It was suggested through POWRL that I contact members of the PCP
> list for information on the following. I am a student at the
> University of Hawai'i majoring in psychology.
>
> I am in the process of writing a paper for a graduate level feminist
> theory class dealing with Lacan's theory of psychotherapy, and its
> value in describing female desire. My question is two part, first
> is there another theory out that that adequately explains female
> desire. The second part of this question is, is there a theory that
> does this without delving into psychotherapy and the unconscious. I
> will be eternally grateful for any help with this.
>
Wow. Having had the most wonderfully supportive response to my admin
message of this morning I am taking my admin. hat off for a moment!
I'm fascinated that Vicki was advised to come here! What's POWRL?
Above all I love the idea that we get to grips with the Lacanian
construction of the world, psychotherapy, unconscious, desire and
gender! All in one go!!
Vicki -- have a look through the archives
(http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/pcp/)
for recent discussions of feminism and "craziness" here. My summary
would be that _Personal_ constructivists would see this (desire) as
a personal construct which we each bring into being some how to help
us cope with the world by "anticipating" its vagaries as best we can
(that includes our own vagaries, which, depending how radical a
constructivsit you are, may be partly "biological" i.e. perhaps
"outside" or beyond reconstruction (orgasms anyone?!)
To the extent that we believe we're a social species (I don't think a
hardline individualist would be on the list, by definition?!) we also
construe each others' construing (not the same thing as "knowing" the
other's construction) and our own construing arises in a social
situation and so is likely to be shaped by others' constructions.
Kellian PCP says that some constructs are more central to our
understanding (construction) of who we are ("core constructs") (see
another recent thread on that). I'd say the Lacanian ideas of desire
and joissance are very "core" as I read them (hardly at all in
Lacan's original words I confess!). Kellian PCP also explicitly
states that some constructs may not be "verbal" and implicitly allows
that some might be "unconscious" i.e. not readily available to our
own attempts to construe them. Kelly also allowed that our construct
systems will have internal incoherences, are hierarchical and patchy
in scope and variable in rigidity depending on situation. All these
things overlap with the (various) classical psychoanalytic ideas of
"unconscious" and the "system Ucs". One thing that is much more
radically there in Freud and in Lacan for me (and a reason why I'm
not a full card-carrying Kellian) is the notion that the logic of the
"system Ucs" might be much less interested in anticipation and
construction and much more profoundly odd in its construing than we
often like to acknowledge (something we might like to factor back
into the "craziness" theme -- Freudian Ucs has "non-contradiction" at
its core which is problematical for anticipation, contrast and
replication, but often makes a huge amount of sense if you're
conversing with someone labelled "acutely psychotic").
Although Kelly was very grounded in very pragmatic (but also
charismatic) psychotherapy, he saw his ideas as generic so I think
you could say they're not rooted in psychotherapy. What is
interesting to me (again, see recent thread) is that I think the PCP
world has been a bit chary of gender difference and profound desire
and profound "craziness" (anyone seen tapes of Lacan lecturing? that
taxes classificatory systems for me!). I think we're currently
grappling with these previous charinesses as the amount of overlap
between your post and so many recent threads now makes clear to me.
Funny how when I first read it I was fascinated but also bemused that
someone might point you here!
Vicki, what's central to PCP is that in some way these are no
more and no more than my attempts to anticipate/construe these
multiple, probably incoherent, fields. What will make them more
than that is how they go on developing for me in the light of my
further experience (including, vainly, rereading this to see if I
can make it more sensible!) and how much they can fit into any
construction of yours, including your construction of my
construing! Hope this is of some help and perhaps
amusing/anticipatory to others.
Best wishes
Chris (admin hat back on) Evans
Chris Evans, Senior Lecturer in Psychotherapy,
Locum Consultant to the
Prudence Skynner Family Therapy Clinic,
St. George's Hospital Medical School, London University
C.Evans@sghms.ac.uk http://psyctc.sghms.ac.uk/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%