Week+7+Discussion+Questions

INTERPRETATION AND UNCONSCIOUS
 * 1) In allowing foundationalist methods of interpretation to prescribe rules that guide analysis, do we lose some of our own agency as readers? How do the politics of interpretation limit our construction of or navigation through textual meaning?
 * 2) If meaning is derived from the relative position and movement of one signifier in relation to another, how do we read meaning in a text that is unstable- one in which the signifiers are in constant flux? In psychoanalysis, a person is just this sort of text, one in which the words on the page (the person’s words and actions) often seem disconnected from some coherent relationship of signifiers (identities), or is a person more akin to a stir-fried text, somehow above, beyond, or devoid of meaning?
 * 3) Is the reader the only authority who produces interpretation? Does interpreting a reading make him/her an author? Are there factors that influence a reader’s interpretation?
 * 4) Why do we try to make sense of literature beyond what is written on the page? Is sense-making and organization a conscious activity performed by humans because of some displaced unconscious tension? Do we seek an interpretation confirmed by the majority because it fulfills some unconscious need for overpowering a fear of the unknown? What, if anything, can an interpretation reveal about the interpreter or his/her culture?
 * 5) Does the term “unconscious” always refer to something hidden inside the psyche of an individual, or could it be related to an outside activity? Can we say that unconscious is nothing but the repression of our conscious or subconscious and therefore, the latter is derived from the former? If unconsciousness is unaware to us what makes us aware of its existence?
 * 6) Psychoanalysis claims that a text cannot be detached from the writer’s unconscious and if the writer tries to hide their unconscious they will be unsuccessful. What, if anything, can an author have complete conscious control over in their work? Can the use of language itself reflect the unconscious of the writer? Can literature be considered an outlet (or object of displacement) for which the unconscious leaks through? Can a writer become aware of their unconscious and achieve stasis through the writing process?
 * 7) How valid do you find the psychoanalytic paradigm of stasis vs. tension? Is this a universal claim, and if so, how do we account for those psyches who seem to thrive in states others might describe as tense: tortured artists, adrenaline junkies, and glory-seeking warriors to name a few? Have these personalities achieved an uncommon sort of stasis or are they living in a state of tension only to experience a continual release into stasis and if so why?
 * 8) With the exploitation of literature by psychoanalysis, is there a point at which boundaries between the disciplines must be drawn? Is it possible to still create dividing lines after the push toward interdisciplinary study of literature, and if so, is it desirable? What do we gain and lose through an interdisciplinary approach or by drawing barriers?