- Intro to Lacan -

Jacques Lacan

- Abstract -

Today's post is to honour the request made by @f3nix to talk about Lacan and Lacanian Psychoanalysis. This probably is hypocritically the most rushed post I've made so far, decently sourced, tightfisted with trying to simplify a damning complex manner and trying to elucidate as much as possible without overwhelming the reader. The last two probably brought on with the first quality despite being set back by the second quality of this post. Even so, I encourage, as I had already, to look at all the sources qua sources and further reading into the matter! If you have a question in X, take a peak at the sources and we can discuss more intelligently with more questions that are more thorough and on the nose of what we care to actually speak about. No need to do a ritual of excuses and what not when we know what we actually have trouble signifying.

Regardless, why do I emphasize the third quality of the post: damning complex manner. Because... Lacan's works, even in the original French, are complex pieces of writing one has ever seen before. This is probably one of the few authors that I suggest reading on secondary sources, like this but this counts as tertiary, before jumping head-in to the primary texts (I am rather iffy on giving this same treatment to GWF Hegel, but more inclined now with the recent depreciation of philosophy). Not only that, but this is the one author, though he elucidates greatly when you can peal back some of the narcissism and jargon-esque tongue, that is expectant of you to read up on his influences while at least being somewhat informed about the actual psychoanalytic field. Thus I provided down below, with the exclusion of Freud as I shall rather dodge answer with discussing Lacan below, influences of Lacan and, hopefully, a superficial understanding of his core concepts. Withal: remember that secondary literature equally reveals that of the author and their Subject more than it sometimes reveals of the Object of their analysis. So keep that in mind with this post even.

To end this off, there are definitely a lot of fields that Lacan, though almost appearing eclectic superficially, had synthesized in his "return to Freud" and trying to save psychoanalysis from ego-psychologists. This, instead of Freud, was the prime motivator for him being so vocal and active as he was all about the psychoanalytic scene. For those a bit ignorant on history, ego-psychologists are a group of psychologists that had adopted the name of "Freudian psychoanalysts" but had the ill-intent of basically conversion therapy. They cared not to analyze and be a soundboard to the patient, they cared only to root out any "abnormalities" that didn't favor Capitalism and sought to enforce a "normality" on the patients' Subject. For Lacan, this is understandable to the aspect of hypnotizing and rewiring a patient to be a faithful servant of a Social Order. Thus, understandable where most of his narcissism would come from; yet his jargon not so much lest one was of the field to begin with and understands his influences to a perfect T. Even then, I speak here still ignorant and still struggling; hopefully this shall catapult people to where I cannot be and make better analysis on Lacan where I had failed. Withal, let's discuss Lacan.

Ferdinand de Saussure

- Saussure's influence -

When it comes to Ferdinand de Saussure, we can consider him essentially as the father of Semiotics. Or simply: the study of signs. Saussure's influence when it came to Lacan is many fold (especially when it'll get compounded by Roman Jakobson and Valentin Nikolaevič Vološinov). The most important, or noticeable, feature is the usage of Saussure's mode of signified/signifier encompassed by the sign: a sign, though arbitrary in-and-for-itself, has a signifying element like noise and signified element which is essentially meaning. Another big influence is laying the groundwork and exemplifying how humans are dependent on language to communicate meaning across to each other through the chain of signs. Which that will lead to, as I shall discuss below, the popular saying of Lacan: "Unconscious is structured like a Language." As language is a chain of signs where it is necessary that language is first a social product and second that each term is differentiable enough from another term to even have value while possessing a signified element. Lastly, which shall be covered in the Jakobson section, he goes into discussing arbitrariness of signs (which Lacan will replace with signifiers) and that meanings shift all about due to the passage of time and the existence of other signs which changes its value slightly.

Roman Jakobson

- Jakobson's influence -

Now prepare to buckle the seat-belts if one hasn't already, for the ride just gets wackier from here. Roman Jakobson was a Russian Linguist that would get popular for his works in the linguistic field and becoming the father of linguistics itself. Arguably, this is where Lacan would took a series analysis on Language and incorporate the findings in linguistics into the realm of psychoanalysis. In particular, the 1950 essay by Jakobson on the subject on metaphors and metonymy got Lacan going and he began seeing the connections and roles the two played similarly with condensation and displacement, respectively. Which to return back to the "Unconscious is structured like a Language" spiel from before: he can now visualize Freud's condensation and displacement in a figurative/symbolic manner in the respect of metaphors and metonymy. It's also here that Jakobson would argue and clarify on Saussure's comments in the linguistic field: particularly how language is a social product (through negating the empirical obsession of mouth-nasal structures by pointing at studies conducted on disabled people) and sounds (signifiers) was more important despite the contingency (necessity as its dialectical double) of nature enforcing physical features. Yet he did one thing that allowed Lacan, probably coincidentally, to escape from the arbitrariness of signs to focus in on the arbitrariness of signifiers: by doubling down on the arbitrariness of signs and focusing in more on the necessity of signifiers and signified to be together to even function as they do. But if there's two defining things that forced Lacan to rethink things over: the topics of kids developing language over time and aphasia victims with how they develop an understanding of language through context along the lines of substitution and syntax.

Valentin Nikolaevič Vološinov

- Vološinov's influence -

Now this is where we get more into indirect influences. Arguably Jacques Lacan never interacted Valentin Nikolaevič Vološinov's works nor much would even hear his name. What is arguable is that Vološinov's works would directly inspire works that worked around the critiques of Freud while bringing forth an updated Psychoanalysis. Along that line, Vološinov was equally interested in language and would develop a Marxist line on language (the best sociology could offer in the 1920s); amongst both fields would influence a figure named Lévi-Strauss and his works would then be a more direct influence on Jacques Lacan. However, Valentin Nikolaevič Vološinov is notated here since his critiques of Freud (though at the end of the line for both figures) helped kicked Psychoanalysis from the literal look to the figurative/symbolic look. And for a project that Lacan was carrying out and this whole "return" spiel, Lacan would definitely feel the vibrations of Vološinov and develop a symbolic reading of Freud (even if there are connections to the material World that Lacan would definitely hammer in if need be). However, if both Lacan and Vološinov were to discuss with each other, they would find a definite common ground and even view on what Psychoanalysis should be like. After that point, it then goes on literal interpretation and the differences between the scientific advances in their respective time period; especially around language.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

- Hegel's influence -

Now as-was probably hinted (in a metonymy derived from memory of my guide on Dialectics) from the Abstract way before I got here, GWF Hegel would be pretty influential in Lacan's thinking as well. This is also the same GWF Hegel that discussed at length using the Dialectical Idealist method which inspired Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels to form a Dialectical Materialist method. (Which, surprise, surprise, there is a connection between Lacan and Marx; it's surplus-jouissance to Karl Marx's surplus value.) However, Lacan didn't directly read Hegel and would be under the tutelage of Kojève when learning about Hegel. Even then, Lacan would later go on and use Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit as a soundboard for his ideas, as they shall be discussed below, like desire, consciousness and the Other. If it weren't for these three key concepts, we would've had a radically different Lacan in our hands; no less, a different Psychoanalysis when Lacan was making his "return to Freud" all throughout his works and combat against ego-psychologists' misuse of Freud. Withal, the usage of Dialectics (and arguing they don't necessarily end at least when it comes to the Subject) found in Lacan's works has to be assumed all throughout as a base-line, like with any other works made by Dialecticians.

Lacanian Triad

-Lacanian topics -

So now this is where all my rituals have to stop here and I actually do have to explain Lacan proper and tie in the influences to the actual core concepts by Lacan. Now there's a whole field of core concepts Lacan would redefine (like his approach to Psychoanalysis), adopt (reference: influences right above this section) and genuinely work out in his career as a clinical psychoanalyst. However, this post shall focus on four core concepts due to how often they tend to appear in his other core concepts (nota bene: not everything is collapse-able/reducible to these four). Of course, I am referring to The Other (especially pre and post Mirror Stage), Signifiers, Unconsciousness and Desire. Yet, even before I get into those I do have to explain and provide some history on his "Return to Freud" and what impact that has in the entirety of his anti-philosophy (shocking only to the philosopher's eyes considering this is a post under back-to-back philosophy fortnight). Even before so this has to be mentioned: the things he did (chronologically) all throughout his life cannot be collapse-able to a single grand narrative nor should we solely focus on late Lacan. While he may have improved ways to conceptualize Psychoanalysis later on, you have to look at and actually read Lacan seriously throughout his entire life (and hopefully apply it in a meaningful manner, yes I just said meaningful) as to then understand the Lacanian Psychoanalysis.

- "The Return to Freud" -

So what is this constant ringing of the phrase "The Return to Freud" supposed to even signify to the newly exposed reader? Well it shouldn't signify the following: restating/rephrasing what Freud said, dogmatism/orthodoxy of Freud nor commit the same errors as Freud. The "Return to Freud" is to look back at what Freud had put out, reanalyze the content of Freud, critique perspectives that stem off of Freud and to go from there. In his "Return to Freud," Lacan probably took the most literal 180 to Freud one could imagine: taking from the literal to figurative/symbolic gesturing of a general thing. Or to truly say: that Lacan was suggesting that Freud wasn't literal on everything he said and Lacan moves from there to make a new Psychoanalysis. Yet, this "Return to Freud" of course wasn't all just mere reinterpretations and new investigations; he also was on a hard-boiled mission to constantly debase ego-psychology and its mission to simply change the unconsciousness of a patient to "cure" them to a new "normal" that was acceptable. While this could be an anthology on just this issue alone from all perspectives including Lacan's, it's best to say they were using Freud (like advertising) to create perfect maids.

- The Other / Mirror Stage -

So how more appropriately to approach the entire field head first into "The Other" - even then technically there's no right way to learn Lacan. But first: the pre-Mirror stage: this is a stage before the Subject "truly forms" (in my words mind you), where the baby is still reliant on the M(Other) and all their needs are met; there's a sense of wholeness along with complete satisfaction, which only gets disturbed by bouts of crying of when the needs need to be fulfilled. However, the baby will start to pick up on the infrequencies of the M(Other) satisfying those needs; disappearing more-n-more from the baby's life. However, around this time as the baby starts to feel this fragmentation in their body as this lack of the M(Other) forms, the baby begins to being presented a "mirror" and become lured by it; however, authorial self-intervention here, this "mirror" needs not to be an actual mirror - something needs to inspire this reflection.

For which, in the Pre-Mirror Stage, I would say (and Lacan probably was gesturing at this) that the M(Other) acted as this "mirror" of sorts which gave the child something to reflect off without feeling lack (that's the key, not sensing lack, but more on that later). Here in this "Mirror" Stage, we see the start of the formation of a Subject (which can be guided by the M(Other) as well), the sense of bodily unity (Imaginary/Conscious Order) but in the reflection that inspires recognition of but equally alienation from this reflection. For there, we begin the baby develop a sense of lack (desire) to this bodily unity and they forever are on this mission to achieve "completeness." As this "Mirror" stage progresses, the child begins to develop an unconsciousness (Symbolic Order) in this disunity with and the lack (desire) of the M(Other) as to explain away the disappearance and find new ways to fulfill their needs; of which there are no guarantees of fulfilling nor deriving pleasure.

- (Chain of) Signifier(s) -

And it is here that the Symbolic Order qua Language starts to settle in after this unity (Imaginary/Conscious Order) takes serious root in the child of which they have no way to access the M(Other) again. Now do we see the M in M(Other) disappear and become the Other, however as a tainted form of the M(Other) that still acts as much as the M(Other). However, equally here, do we start to see the formation of knowledge (which shall always be unconscious despite conscious reflections in the form of belief); and this is where Lacan stamps three key distinctions: the signifier as the primary concern, the arbitrariness of signifiers and not arbitrariness of signs and the Chain of Signifiers as constantly shifting (along with the Chain of Signifieds).

The signifier takes a primary concern over signs since: signs do not tell us anything and presuppose a lasting unity (my notes, Lacan goes more into this) while also the fact that signifiers are more upfront than is signs. Which then leads us to the arbitrariness of signifiers as they don't need a signified element, they co-depend (and differentiate) on other signifiers as to have any value and is completely subjectivized by the Subject considering that it feels alienating that a signifier cannot possess a meaning. To go on this further, I bring an example (from the cited articles down below but purposefully repackaged): the foot in the sand and the stiff dog. For the former: the Subject doesn't need to see another person make the imprint nor know how long it has been there nor if the imprint is fake, the mere existence of the signifier leads to the Subject to subjectivize and signify the signifier. Many of the possibilities can be that there's an Other with me, I am not alone and so on and so on - yet these are beliefs (Méconnaissance/ false knowledge) and the signification will always tend to lead towards this: there's something that isn't me that made the footprint. Which finally leads to the Chain of Signifiers: considering how arbitrary signifiers are, their meanings will always shift as signifiers come and go, unlink and link with different signifiers and rarely settle into permanency for a while.

- Unconsciousness / Symbolic Order -

Which now leads, however obtrusive this hitch-in is, to the Unconscious/Symbolic Order. On one level, this is the plain(s) of Chain(s) of Signifiers; an(other) is where knowledge is located which is reflective of our actual knowledge in spite of our conscious beliefs and if they reflect our knowledge; equally in this place is the fact that this is where the Other locates itself and dictates the Subject. To go on about the distinction between méconnaissance/belief and knowledge: Jacques Lacan delineates the two upon the fact that both his Clinical Psychoanalytic experience and Freudian Psychoanalytic theory reading suggesting that consciousness is a liar. However, he takes it a step further in that belief (misrecognition) comes up in the fact that upon the "Mirror" stage that there's a permanent division of the Conscious and Unconscious Orders with the formation of das Ich (the I in the English) and misrecognizing the reflection as genuinely it as well. Moreover, repression (like a pin down, but never physical nor recognizable) ensures the bar/divided Subject will never have the two Orders collapse to one nor fall back into the pre-Mirror stage. (To make an aside: there are times when the "tongue slips" or when the Unconsciousness speaks and there we can see the quick repression and cover up of whatever came out. Thus, there is a sense of pain/guilt/humiliation when das Ich / the I's integrity collapses and all the unconscious elements spew out even for a moment.)

However, considering that the Imaginary Order is rather an order of unity/completeness, it doesn't have much influence over the Symbolic Order and this is where (in the Middle and Late Lacan years) he go on to claim the supremacy of the Unconscious Order and that the Unconscious Order can suspend/change/supersede the Imaginary/Conscious Order at any a time it wishes to do so (mainly when it feels threatened by the Imaginary Order or out of a spurious habit). However, there's been something that has been holding me back until now and this is the Order of the Réal - an existential Horror, something (nearly) unidentifiable, a place that resists signification and complete unity at the same time and where das Ding (the Thing/It) resides. Unsurprisingly, with the development of the Symbolic Order coming from the Mirror stage, the Subject comes to realize there are holes/tears in its Order and tries fill them in. In this first attempt, these are temporary fixes that collapse as they are filled; here the Symbolic Order tries to forcefully incorporate it into its Order (for which the Imaginary Order is attempting to incorporate It into its Order to become complete) and semblances form which helps dissect and reach into the Réal Order. But these tools are insufficient and the Réal Order becomes an very existing thing that is impossible to describe upon only do we find difficulty to understand and this lack (desire) of completeness/unity do we know It exists. Whenever we approach it (almost always accidentally) do we feel the Horror/shock as this is the place where everything becomes undifferentiable and the bland reality kicks in hard to our folly reality. There's a touch of irony that the Unconsciousness struggles to incorporate it, yet how can it signify a thing for which resists signification?

- Desire -

Desire, lack. Lack, desire. We want what we don't have, so the vehicle of desire so leads us to believe. Yet desire equally is the difference between (Conscious) wishes and satisfaction. For we can derive satisfaction yet feel unfulfilled yet we can "achieve" our wishes yet feel unsatisfied; the former case being like consuming a commodity and consuming another one to relive the satisfaction and the latter being equatable to seeing for what a thing is and saying "that's all/it?" When we achieve our desires, we get no guarantee of satisfaction nor fulfillment; indeed, we get the desire for desire when we feel uneasiness with non-satisfaction or unfulfillment. Equally, desire is, as aforementioned, a vehicle that guides us along the way like in dreams while steering us blindly towards this pre-Mirror stage fulfillment and satisfaction we had received from the M(Other). But why is desire linked with lack to the point of interchangeability? Well I can retort easily with why do we desire and we often capitulating to this point: we don't have it necessarily. Nonetheless, Desire (Lack) must be differentiated from needs (which can provide satisfaction and fulfillment) and, if this wasn't clear enough, from wishes.

From Lacan: A Challenge to the Psychoanalytic Establishment

-Concrete -

And that about sums up Lacan in the most superficial post on him ever. Again, as noted above: Lacan is a very difficult writer to read into (from the fact of his narcissism justified by his engagement of ego-psychology and jargon he borrows from various philosophers) and one that expects one has already delved deep into his influences (even when he elucidates). I did like to mention many of his other influences like Freud, the whole impetus of his programme; Plato with the fact that he uses him as often as he uses Hegel; Jung as a tool to break away from the orthodoxy surrounding Freud and to ruminate on other possibilities; and many, many more. It also is worth mentioning that he provided a great bounty of influence to the generations in his time and postmortem.

From people like Jacques-Alain Miller who transcribed his Seminars and compiled his Écrits (Essays) in a careful manner while being the closest person to Lacan. To people like Althusser on reviewing all that has been and redefining Science and Marxism. To people even like Alain Badiou to properly try to make a syncretic union between Psychoanalysis and Marxism. There were also influences to the whole of Psychoanalysis with pure Lacanian Psychoanalysis, Freudian-Lacanian Psychoanalysis, Queer Theory and people like Slavoj Zizek in this mix.

Yet, most importantly, he continued on the debasement of centering of all rationality that Humanity projected itself (Conscious Order appearing again through belief) as the rational center of the Universe. To expose us, better than Freud, of our Irrationality and the Orderliness of our Irrationality and what lengths we go to rationalize it before it's too much. And to end it off: read the secondary sources of Lacan before you jump head-straight into the rabbit hole that is Lacan; though always remember you get a bit of the author as you get a bit of Lacan. So have fun!~

From Lacan: A Challenge to the Psychoanalytic Establishment

- Sources-

Freudianism: A Marxist Critique by Valentin Nikolaevič Vološinov

Ferdinand de Saussure's Third Course of Lectures on General Linguistics

Roman Jakobson's Six Lectures on Sound and Meaning

John W P Phillips's Roman Jakobson and the Two Types of Aphasia

Claude Lévi-Strauss's Structural Analysis in Linguistics and in Anthropology

Interview with Jacques Lacan

Lacan's Mirror Stage

Lacan's Signifiers

Lacan's Unconsciousness

Lacan's Desire

Theory of the Subject by Alain Badiou