![]() ![]() Then there is the political-economic notion of homo oeconomicus, which is less a description of human nature than an ideological tool to reshape the human subject in accordance with liberal and neoliberal fantasies about society, market, and value. Marx, on the one hand, thematized the subjective damage caused by capitalism in various ways, exposing the devastating consequences of precarization, exploitation, drive for profit etc. ![]() They explore the causal link between critical developments in society and the production of what could somewhat pathetically be called “damaged life.” However, it is no coincidence that since the crisis of 2007/2008 both made a return, since they essentially are thinkers of crises. Freud, too, was no longer taken as the founder of an efficient clinical practice and the interest in his work was mostly limited to his cultural writings. ![]() Then there were the years of postmodernism, when Marx was no longer perceived as a key economic thinker and instead became an exotic curiosity in cultural thought. The underlying question is: Why Marxism and psychoanalysis? Looking back, one would perhaps conclude that most past attempts to combine these fields of thought ended up in failures. In 2015, he wrote The Capitalist Unconscious: Marx and Lacan. Samo Tomšič currently works at the interdisciplinary laboratory Bild Wissen Gestaltung at the Humboldt University in Berlin. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |