The Lacanian Divide in the Age of AI: Hysteric Innovation and Obsessional Preservation
Introduction
Debates over AI in writing and image-making often appear to concern technology itself. Yet beneath the surface lies a deeper struggle over authorship, authority, and the legitimacy of artistic practice. On social media, artists and writers split into two increasingly polarized camps: those who embrace AI as a tool for experimentation and those who reject it outright, sometimes refusing even to engage with anyone who uses such tools.
What looks like a dispute about machines is better understood as a conflict about the cultural rules that define creativity. Here, Jacques Lacan’s distinction between the hysterical and obsessional subject, used metaphorically rather than clinically, provides a compelling lens. These two subjective orientations illuminate why the AI controversy carries such emotional weight: the hysterical position challenges established authority, while the obsessional position safeguards it.
The Symbolic Order and the Question of Creativity
Lacan situates the subject within the Other: the dense network of norms, traditions, and expectations that shape identity. “Our questions,” Steven Z. Levine observes in Lacan Reframed, “are always addressed to the Other who is supposed by us to know the answers.” For artists, the Other manifests as the cultural order that defines what counts as legitimate creation.
When debates about AI erupt, they are not merely about tools. They reveal divergent relations to this symbolic framework. Some subjects experience the inherited rules of artistic practice as constraints to rebel against; others cling to them as anchors of meaning. The disagreement begins long before algorithms enter the studio.
The Hysterical Position: Avant-Garde Innovation and Pro-AI Experimentation
The hysterical subject resists the identity assigned by the symbolic order and asks, implicitly or explicitly: Why must I submit to these rules? Who authorized them? As Levine summarizes, the hysterical response emerges by “resisting what she or he imagines the Other wants her or him to be.”
Historically, this orientation fuels the avant-garde. Artists who occupy this stance treat conventions as material to be reshaped rather than sacred boundaries to be preserved. In the present debate, the pro-AI camp embodies this impulse. For these creators, generative models open new imaginative spaces, enable hybrid forms, and circumvent traditional gatekeeping. AI becomes a medium rather than a menace.
They see creativity as a dynamic process in which new tools continually redefine artistic possibilities—from the invention of linear perspective to photography to digital editing. Their guiding assumption is that cultural vitality arises from expansion, not conservation.
The Obsessional Position: Academic Continuity and Anti-AI Preservation
The obsessional subject engages the Other differently. Instead of resisting its demands, the obsessional defends them. As Levine puts it, “The academic artist responds… by insisting that the normal order must be maintained at all costs.” This position values mastery, continuity, and fidelity to established forms.
Anti-AI artists and writers often adopt this stance. For them, creative work requires effort, discipline, and skill that cannot be outsourced without undermining its meaning. Generative tools seem to threaten the standards that distinguish genuine artistry from mere production. Their concerns center on dilution of craft, of authorship, of authenticity.
In this view, cultural value depends on maintaining the symbolic boundaries that guarantee the integrity of artistic labor. The obsessional subject thus takes on the role of guardian, defending the sanctity of the “real artist” and the traditions that sustain that identity.
Why the Divide Feels So Intense
The intensity of the AI debate stems not only from fears about technology but from clashing fantasies about what the Other demands. The hysterical subject imagines a cultural order that insists on innovation; the obsessional imagines one that insists on preservation. Because each camp projects a different authority onto the same symbolic structure, their arguments rarely meet.
To the pro-AI creator, traditionalists appear rigid and needlessly restrictive. To the anti-AI artist, experimentation looks reckless or disrespectful. Each group believes it is fulfilling a cultural obligation—either to push art forward or to protect what gives it value.
Psychoanalysis suggests that this conflict endures precisely because both positions are tethered to imaginary interpretations of authority. The quarrel is not just about tools but about identity, legitimacy, and the anxieties that surround cultural change.
Conclusion
Lacan’s contrast between the hysterical and obsessional subject offers a productive metaphor for understanding the current rift over AI-assisted creativity. Innovators challenge inherited boundaries and welcome new tools as catalysts for imaginative expansion. Preservationists defend long-standing norms and fear the erosion of meaningful craftsmanship.
This divide reflects not simply differing artistic tastes but divergent relations to authority itself. Whether culture ultimately favors innovation, preservation, or a shifting balance between the two remains uncertain. What is clear is that debates over AI have become a stage on which deeper concerns about authenticity, identity, and the future of art are being enacted, perhaps with Lacan’s structures, unexpectedly, providing the script.
Bibliography
- Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966.
- Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar, Book XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis. Trans. A. Sheridan. New York: Norton, 1977.
- Fink, Bruce. A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.
- Leader, Darian. What Is Madness? London: Hamish Hamilton, 2011.
- Levine, Steven Z. Lacan Reframed. London: I.B. Tauris, 2008.
- Roudinesco, Élisabeth. Jacques Lacan: A Biography. Cambridge: Polity, 2014.
Comments
Post a Comment