Best regards, Andrew Stewart
Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <[email protected]> > Date: December 7, 2020 at 5:45:17 PM EST > To: [email protected] > Cc: H-Net Staff <[email protected]> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-Africa]: Leonard on Kapoor, 'Confronting Desire: > Psychoanalysis and International Development' > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Ilan Kapoor. Confronting Desire: Psychoanalysis and International > Development. Ithaca Cornell University Press, 2020. xvi + 307 pp. > $26.95 (paper), ISBN 978-1-5017-5175-2; $49.95 (cloth), ISBN > 978-1-5017-5172-1. > > Reviewed by Douglas Leonard (USAF Academy) > Published on H-Africa (December, 2020) > Commissioned by David D. Hurlbut > > Enjoyment, Colonialism, and Capitalism > > The graduate student experience in history offers any number of > twists and turns but perhaps the most jarring is the confrontation > with social theory. Following the disciplinary introspection across > the Euro-American humanities and social sciences in the 1960s, 1970s, > and 1980s, all academics learned to make at least some motion toward > the explanatory structure (or anti-structure) offered by these > theories. Perhaps most powerful and most pervasive among these > thinkers stands Michel Foucault, whose work on the interrelationship > of power and knowledge continues to resonate today. My own graduate > experience included a heavy dose of wrestling with Foucauldian > concepts that seemed to eliminate human agency at the expense of > embodied, discursive forces. Our class discussions ultimately > concluded that perhaps Sigmund Freud or other psychoanalytical > theorists offered the best counter to Foucault. In that vein, Ilan > Kapoor, a prominent political scientist and development theorist at > York University in Toronto, has taken on the position of Foucault > astride development studies and concluded that the emphasis on > knowledge/power and governmentality as totalizing forces brings > limitations rectified only by the addition of Lacanian > psychoanalytical theory, mediated through more recent applications by > Slavoj Zizek. The result, _Confronting Desire_, offers a compelling > perspective on the persistence and longevity of the development > concept in the postcolonial (and neocolonial) world. Historians of > colonial and postcolonial Africa, Central and South America, and > South or Southeast Asia will find much room for further investigation > into the lived reality of this world of "enjoyment" and "desire" for > the proponents and subjects of this policy approach. > > Kapoor engages heavily throughout the work with developmental > theorists from both anthropology and political science. He spars in > particular with Marxist thinkers, finding that their materialist > understanding has value but lacks engagement with the "libidinal > economy" that provides an avenue for "development's unconscious > desires" to come forth while seemingly "irrational" activities > overcome "rational" political and economic interests (pp. xii, xi). > Indeed, Antonio Gramsci's insidious "hegemony" seems to inhabit this > work of the unconscious, driving the behavior of transnational > institutions, but Kapoor gives the concept of empire and its forces > of persuasion and coercion little space.[1] Instead, his > consideration of the influence of Marxist and neo-Marxist theory > generally remains narrowly focused, at least on the surface, to the > concept of development. Consequently, he offers only a single > reference to the widely influential work of Michael Hardt and Antonio > Negri, whose neo-Marxist concepts of "empire" and "multitude" have > shed light on the dark corners of globalization and given voice to > some anarchist disaffection with neoliberal and neocolonial systems > of (bio-)power.[2] The work thus leaves unanswered the larger > implications for students of imperial construction and maintenance, > whether European or otherwise, as it remains focused on the > nation-state as the primary mode of political organization. > Nonetheless, it opens a new conversation on the implications of > unconscious influences on international decision-making at the > individual and organizational levels. > > Understanding development as a > "linguistic/discursive/institutional/socioeconomic construction," > Kapoor focuses on the unconscious "enjoyment" of people engaged in > the systems of global capitalism as the driver of the continued > resonance of such obviously detrimental structures and policies (pp. > xiv, 8). A full understanding of this phenomenon for Kapoor requires > engagement not only with the power of Foucauldian discursive > structures but also with the identification and description of the > unconscious capitalist-induced trauma and response that sustains > developmental policies. Kapoor organizes his description of this > intersection of the conscious and unconscious with two thematic > introductory chapters followed by twelve individual essays that work > through terms common in Lacanian psychoanalysis. These chapters > revolve around antagonism, drive, envy, fetishism, gaze, gender/sex, > perversion/hysteria, queerness, racism, and symptom. The chapters on > antagonism, envy, gaze, gender/sex, and racism offer the most potent > areas for historical exploration and deserve more investigation here. > > Kapoor finds that sociopolitical oppression breeds antagonistic > structures, employing the contemporary European problems of > immigration and the growth of Eurocentric discourses as his primary > examples. Following Zizek, he finds these opposing structures > operating primarily as an unconscious but shared experience, > therefore yielding the possibility of a "universalist politics" with > a shared language (p. 60). For Kapoor, that conversation can come > only after all acknowledge the pervasive presence of European capital > structures and the accompanying racist hypocrisy, thereby leaving > space to remove the "roots" of conflict (p. 67). The employment of > contemporary examples certainly offers depth to the discussion, but > the question remains of the real universality of the argument. > Historians would be well served to look for such oppositional > structures in the past, paying particular attention to any solutions > generated to antagonistic conflict. The universalization of > experience threatens to remove the particularity of place, space, and > individual understanding generated, for example, by the subaltern > studies group along with LGBTQ+ and racial theorists. Understanding > the actual operation of this antagonism in specific and historically > contingent situations will be important in determining the real > impact of this unconscious understanding of capitalist-induced > conflict. > > Marxist historians in particular have seen this conflict in terms of > socioeconomic classes generated by access to capital and control of > labor and the ultimate means of production. Kapoor decenters and > attacks this approach in his discussion of envy, finding that people > of all "classes" desire the enjoyment (also known as _jouissance _in > Lacanian terms) that they observe in others. Economic and social > competition thus cause people to try to destroy the enjoyment of > others, in the process gaining enjoyment for themselves, widening > income and access gaps, generating patterns of conspicuous > consumption, and generating corruption. The great challenge for > historians will come in looking for evidence of this depiction of > socioeconomic interaction. If competition is not purely over > resources but also drives a sort of zero-sum social capital > acquisition, scholars will have to think about surveillance, both > state-based and private, in a different manner. Opposing the Foucault > and Jeremy Bentham emphasis on the panoptic regard as a means of > control, Kapoor's insight will force a deeper consideration of this > phenomenon as a means to derive pleasure from the destruction of > another's happiness, very much in line with postcolonial > understandings of the destructive force of othering. > > Along these same lines, Kapoor turns the Foucauldian panoptic gaze on > its head by portraying it as a means of generating pleasure and > enjoyment through the projection of the self in the other rather than > as a technology of domination. Developmental efforts in this case > generate power relations through the desire of the outside "other" to > find their way to the center while simultaneously seeking the > validation of the gaze of those already there. Perhaps most important > in this pleasure gaze is the opportunity for resistance through the > alteration or denial of the returning gaze from the "other" back to > the more powerful center, reducing pleasure and frustrating the > center by destabilizing the relationship. While Foucauldian > discursive power dynamics, generated by the European Enlightenment, > appear eternal, unchanging, and inescapable, Kapoor offers the > potential for understanding both the creation and the potential for > change of these power dynamics through comprehension of their > libidinal, pleasure-associated links. Historians therefore have an > opportunity to observe the changes in this libidinal exchange of > glances over time through interactions of art, literature, and > science at a minimum, a potent source of causation that offers > much-needed nuance to the often one-sided Saidian view of Orientalist > processes of reproduction. > > Beyond his struggles with Foucault, Edward Said, Homi K. Bhabha, and > other poststructural and postcolonial theorists, Kapoor also takes on > feminist theory. In his view, first voiced by intersectional > theorists, such as Kimberlé Crenshaw, too much feminist theory tends > to divide rather than unite, at least in part due to different > racial, sexual, or economic experiences and backgrounds.[3] In > examining the work of postcolonial feminists, such as Chandra Talpade > Mohanty, Kapoor argues that these theories generate groups of > particular and narrow interests, limiting their impact and threat to > capitalist structures. Similarly, the performative theories of Judith > Butler remain inscribed in larger capitalist discourses, reproducing > those norms as they criticize. Instead, Kapoor proposes a return to > an understanding of biological sex, rather than socially inscribed > gender, as a fundamental human division that allows for a direct > confrontation with the structuring forces of capitalism and its > "common patterns of social exclusion and antagonism" (p. 188). Such a > disavowal of decades of feminist theory is likely to meet resistance > but fits with Kapoor's larger drive for universality as the key to > unlocking the power of capitalism. Historians would be well served to > consider the oppositional forces of sex versus the socially inscribed > meanings of gender in analyses of particular times, places, and > peoples to see whether such a universality is possible or desirable. > This is not to suggest that gender has no value as a tool to > understand sociohistorical processes but that pairing with biological > sex may bring greater nuance to studies of the structures of social > and political interaction. > > Similarly, Kapoor examines the polarizing power of race in sustaining > capitalist structures. Echoing Frantz Fanon, he finds that racism > exists psychologically but is never spoken of in public. This > "fetishistic disavowal" allows for whiteness to assume a seemingly > neutral and referential position while allowing those coded as white > to pursue pleasure-inducing racist activities that transgress stated > norms (p. 236). At an international level, "Western" or "white" > states feel a sense of "glee" when the "Third World" states find > themselves unable to achieve stated Western norms of industrial and > capitalist development (pp. 249-50). Most provocatively, Kapoor > proposes that traditional approaches to remove racist inclinations, > such as "tolerance," "color blindness," and "anti-racist education" > simply do not work as they fail to confront the historical conditions > creating race or the pleasure that drives its continued prevalence > (pp. 254-55). The power of race in colonial and postcolonial > histories has been widely explored, but the mechanism of its > perpetuation has never been entirely clear. Kapoor's psychoanalytical > emphasis opens the possibility of including methodology from the > history of emotions to trace sources of and changes to racialized > discourses and structures of power.[4] > > Kapoor's efforts both to reinforce and to supplant Foucauldian > understandings of power dynamics are thus provocative and important. > His depiction of a seemingly unitary and self-sustaining power of > international capitalism, though, universalizes interactions at the > expense of a more detailed and specific comprehension of individual > moments, places, and spaces. As Gregory Mann has demonstrated in his > recent study of the West African Sahel, _From Empires to NGOs in the > West African Sahel: The Road to Nongovernmentality _(2015), > "nongovernmentality" is the product of a number of disparate forces, > some of them international and not all of them motivated by the > maintenance of a capitalist order. While Kapoor engaged with > postcolonial theorists in a number of different areas of the book, he > never really acknowledged the vital contributions of Dipesh > Chakrabarty, in particular his _Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial > Thought and Historical Difference _(2000). The mere idea of a > European-driven industrial-capitalist modernity must be decentered in > non-European terms to understand its true impact and outcome. Just as > Kapoor critiqued the feminist employment of terms derived from the > capitalist order in a reproduction of those repressive structures, so > too must theorists and historians alike deconstruct the historically > constituted meanings of places, objects, and ideas in a non-European > frame, dismantling the discursive power of the capitalist order while > adding an affective understanding as proposed by Kapoor. Universality > should begin not with a reappropriation of European norms of > modernity but rather from the perspective of the other side of the > gaze. > > Ultimately, Kapoor's book is a powerful contribution to the > discussion on postcolonial and neocolonial structures of power. His > findings on envy as a motivation for continued practices of > oppression and classism are important and require further historical > study. The book, organized and produced effectively by Cornell > University Press with both notes and a bibliography at the end of > each chapter, serves as more of a collection of essays than it does > as a single argument based in specific circumstances. While loose and > perhaps frustrating in its ambiguity and repetition in parts, > Kapoor's work opens up new connections and possibilities for > historical research in these fraught circumstances. Both scholars and > graduate students would be well served to examine his conclusions and > investigate their applicability with more historical specificity. > > Notes > > [1]. Antonio Gramsci, _Selections from the Prison Notebooks_, ed. and > trans. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith (New York: > International Publishers, 1971), particularly "State and Civil > Society." > > [2]. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri formulated these concepts into a > trilogy of theory, with mixed results: _Empire_ (Cambridge, MA: > Harvard University Press 2000); _Multitude: War and Democracy in the > Age of Empire_ (New York: Penguin, 2005); and _Commonwealth_ > (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011) with a more recent > follow-up in _Assembly_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017). > > [3]. For her first introduction of the term (since employed more > widely), see "Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A > Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist > Theory and Antiracist Politics," _University of Chicago Legal_ > _Forum_, no. 1, Article 8 (1989): 139-67. > > [4]. For an introduction to the methodology, see Nicole Eustace, > Eugenia Lean, Julie Livingston, Jan Plamper, William M. Reddy, and > Barbara H. Rosenwein, "AHR Conversation: The Historical Study of > Emotions," _The American Historical Review_ 117, no. 5 (2012): > 1486-531. > > Citation: Douglas Leonard. Review of Kapoor, Ilan, _Confronting > Desire: Psychoanalysis and International Development_. H-Africa, > H-Net Reviews. December, 2020. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=55880 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#4246): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/4246 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/78791581/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
