Eidos and affect: A response to Hook, Sullivan, Dixon and Condor

Full text for this resource is not available from the Research Repository.

Baldacchino, Jean-Paul (2011) Eidos and affect: A response to Hook, Sullivan, Dixon and Condor. Ethnicities, 11 (1). pp. 131-135. ISSN 1468-7968


My critics point out that I introduce unnecessary conceptual distinctions while failing to draw ones that matter. Both Hook and Sullivan, for example, point out that my article does not differentiate between affect and emotion. Hook also notes that I do not differentiate between the Lacanian registers of the symbolic, the imaginary and the real when discussing identification. He also notes that a number of distinctions I draw are spurious – namely between love and hate and between the Innenwelt and the Umwelt. The substance of the above critique rests almost exclusively on a body of Lacanian and post-Lacanian thought. With Hook, I share a deep respect for the insights offered by Lacanian psychoanalysis. I would, however, like to make a few observations.

Dimensions Badge

Altmetric Badge

Item type Article
URI https://vuir.vu.edu.au/id/eprint/10440
DOI 10.1177/1468796810388706
Official URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468796810388706
Subjects Historical > FOR Classification > 1701 Psychology
Historical > Faculty/School/Research Centre/Department > School of Social Sciences and Psychology
Keywords ResPubID25008, Innenwelt, Umwelt, jouissance, neologism, language of emotions, phenomenology, formalism, phenomenological reduction, eidetic reduction, analyst, analysand
Citations in Scopus 0 - View on Scopus
Download/View statistics View download statistics for this item

Search Google Scholar

Repository staff login