Phase 2: During the meeting: emergence of the Real Phase 2: During the meeting: emergence of the Real Phase 2: During the meeting: emergence of the Real
The Real can be described as a psychosexual event in which the subject experiences him/herself as a subject of jouissance. From this perspective, the acceptance of design features is seen as the subjection of technology designers to important actors.
When presenting the project to the partner, the biggest criticism comes from the loudest
voice in the group, a partner who tries, and manages to, get everyone else onto his side:
Within 20 seconds when going into the game, the first thing… one of the particular partners, a guy, he’s very sort of the strong character of the group, he’s not the leader of the group, but he’s
184
a very strong character, he’s the loud voice of the group, he kind of saw it as a kids’ game; his words were ‘kindergarten’. At this point, we were literally just going into the park, we hadn’t done anything onto the games
The style of the partner contrasts with the style of the game itself, as he is perceived as a masculine and intimidating figure. John describes how he was impressed by the masculine characteristics of the man (male, very strong character, loud voice) whose role is unclear, as he is not formally a leader. The character stands out as ‘one of the particular partners’. In this case, one signifier emerges that is going to organize the sequence. Thus, John is still puzzled by the meeting and retroactively reconstructs the trauma as such: ‘he kind of saw it as a kids’ game; his words were ‘kindergarten’. The Real can be described as a trauma in the sense that the realm of sexual relationships is always a traumatic experience for the subject. John encircles the void of the shock, retrospectively reconstitutes the scene and remembers the exact words chosen. The use of the foreign language – here German, but that is not the point – fosters the feeling of entering into another territory which is not familiar and is less safe. The words ‘at this point’ show that John retroactively posits the signifier ‘kindergarten’ as a
point the capiton which preempts the practice of visualizing the game (‘we hadn’t done
anything on to the games’). In Lacanian analysis, the endless movement of signification is halted by the predominant role attributed retroactively to master signifiers such as
‘kindergarten’.
Yet this is not enough. The word ‘kid’ is double-edged. To comprehend John’s sense of
castration which is at stake here, we need additional signifiers. While subsequently
interviewing Jessica, the instructional designer, it emerges that John was not an experienced project manager, and that this was his first experience of project management:
This is a really bad thing, what I am going to say, but before John doing the project we were two other people that did that role. Consequently Mark came in part of the way through; he’s not an experienced project manager, it’s the first time he’s said he’s done it, he hasn’t received any
185
training or anything so he’s sort of thrown in and then consequently because of that situation we ended up with an ineffective brief (Jessica)
The reference to the kindergarten resonates also because of his obvious and unspoken lack of maturity contrasted with the realism of the decision-maker. Fortunately for us, Jessica is here to break the code and make that unconscious truth explicit: ‘This is a really bad thing, what I am going to say (…)’ This self-transgressive enjoyment is not without a connotation of sexual domination; she knows it is a bad thing, but nevertheless she is indeed doing it and is obviously enjoying it. Not surprisingly, John is described as a ‘virgin’: ‘it’s the first time he’s said he’s done it; he hasn’t received any training or anything so he’s sort of thrown in’ John was ‘thrown in’, so to speak, like the baby out with the bath water.
Now, another set of questions emerges. Why does Jessica feel the need to recuperate the signifier ‘kid’ as constructed by the ‘man of Linz’? After all, she could merely defend her colleagues and their teamwork to which she too has contributed. Moreover, one can also note that Vicky’s version of events contradicts the dominant position that Jessica seeks to endorse:
I think they were really shocked that they had that kind of reaction. They were expecting to have a much more positive reaction than that, so it’s very weird, Jessica did actually take this guy side and just said quietly to him: ‘We have shown you all of the documents.’ (Vicky)
Whereas Jessica rationalizes the trauma by justifying this failure through John’s lack of experience and maturity, Vicky describes Jessica as being shocked in front of the man of Linz, saying to him quietly: ‘We have shown you all of the documents.’ The emergence of the Real is experienced by subjects as an affective trouble, something very strange, and which impels subjects to identify with a new or old signifier. Jessica also describes this situation as an unusual feeling:
So he really highlighted that this one guy, first of all the visual style doesn’t blend with the rest, secondly the look of how you play it, doesn’t feel quite right.
186
It seems that the first phase of the design practice does not tick right any more (Glynos and Howarth, 2007). How then shall we understand Jessica’s shift? The missing details appear quite clearly later in Jessica’s interview, when she emphasizes the fact that John had requested her help in order to mentor him:
Today for the first time since Linz we might sit down and make some progress, relooking at the project you know, I mean, I have been helping John because I’ve got a lot of experience in managing European projects that he hasn’t, so he asked me to mentor him. I’ve been doing this for 20 years: many, many different projects, different kinds, you know- I’ve got that experience
That experience which was lacking in ‘the kid’ John is now filled by Jessica’s excessive (‘many many’) jouissance. Moreover, Jessica ambiguously endorses a symbolically
masculine role (she has the experience) in this phallocentric reconfiguration of power, which also confirms her earlier fear of having a game too ‘girly’.
Interestingly, John did not mention to me that he had asked Jessica to mentor him, but never mind, as the subjection to the partner had already operated within the team. As we have seen with Jessica’s promotion, affect-laden recognition subjects people to power, but also enables them by facilitating negotiations among new positions (Kenny, 2012). After the shock, the roles were re-articulated, and John accepts, not without frustration, the new relationship of domination:
He’s just sort of a consultant in the project; the meeting was in Linz and he lived in Linz and he was like the man of Linz, he was comfortable in his own environment, he was ‘a big man of that town’, but he did certain good points, but he was very negative on his feedback, he wasn’t really constructive, whereas other people liked what we did.
Now we can understand the big picture. The man of Linz, fantasized by John through the highly politically-charged metaphor of ‘a big man of that town’ or the ‘man of Linz’, who has no specific formal power over the team, simply posited ‘the kid’ as a key signifier in order to obtain a position of mastery. Interestingly, employees from Totem never articulate
187
his name specifically, yet adopt an affect-laden identification to designate him: ‘this one guy’, the ‘man of Linz’, ‘a big Man’ etc...
In sum, Lacanian analysis demonstrates the articulation of a new law of desire, the right way to enjoy, subjecting designers in a new way as well as producing very concrete objective effects and new technical features incorporated in the new realistic art style.