notes introduction 1. Jacques Lacan, “une Pratique de Bavardage,” Ornicar? Bulletin Périodique du Champ Freudien 19 (1977):7. Chapter 1 1.Jacques Lacan,The Psychoses (The Seminar of Jacques Lacan,Book III), ed.Jacques Alain Miller, trans. Russell Grigg (newyork:W.W. norton, 1997), 167. 2. Jacques Lacan, On Feminine Sexuality:The Limits of Love and Knowledge;Encore (The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XX), ed. Jacques Alain Miller, trans. Bruce fink (newyork:W.W. norton, 1999), 56. 3. Sean Homer, Jacques Lacan (newyork:Routledge, 2005), 34. 4. Jacques Lacan, “The function and field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis ,” in Écrits, trans. Bruce fink (newyork:W.W. norton, 2006), 237–38. 5. for a treatment of Lacan as a structuralist poet, see Ellie Ragland-Sullivan’s Jacques Lacan and the Philosophy of Psychonalysis (illinois, Champaign-urbana: university of illinois Press, 1986), 104. 6. Ernesto Laclau, On Populist Reason (London:verso, 2005), 224. 7. Jacques Lacan, “of Structure as the inmixing of an otherness Prerequisite to Any Subject Whatever,” in The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man: The Structuralist Controversy, ed. Richard Macksey (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1970), 191. 8. Bruce fink, Lacan to the Letter:Reading Écrits Closely (Minneapolis:university of Minnesota Press, 2004), 75. 9. The idea of the “context of the context” is inspired by Lawrence Grossberg’s Cultural Studies in the FutureTense (Durham, nC:Duke university Press, 2010). 10.A NewYork Review of Books essay identified Lacan as one of structuralism’s defining “gang of four,” along with Michel foucault, Claude Lévi-Strauss, and Louis Althusser. See Thomas Sheehan, “Paris:Moses and Monotheism,” NewYork Review of Books 26, nos. 21 and 22 ( January 24, 1980). 11. Lacan, On Feminine Sexuality, 2. 194 / Notes to Pages 6–9 12. fink, Lacan to the Letter, 75. 13. ibid., 72. 14. Loyd S. Pettegrew, “Psychoanalytic Theory:A neglected Rhetorical Dimension ,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 10 (1977):46–59. 15. Michael Hyde, “Jacques Lacan’s Psychoanalytic Theory of Speech and Language ,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 66, no. 1 (1980):96–118. 16. Hyde, “Jacques Lacan’s Psychoanalytic Theory,” 108. 17. Henry Krips, Fetish: An Erotics of Culture (ithaca: Cornell univeristy Press, 1999). 18. Krips, Fetish, 12. 19. See, for example, James P. McDaniel, “fantasm: The Triumph of form (an Essay on the Democratic Sublime),” Quarterly Journal of Speech 86, no. 1 (2000): 48– 56; “figures of Evil:A Triad of Rhetorical Strategies for Theo-Politics” Rhetoric & PublicAffairs 6, no. 3 (2003):539–50;and finally, “Speaking Like a State:Listening to Benjamin franklin in Times of Terror,” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 2, no. 4 (2005):324–50. 20. See Joshua Gunn, “Mourning Speech: Haunting and the Spectral voices of nine-Eleven,” Text and Performance Quarterly 24, no. 2 (2004): 91–114; and “for the Love of Rhetoric, with Continual Reference to Kenny and Dolly,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 94, no. 2 (2008):131–55. 21. Barbara Biesecker, “Rhetorical Studies and the ‘new’ Psychoanalysis:What’s the Real Problem? or framing the Problem of the Real,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 84, no. 2 (1998):222–39. 22. Biesecker, “Rhetorical Studies and the ‘new’ Psychoanalysis,” 222. 23. See Barbara Biesecker, “no Time for Mourning:The Rhetorical Production of the Melancholic Citizen-Subject in theWar on Terror,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 40, no. 1 (2007):147–69. 24. Barbara Biesecker, “Whither ideology? Toward a Different Take on Enjoyment as a Political factor,” Western Journal of Communication 75, no. 4 (2011):449. 25. victor J. vitanza, “Critical Sub/versions of the History of Philosophical Rhetoric,” Rhetoric Review 6, no. 1 (1987):41–66. 26. David Metzger, The Lost Cause of Rhetoric:The Relation of Rhetoric and Geometry in Aristotle and Lacan (Carbondale:Southern illinois university Press, 1995). 27. Susan Wells, Sweet Reason: Rhetoric and the Discourses of Modernity (Chicago: univeristy of Chicago Press, 1996). 28. Diane Davis, “identification:Burke and freud on Whoyou Are,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 38, no. 2 (2008):123–47;and “Addressing Alterity:Rhetoric, Hermeneutics ,and the nonappropriative Relation,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 38,no.3 (2005): 191–212. 29. for an incisive treatment of this approach, see Gilbert Chatian’s Rhetoric and Culture in Lacan (Cambridge:Cambridge university Press, 1996). 30. See, Roman Jakobson’s “The Metaphoric and Metonymic Poles,” in Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Contrast, ed. and trans. Rene Dirven and Ralf Porings (Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter, 2002). [3.14.142.115] Project MUSE (2024-04-17 20:14 GMT) Notes to Pages 9–12...