Light and Shadows on a Case of Gay Bashing (video) : Pierre-Gilles Guéguen

by Julia Evans on October 2, 2011

Guéguen Pierre-Gilles – Light and Shadows on a Case of Gay Bashing (video)

in: Éric Laurent, Marie-Hélène Brousse, Pierre-Gilles Guéguen:

PULSE: Paris-US Lacan Seminar:

September 30 – October 2, 2011:

Barnard College, New York, USA:

Published at :

Available here.


I have found PGG’s expression “wars of modes of jouissance” quite relevant. So far, we’ve had imaginary “jouissance envy” towards religious affiliation, class and skin tone. In the UK, we are now seeing the beginning of sexual orientation “jouissance envy” with the fierce opposition to same sex marriages (and not just civil partnerships) and adoption by same sex parents. I also think PGG is right in his debunking of Butler & all for ignoring that sexuality itself is a trauma. Back in 1998, I had extensively written about why Queer Theory, particularly in its American incarnation, was inconsistent. This coming from a former Gay Lib activist!

In Sem 19bis (The Knowledge of the Psychoanalyst, 3 February 1972, tr. Cormac Gallagher), there is a a prophetic remark by Lacan: “In order for something to have meaning [….] it has to posit itself as normal. This indeed is why André Gide wanted homosexuality to be normal […] We will have new clients in psychoanalysis who will come and tell us:’I have come to see you because I am not a normal gay.” (Nota: Gallagher gets it a bit wrong in his translation of the French word “pédale”, on which Lacan adds an unstranslatable pun).

There is nowadays indeed in the various Western gay communities a normativity as to what “being gay” consist in. In some instances, it can be as repressive as the normativity in place in heterosexual communities.

by Bruno de Florence on 20/03/2012 at 5:18 pm. Reply #

I commend the following critique as a magnificent example of ‘reductio ad absurdum’. (See below.) The arguments as given by the opponents of marriage between two persons of the same biological sex (gay marriage), are taken logically to their conclusion. It examines the boundary between a criminal sexual act and a ‘normal’ one.

Critique: ‘The Catholic Church is ruining my marriage: According to our religious leaders it is a dandelion in the wind, easily blown away by others you’ve never met’: Robert Shrimsley: Financial Times: March 16th 2012 and available here:

From Wikipedia: Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: “reduction to the absurd”) is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.[1]

A common type of reductio ad absurdum is proof by contradiction (also called indirect proof), where a proposition is proved true by proving that it is impossible for it to be false. That is to say, if A being false implies that B must also be false and it is known that B is true, then A cannot be false and therefore A is true.

Where such an argument is premised on a false dichotomy, the ostensible proof is a logical fallacy.

by Julia Evans on 22/03/2012 at 10:36 am. Reply #

I agree with your comments.

by pierre gille guéguan on 04/02/2013 at 7:40 pm. Reply #