Sudnow described social death as, ‘“that point at which socially relevant attributes of the patient begin to permanently cease to be operative as conditions for treating him and when he is, essentially, regarded as dead’”
His legacy; totally unrelated, but lovely...and social |
The psychological
death occurs when there is a “loss of individual consciousness” where the
individual is no longer aware of themselves, they are perceived to no longer
have a personal internalized identity:
“Psychological death has already been defined as the point at which the individual’s persona is lost” (Long 481) . This statement I do
take issue with. Since we do not have proof other than biological evidence
(which in most cases would win me over), it is impossible to know since there
has been no first-hand accounts of how one perceives themselves at that point
in time, who can tell? However, looking at it from the POV of the onlookers,
yes, there is a real and substantial loss when the person you know is no longer
perceivable in a physical or psychological sense.
“Psychological death has already been defined as the point at which the individual’s persona is lost”
Ok, this seems like there is much more room to play, philosophically speaking. If death happens at the moment when the "persona" is lost, that seems useful to think about in relationship to the themes of the course. It is not just the experience of being a self, but instead that the self needs to be constructed in a deliberate manner to really have presence. This is compelling, since it really strengthens that idea that self must be performative. It's not simply that we ARE, but that we DO, that we KNOW, that we in a Lacanian sense can look back at ourselves and see a self there. This is all very juicy, but maybe there is more room here to extend your analysis?
ReplyDelete