. This related to language is our own meaning attached to words. Because this is personal reality and cannot be extrinsicly understood by others, it is a state of unconscious "other" only understood by us.
The "Big Other" is the determining force in the identification of those things outside the self. This is also skewed by perception. It is a tool in which we measure the definition of "this" by contrast to "that." In language, the Big Other is the force in which we unconsciously distort the personal meaning of our communication to match the response given by those we interact with. I may make a sound to convey one thought but other's interpretation of this sound may exude an unexpected response. I am conditioned to associate this sound with that symbology, therefore, my concept of this sound is altered to fit with other's definition and not my own.
Both of these "others" exist outside of consciousness.
This may be completely off the mark. Is this right?
You're in the right zip code. This is an interesting interpretation of Lacan's A/_a_, but is not completely accurate. Actually, your comment is closer than the post. The concepts are more complicated, but, simply, are *not* simply two versions of the abject. 'A' is that which is not self (outside of the individual); '_a_' is more complexly related to desire.
ReplyDeletePrior to language and the mirror stage is the Real, not the Imaginary.
Interesting reflection on beauty as outside of normal! Here, I'd lean more toward Foucault for understanding. "Normal" in many ways gets tied with "ideal". This is an aspect we haven't discussed in his docile bodies; the ideal docility is never achievable -- "normal" becomes something that is purely constructed, never representative of an actual body, but a standard that we must all try to achieve. *This* carries the power that is internalized and used on the self by the self.
Whew - heavy philosophy in a blog post - let's talk more in class! :)