This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 30 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

Routledge Handbook of Psychoanalytic Political Theory

Yannis Stavrakakis, Stephen Frosh, Lynne Layton, Dany Nobus

Jacques Lacan

Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315524771-4 Dominiek Hoens Published online on: 23 Sep 2019

How to cite :- Dominiek Hoens. 23 Sep 2019, Jacques Lacan from: Routledge Handbook of Psychoanalytic Political Theory Routledge Accessed on: 30 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315524771-4

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 01:55 30 Sep 2021; For: 9781315524771, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315524771-4 belong towhatisgenerallyconsidered of Lacan’s asthemore mature period thought 2006: 161–175). The reader may wonder why oneshouldpay attentiontotwo textsthatdonot Suspicion (Lacan2001: 85–99)andLogical Time and the of Assertion (Lacan Anticipated Certainty prominentis particularly intwo ofhisearlytexts, TheNumber of and theLogicalForm Thirteen being or, more precisely, how oneendsup taking oneselfforahumanbeing. This question Lacan’s topsychoanalysis raisethequestionofwhatitmeanstobeahuman contributions first being’ thattake thecentralplace. Indeed, before introducing thenotionofsubject, most of does notappearintheearlystagesofLacan’s work; instead, aboutthe itisenquiries ‘human tinguished from the humanbeing, toobserve thatthis thenitisallthemore surprising ‘subject’ istoapproachofthesubject, pointaboutLacaniantheory itasatheory If thecrucial tobedis- does itmake sensetorefer toasubject. contrary, from aLacanianpointofview, onlywhentakingintoaccountasociopoliticalcontext ject’s socialandpoliticallifeisnota layer ontopofasupposedly apoliticalway ofbeing; onthe subject, aswe shallsee, isconceived social andpolitical. asintrinsically Succinctlyput, thesub- also suggestswhy onemay getmore outofLacanregarding politicsthanexpected, becausethis ing why and how the subject is neither a universal individual. human being nor a particular This tothepsychoanalyticfieldconsists precisely inmakingthisdistinctionandexplain- tribution ones,former theLacaniansubjecthastobedistinguishedfrom ofLacan’s them.A largepart con - subject. Although incolloquiallanguage, thelatternotionisoftenusedinterchangeably withthe even thepsyche(asonemay expectfrom adisciplinenamed ‘psychoanalysis’), but ratherthe in Lacanianpsychoanalysis, namelyitdoesnottreat ‘man’, thehumanbeing, theindividual, not Lacan 2007: 63). There is a simple reason for this absence of knowledge about the human being [l’homme] is, indeedthey are psychoanalysts’ (Lacan1967–1968: lessonof6March 1968; seealso as Lacanonceputitinunambiguousterms, ‘If there are peoplewhodonotknow whatman is—heorshemaywith others endupwithbothlessandmore thanexpected. Lessbecause Lacan’s works—for example, toobtainaprecise ideaofwhat that beinglives incommon If apoliticalscientistwere tolookinarathernaïve way ofthehumanbeingin for atheory were originally published in the non-psychoanalytical and non-academic art journal Cahiers journal publishedwere inthe non-psychoanalyticalandnon-academic art originally JACQUES LACAN Not WithoutOthers Dominiek HoensDominiek 3 44 1 andthat Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 01:55 30 Sep 2021; For: 9781315524771, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315524771-4 process thatleadstoit. bother Lacanmuch, becausehisfocusisnot on theoutcomeofprocess but onthelogical singular,. ofthe collectionare sinceallthemembers uniform However, thisdoesnotseemto relationship with others, yet from this also impliesthat this identity is far particular, let alone problems ofitsown. As already mentioned, the individual findsitsidentitysolelythrough its well as a way conceptionofgrouppsychology, toavoid an authoritarian but this isnotwithout the individual andthegroup. may relations asprimordial serve the horizontal Considering ‘vertical’ forms, class—andemphasizesthelogical like ‘3 +1’, thatdefinethe relations between or amore abstractideal. Lacanreverses thisorder—‘horizontal’ collection/collectivity before identifications andemotionaltiesdependonananterior, identificationwithaleader vertical chology and the Analysis of the Ego (1981 [1921]), in which he argued that horizontal, mutual ideal toshow coherent organization. Freud haddiscussedthisissuebefore inhisGroupPsy - Lacan’s mainconclusionisthatagroup doesnotneedtodependonaleaderoranexternal theSecond aged totreat largegroupsofpatients during World War (Lacan2001: 101–120). the work of, among others, Wilfred Bion and John Rickman and praises the way one man- andobservations,recounting hisexperiences andthe EnglishPsychiatry War, Lacandiscusses it is most interesting in itself, we will engage with only a fragment of its solution. three times? This coin-weighing problem iswell-known amongmathematicians, andalthough of times. More concretely, ifgiven 13coins, howfalse one, canonefindthe usingabalance coin amongavariable number ofcoins,false withabalanceonecanuseonly a limitednumber problem discussesindetailconcerns, thatNumberThirteen generallyput, theidentificationofa our overview withthistext, becauseitisconsidered (Lacan2001: by Lacanasanterior 86). The developments ofhisthought. they not only reveal later at what point Lacan situates the subject but also anticipate and orient refer tothepolitical, (post-)World War whichthey were IIcontextduring written, andsecond, .d’Art Yet there are two reasons todothishere. First, thetextsare marked by andexpressly during afive-weekduring stay in EnglandSeptember 1945(Roudinesco1997: 172). andtheuniversalsynthesis oftheparticular (2001: 99). ofacollectionby testingtheitemsonebythe formation oneresults, according toLacan, ina processes andof Theinterrelated ofbecomingaoneamongequalothers against theothers. ofacollectionthroughhaving quality—but becomepart theweighing acertain ofevery piece uniform. The coins, therefore,—to whichonebelongsontheconditionof aclass donotform chosen quality—forexample, ‘weighs belongtoacollectionbasedonbeing 21grams’—but do notbelongtothesamespecies, whichwould implythattheiridentityrelies onanexternally is considered ‘good’ onlybecauseithasbeenweighed before. againstothers Thecoins, therefore, of thegeneraloperationweighing coinsagainsteachother, coinincluded, theinserted which ornot(Lacan2001:suspect coinsare eitherinconformity 98). thecoinismerely part Inserting Lacan argues, doesnotfunctionas ‘specified orspecifyingnorm’ according towhichtheother relevant, but Lacan’s commentsonthisprocedure needtobespelledout. coin,The inserted weightthe false amongthesuspect. For ourpurposes, the question ofhow thisisdone is not + 1’, becausetothree suspectcoinsonegoodcoinisadded, whichhelpstoeventually discover out to be of equal weightbefore—which turned and therefore OK. Lacan names this method ‘3 with three remaining piecesandonegoodcoin, thatis, onethatbelongstotheeighttested pieces. How to find this odd piece in two remaining weighs only? The following weigh is done or not.rium Ifthere isanequilibrium, oneknows coinbelongstothefive thefalse remaining consists inweighing fourcoinsagainstothers. There are two possible outcomes: equilib- Although Lacan’s interest inthisdialecticbetween agroupanditsindividual was members piqued gotpublished oneyearNumber Thirteen afterLogicalTime, in1946, we willstart Jacques Lacan 45 2 The first step The first 3 Inatext

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 01:55 30 Sep 2021; For: 9781315524771, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315524771-4 observe how the situation changes when he or she adds a hypothesis, H be wearing a blackbe wearing disk?’Within H his orherinitialhypothesis, H black diskbut ratherawhiteone. Yet, becauseBdoesnotmove either, A can concludeonlythat to B(=H a logical reasoninga logical leadingtotheidentificationofcolordiskonone’s back. three whitedisksandtwo black disksatplay andthat(2)onewillonlybereleased ifonepresents fellow inmateswhohave whitedisksontheirbacksandwhatoneknows isthat(1)there are thecolorofadiskputonone’sto determine warden. backby aprison What oneseesare two another contemporaneoustext, LogicalTime(2006: 161–175). Here, reasoning logical isrequired answer tothequestion. ing still. Yet moment, atacertain allthree move toward theexit, convinced thatthey know the about thecolorofhisown disk—but thisisnotthecase. are stand- That iswhy theprisoners were towearother prisoners black disks, would thenthethird notdoubt for asecond prisoner reasoning. (out ofthree)—but thatishaving toprobability, toresort nottotherequired conclusive, logical that onecanactuallysee, there remain two black disks(outoftwo) andonlyonewhite it tobemore probable tohave ablack disk—aftereliminatingthetwo beenadorned whitedisks speaking, nothingcanbeconcludedfrom whatoneknows tobethesituation. Onecanconsider formulated H formulated ferentiated anyone. The secondtimeistheforcomprehending, assoononehas whichstarts 2006: 167). wordThe important here is ‘one’—that is, thethirdsingularoranundif- person required toconcludethat ‘being oppositetwo blacks, oneknows thatoneisawhite’ (Lacan times.called logical oneistheinstantofglance,The first whichisactuallythenon-time H would know thesolutionatonceandbeleaving immediately. Yet, becauseCdoesnotmove, entire reasoning isbasedontheothers’ standingstill(whichproves thatH not hastentheconclusion, heorshe willnever beable toconcludeanything at all, becausethe bysion is preceded and supported sound reasons, realizes that if he or she does but the prisoner conclusion, andtherefore itstelos, onlyifoneconcludesbeforeitistoolatetodoso. The conclu- may losethe game—butprisoner by realizing thatthetimeforcomprehending canreach its beings are capable of. Haste, here, isnotmotivated by thecircumstances ofthesituation—the the domain of logics, usually considered as the most desubjectivized kind of reasoning human hastheremarkableThe third thesubjective formula qualityofinserting dimensionofhasteinto in thisway, donot precede meinrecognizing themselves forwhatthey are’ (Lacan2006: 168). oftheform formula ‘I hastentodeclare myself awhite, sothatthesewhites, whomI consider time,, themomentofconcluding whichintroduces athird kindofsubjectivity impliedinalogical concludemyselfeither leadtoerror—I tobeblack (whichisnotthecase)—oropenupathird fined except by their reciprocity: I amwhatthinkyou thinkthatI am, etcetera. This timecan no time realizing that they are whites’ (Lacan2006: 168). Here the subjects involved are unde- the existentialist themeofanexistencepreceding essence(Sartre), whichLacan seemstobevery marking any identitytobeacquired. resonates heavilyThis lackofbeingorindeterminacy with identity. ofsupport butThis subject isnotsomuch rather indicatesthelack asubstantialperson of whatoneknows reflect orseesnorthe I oregodependentonwhatothers abouthisorher is qualified assubject ofthisassertion subject’, ‘thepersonal one whichis neither theimpersonal 2 must befalse. IfH The emphasis on logic and its intertwinement withindividuality ismademore anditsintertwinement The emphasisonlogic poignantin There isonlyonesituationinwhichthesolutioncouldbeseenatonce, namelyifthetwo The originality ofLacan’sThe originality resides inhisdistinctionofthree presentation so- ofthisriddle 2 ). IfH 1 andshouldconcludethat ‘were I ablack, thetwo whitesthatI seewould waste 1 andH 2 isfalse, thenBknows tobetrue: thecontrary a heorsheisnotwearing 5 To how understand thisispossible, letusfollow oneprisoner, A, and 2 are thecase, however, thenC, hypothetically two facing black disks, 1 , andthatawhitediskhasbeenpinnedonhisorherback. isfalse 1 he orshe may a second and similar hypothesis attribute Dominiek HoensDominiek 46 1 , to it: ‘what if I 1 andH 2 are false). The 4 Strictly Strictly would Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 01:55 30 Sep 2021; For: 9781315524771, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315524771-4 and extermination camps,and extermination the promises of masses, and dangers and so on. War IIquestion—whatisahuman being?—provoked by theatrocities oftheconcentration otherhasa imaginary ‘fuller’ identity thanI myself couldever obtain, post–World thecrucial b. a. opposite (2006: 174). from unshakable conviction thatI amhumanisbasedonanunconsciousfear—compare theshift a humanbeing. ofLogicalTime,As Lacanputsitintheconcluding paragraphs theseemingly process thatincludesthemeanwhileforgottenpossibilityonewould notbeconsidered as 175), by meaningthatanyandsocialidentityissupported anunconsciouscollective personal by Lacanas aptly summarized ‘the collective isnothingbut thesubjectofindividual’ (2006: oblivious and collective ofthelogical process thatleadstothisseeminglyevident identity. This is oneselftobeahumanbeingnotunlikeconsiders fellow humanbeings, yet onealsobecomes orhimselftobewhitelike orof herself theothers ers ‘equal weight’). (NumberThirteen One their subject. Second, operationsare theselogical eventually forgottenby theonewhoconsid- as notedbefore, asessential—thatis, Lacanrefers totheformulae andexpressing asdetermining themor,formulate more precisely, tooccupy thedifferent subjectpositionsimplied. That iswhy, ego ofthetimeforcomprehending, orthesubjectofhasteinmomentconcluding—to balloons awaiting oneoftheinstantglance, asubject—beittheimpersonal thespecular thattherequired existindependentofanyfact subject. formulae functionastext The formulae concluding toanexistential, heroically ‘performative’ moment, oneshouldnotoverlook the two aspects. more crucial ofall, First although onemay betemptedtoreduce themoment of involved,others whichallows Lacantoqualifythisprocess asa ‘collective logic’. Yet, there are withina collectivity.determined This identity does notexistbefore oroutsideany reference to In statement thatdefinesitsidentitybeyond specular reflections. deadlock, from andsupplementingthisimaginary element arising namelyasubjectoflogical the ego, possibly reduced toamere lifelessimage. ofLogicalTime,The gist however, an concerns mixture oflove imageandhatred life-giving forit, forthispersonal asitalsosignalsthe deathof alienatinginthatonefindsoneselfanimageoutsideoneself—hence,tragically thenarcissistic from itsincoherent from bodilysensations—but thisidentityisfar stable. Itis, with, tostart provides itwithanegoandasenseofcoherent oneness—whichtheyoung childcannotderive identification withanimage reflected (orapeerfunctioningassuch). byamirror Thisidentity whichtheprematurely humanbeingacquires anidentitythrough born 75–81) during the essence’ ofthesubject, ratherthanits ‘existence’ (Lacan2001: 86and2006: 170). andLogicalTime,Thirteen Lacanemphasizesthatpsychoanalysisdealswiththeprimordial ‘logical much aware of, asheusesexactlythesameterms: existenceandessence. Yet inbothNumber c. subjectivity. of process any aspectistheunconsciouslogical formation thatsupports the mostimportant

andinLogicalTime,Number Thirteen operationisrequired alogical atanidentity toarrive The socialdimensioncouldbe explored incloserdetail—theparanoid universe inwhichthe By way conclusion, ofintermediate letusenumerate thebasicqualitiesofindividual identity: Here it is important to pay attention to the logics supporting theprocess topayHere supporting itisimportant ofsubjectivation. attentiontothelogics Parallel excursions, totheselogical Lacandeveloped stage(2006: ofthemirror histheory Collective, inthatitisbased onanimmanently sharedproperty. Social, inthatoneacquires itonlywithothers. of anxioushaste. False, inthatitinvolves therepression process ofboththe logical andthesubjective moment —that the others would—that theothers time forcomprehendingtomomentofconcluding convince meofthe 7 Jacques Lacan 47 6 8 But following Lacan, Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 01:55 30 Sep 2021; For: 9781315524771, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315524771-4 three from tragediesin hisseminars 1958to1960. Lacan’s teaching. Inthefollowing section, thiswillbeillustratedby Lacan’s on commentary realm anda ofsignifiers ‘something’ thefuture development beyond thesignifierdetermines of ity of the Other. This basic conception of the subject as divided between a ‘nothing’ of theOtherandisonother handtheunconsciousexceptiontopresumed universal- signifier—$, asLacanpreferstonotateit—amere void orthemissingelementwithinfield reasoning thatoneshouldlocate thesubject. The subject, therefore, isontheonehandalacking groundbecause there isnosufficienttothem, anditisprecisely atthis gapwithinthelogical (or signifiers). in formulae to find support These formulae, however, are qualified as sophistic, a a position blackof exception and exclusion—the odd piece or the one wearing disk—and tothefieldofOther, belonging emerges outofalogic where itisinvited toleave behind from momentonward—that acertain precede andexceed thesubjectthey imply. The subject of collective statements—‘signifiers’, as Lacan, inspired linguistics,by structuralist willcallthem not beconceived ofasaconscious, more orlessself-transparent agentbut ratherasthebearer hypokeimenon, inthe senseof Aristotelian ‘what liesunder’. This meansthatthe subjectshould properly speaking? As we have seen, thesubjectinLacan’s work needstobetaken literallyasa the patient’s ego(moi). only whenasubjectissupposedtotheOther, andbearer, assupport nottobeconfusedwith without asubject, but—and thisisLacan’s pointinthe1950s—psychoanalysiscantake place any subjectivity.that precede anddetermine Inthatsense, theOtherexisting onecouldimagine ‘other scene’ by is understood Lacan as the Other—that is, as a space containing the signifiers that addsitselftotheconsciousdomainofsignificationand mutual recognition. ThisFreudian )—that is,of theunconsciousasotherscene(andereSchauplatz asanunconsciousdimension possibility. Lacan’s Otheror ‘the symbolic’ involves ofFreud’s arearticulating depiction famous andfunctionsasitshidden—thatis,bolic precedes theimaginary unconscious—conditionof Other, andsoon. Lacannotonlymakes distinctionsbut alsoarguesthatthesym- thesecrucial tion tofullnessandtheassumptionofone’s castratedlackofbeing, between theotherand unconscious), desire, demandsandtriangular between mirroring between aspira- thefrustrated and the symbolic, of the imaginary registers between the (conscious) ego and the subject (of the the momentofconcluding). where ofthesubjectintofieldOtheris aperformativerequired auto-insertion (cf. grounding, situated at the point where thisOther islacking, where shows the logic a gapand ofanindividual ego,individual—needed fortheformation andthesubjectisgroundof this process—thethe groundinglogical ‘speech balloons’ surrounding, preceding, andawaiting the more clearlydistinguishthesetwo, namingthemOtherandsubject, respectively. The Otheris that sense, reasoning thesubjectislinkingofalogical toitsconclusion. Lateron, Lacanwill point where process thelogical shows agapinitsmovement from premises toconclusion. In the otherhand, thebaseofthislogic. thesubjectforms This lattersubjectemergesonlyatthe involves the collectively shared required logics any individual for and supporting identity; on the subject, literallyas tobeunderstood ‘underlying support’. Ontheonehand, thesubject cal reasoning orsomethingelse? The answer istotheextent that thequestionrevolves around however, remains to know what exactly accounts for this subject: is it indeed the collective- logi threefold one, appearanceasanimpersonal ego, asanimaginary andasasubject. The difficulty, In Yet one’s ofanddetermines iftheOtherissupport identity, whatthenisthesubject In Lacan’s andtextsofthe1950s, seminars hewilldevelop thisanddistinguishbetween the Logical Time, onereads oftheindividual aboutthethorough andits socialdetermination From theOthers to theOther Dominiek HoensDominiek 48 9 within the Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 01:55 30 Sep 2021; For: 9781315524771, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315524771-4 neurotic canonly dream of, andsleepingwithhismother. killinghisfather for example, anidentificationwithClaudius, theonewhoactuallydidwhatHamlet-the- in it, norecourseismadeto ‘unconscious motives’ toaccountforHamlet’s lackofdecisiveness— on therecognition ofafundamentalnonbeing. isasymbolicidentitywhichgranted,prince notchosen—asubjectthatcameinto being based (5.1.246–247). Fortime, thefirst beaDaneorDanish thesubjectofasignifierappears—to on hisuncle, Claudius, andtoactinhisown name, asheexclaims ‘This isI, HamlettheDane’ (5.1.259–261). Lacanrelates thistoHamlet’s suddenabilitytoexactthepostponedrevenge asasum considers thousandbrothers couldnot,‘forty withalltheirquantityoflove’ make up Hamlet discovers isnotasupposedplenitudebut alackthatheidentifieswithand eventually andLaertes’sidentifies withisalack expression ofit. mournful BiddingagainstLaertes, what entails thejealoussuppositionofafullnessthatotherenjoys, thathe theaspectofLaertes way, inanimaginary thecompetitionwithLaertes Although Hamletenters whichusually something thatonecouldenjoy orthatwould make onemore complete—but asalostlove. whom herejected inamostcallousway, becomestheobjectofrivalry, notasapositivity— brother, andengagesinacompetitionon the magnitudeoftheirmourning. mourning Ophelia, gather around thegrave ofOphelia, whotookherown life. HamletwitnessesLaertes, Ophelia’s sion ofdesire—occurs neartheendofplay graveyard atthefamous scene, inwhichpeople Hamlet endthetimeforcomprehending withamomentofconclusion? tic andbecomethesubjectofdesire. Or, usedinLogicalTime, usingtheterminology whenwill and ridicules, theobvious questionisifand whenHamletcanleave thisfatal, dialec- imaginary therefore ends up as entirely whom he actually despises, dependent on the others criticizes, linetobeornot.condensed inthefamous IfHamlethaslosthispositionasasubjectand This, however, canbarely beconsidered asastable solution, asismadeevident by theplay and of the desiremisrecognition and an interpretation as a demand (for love). of lack as structural inherent to the dimension of desire. phallus implies This positioning oneself as the imaginary phallusoftheOther’sto betheimaginary desire, namelytheobjectthatwould undothelack within thequestforhisown positionasasubject. Here LacanpointsoutthatHamletseeks triangle. That explainswhy Hamletmercilessly denouncesthisdesire, asmuch asheneedsit it isobviously whoisable tofunctionasthethird nolongerhisfather elementintheoedipal Hamlet,cern yet he remains puzzled by thequestionofwhat directs and limits this desire when revealed intherelation toward Gertrud, hismother. Shetestifiestoadesire thatdoesnotcon- (of theunconscious). procrastinate?—Lacan egoandthesubject initiallyusesthedistinctionbetween theimaginary Shakespeare’sto William individual tohis orher ‘proper’ place, allocated by apparatusof societyanditsmostimportant psychoanalysis anditselective enemy, namelyapsychotherapy aimingatanadaptation ofthe modest ideaofliberationoremancipation? Doesthisallow forany difference between Lacanian Other. Doesn’t this seal off any possible connection between psychoanalysis and even the most yet problematic place, oneendsupbecomingwhatalways already was forandwithinthe of thought: to be a subject, to imply desire the ego from as a dimension that decenters its safe connection withsubjectivity, thereader by cannot but bestruck theimplicationofthis line object—neither theOthernorHamlet ‘has’ her. Although thefocusisondesire anditsintimate ofDenmark).cated place(prince lost This ismadepossible only viaOpheliaasthestructurally introduces theOther asasymbolicsysteminwhichsubject(Hamlet)needstofinditsallo- This reading isoneofthebestexamples ofLacan’s reinterpretationsofFreud, structuralist and The shifttobecomingasubjectofthesymbolic—thatis, whenconfronting thedimen- (2013:In the seminar onDesireand Its Interpretation 279–419), several sessionsare devoted 10 Hamlet, theego, avoids thedimensionofdesire, anavoiding whichis Hamlet. To answer thequestionplay raises—why doesHamlet Jacques Lacan 49 11 Lacan’s reading

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 01:55 30 Sep 2021; For: 9781315524771, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315524771-4 this traitorandenemy ofthepolisaswell. he raisedagainst Thebes. Notonly is Polynices dead, but Creon wants of toeraseany memory of Creon, kingof Thebes, herbrother shedecidestobury Polynices, thebattle whodiedduring the elementthatescapesthis. of fate The tragic Antigone iswell-known: againsttheprohibition of,articulation on one hand, the dialectic of desire and the symbolic law and, on the other hand, tage/Stale Bread/TheHumiliatedFather , Lacan’s one can discern preoccupation with theprecise may consider anactaccording toadivine will,Antigone asperforming adds but Lacancrucially what that is, neitherborrowed madeofamaterial from noroffered by theOther. without recourse (2013: 502)thatthesubjectneedstoinvent ananswer, beyond thesignifier— (Hilflosigkeit), and it is precisely to this paradoxical relation of both dependence and being left borrowed Otherbythe subjectwithregard usingaterm tothedesiring from Freud, helplessness offered asymbolicidentitybut aslacking, astestifyingtodesire. thepositionof Lacandescribes discuss anotheraspectofthisOther—thatis, theOthernotasfieldwhere thesubjectis sion. The concluding sessionsof Seminar VI—thatis, onHamlet—however, afterthecommentary andattentionfocusedmainlyonthe laws governingbolic determination thissymbolicdimen- had introduced thenotionofdesire years before SeminarVI, theemphasiswas putonitssym - (2013: hero ofdesire. 488)andastragic isnolongerusefultodetailthelogic Although Lacan of desire. At theendoftragedy, assoon ‘Hamlet isHamlet’, ‘he isabolishedinhisdesire’ may be the reason why, immediately after the lessons on inevitable result, Lacan’s theunconscious, focusconcerns operationsrequired logical forit. This looks theotherdimensiontoOther: itslack. As much assymbolicidentitymay bean on thesubject’s representation withinthesymbolicorder. whether thispoliticsamountstoanything otherthananinvitation toaccepttheOther’s decision stated,famously ‘is politics’ (1966–1967: lesson of 10 May already haddecidedabouttheiridentity: ‘white’, ‘the Dane’. If ‘the unconscious’, asLacanonce inLogicalTime: by theprisoners the oneperformed they choosetobewhattheOtheralways granted by the Other.ultimately depend on a signifier The kind of act involved is not unlike cluding thetimeforcomprehending, but alsothattheconditionsofpossibilityforsuchanact and animagethatmakes any ‘selfhood’ impossible), actcon- thatthisimpliesananticipatory subjectivity istobesituatedbesidetheidentificationwithother(asbothanimageof myself self-reduplication, From thefamily? Lacan’s take onHamletwe have seenthatnon-imaginary analysis ofbothSophocles’s Antigone ics ofPsychoanalysis (1992)andTransference (2015), two othertragediesplay apivotal role. Inhis In thetwo (2013[1958–1959]), years afterDesireandItsInterpretation TheEth - intheseminars the law. it constitutesabreak withany natural or ‘real’ foundationandbecomesthelaw because . from—thatbut asafigure attheplacewhere is, whopositionsherself thelaw originates where autonomous, not in the sense that she would (auto) to another, subject herself divine law (nomos) at all. Creon’s law, decisionmay against anunwritten run but ispresentedAntigone herself as reading, boilsdown conflictbetween tothetragic two oflaw, sorts ahumananddivine one?Not Creon’s andtake care ofPolynices’s burial. DoesthismeanthatAntigone, according toLacan’s laws (Lacan1992: 258). And, indeed, Antigone referstoadivine law, hertoignore whichpermits of all’, injudgment, makes error afatal becausehumanlaws are limitedby unwritten, divine This isclearlyapossible way ofreading Lacan, whichis, however, onlypossible ifoneover- Antigone reveals tousinanaestheticway. The tragedyisancientinthatrespect thatone 14 ofthelaw orthesymbolicorder,This arbitrariness the ‘nothing’ on whichit rests, is Not Without anObject 12 andPaul Claudel’s TheHos- trilogy early-20th-century Dominiek HoensDominiek 13 Inthisway Creon, ‘who existstopromote the good 50 1967) then here the question is indeed Hamlet, to the question Lacan returns . . itis Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 01:55 30 Sep 2021; For: 9781315524771, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315524771-4 mark, itdoesnotposition thesubjectwithinapreexisting genealogy ornarrative. Itisonlyin e. d. Before paying attentiontothese, we should add toourlisttwo more aspectsofsubjectivity: when lookingatthedetails—andLacan’s differences becomeclear. laterteaching—important desire andasaspecific reply tothisdesire. nonsymbolic andnon-specular supplement that functions both as an indication of the Other’s bythe Coûfontainetrilogy Pensée. thisexceptionasobjeta,This leadsLacantoformalize the In twitch ofthehead, ofanew symbolicuniverse. standsatthebeginning child andtherefore, toSygne’s afterthecompletedissolutionofCoûfontainefamily negating yet them, without being able to return because she is blind. She will eventually give to a birth the enigmaticPensée, adistantrelative toSygnedeCoûfontaine, attractsallthegazestoherself, rations ofthesubject, ofClaudel’s letusnotethatinthethird part play, TheHumiliatedFather, (un signequenon). ofthis Before discussingthe import ‘sign ofno’ for Lacan’s subsequent elabo- she didthisoutoflove forhim. Sygnedoesnotutterasingleword, sheonlygives ‘a signofno’ tined forherhusband, Turelure. Just before dying, heasksherwhy shesaved hislifeandwhether lished version ofthis ending, nonethelessextensively discussedby Lacan—shetakes abullet des- and allow toRome. himtoreturn part—actually,At theendoffirst unpub- inanoriginally the assassinofherparents. willsaveThis demandingsacrifice thepopefrom being kept hostage estate,family oneaskshertomarry Toussaint Turelure, oneofthefamily’s servants and former name by andforthearistocratic ‘Coûfontaine’, unfolds. to restoreAfter years the ofsacrifices part, Lacanian terms, thehero alackordesire asasubject. oftheOtherthatconcerns as somethingthatmay ormay notexist, andforemost but first asadesire, awill(volonté), or, in gests thatapsychoanalyticapproach totragedydoesnotfocusontheOther(thegods, law, etc.) times that inourmodern ‘the wholesphere ofthegods’ hasbeenerased(1992: 260). This sug- is performed by signifier, afirst is performed S Sygne’s of the subject within the symbolic order sign of no teaches Lacan that the insertion the objeta, operational. placewithinthesymbolicandotherconsistsinmaking theextra-symbolicelement,formed tions. These changesare twofold: theeffectofsignifierbeyondgranting apre oneconcerns - the extra-symbolicelementinitiatinganew symbolicuniverse. by undertheguiseofSygneasafigurereturn completelycrushed thesignifierandof Pensée as identifies withdesire asthefoundation, thelackofOther; andinClaudel’s play theseissues In

Hamlet this role is fulfilled by Ophelia, in Hamlet themisrecognition andeventual abolitionofdesire is at stake; inAntigonethehero The three tragediesteach Lacan thatthe symbolic isnot without its nonsymbolic exception. clearinthesessionsdevotedThis becomesparticularly toClaudel’s play (1972). Inthefirst The differences, however, Lacan’s andthoroughly are important determine future elabora- consistent Other, oneisthesubjectoflatter’s lackanddesire. Beyond specularidentificationwith fellow humanbeings(‘theother’)and reliance ona Symbolic identityrequires theinvention Other. ofareply totheOtherquadesiring The Hostage, setinNapoleonicFrance, ofSygne deCoûfontaine, fate the tragic wholives The OneandtheOther 1 , which ismeaninglessassuch, becauseasapure (negating) Jacques Lacan The One The 15 Ingeneral, thisappliestothethree tragedies, but Antigone by the (empty) field of the gods, and in 51 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 01:55 30 Sep 2021; For: 9781315524771, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315524771-4 Hostage. From theformula, we canderive thatthisS [1972–1973]: 12–22). as aproduction ofbêtises, stupidities, tobetaken (Lacan 1998 literallyasmute signifiers signifiers would take place—issuspended. Thatiswhy Lacanqualifiesthe workofanalysis which impliesthattheinevitable between effectofmeaning—assoonastheinterplay two position of the agent, producing the S identify withtheword). what you are) and universalizes (the subject of the word ‘worker’ is the collection of those who betweenan interplay two ormore signifiers. Asanemptysignifier, (thisis itbothsingularizes other hand, asamark, itsuspendsallmeaningthatisautomaticallyproduced assoonthere is there is no pure, authentic subject, because any subject is a subject of the signifier—yet, on the structure. ‘Worker’ inthissenseis, ononehand, oftheOther— oftheprimacy anaffirmation it lacksany reference toaspecific placeoneisinvited tooccupyfamily orothersocial withina that is, withoutadirect meaningandisolatedfrom othersignifiers, yet unlike theproper name, (from S a discussionon logic,Aristotelian exemplifies thedifference between asubjectas represented fiers. clearwhen, ofthisbecomes particularly Theimportance later,years Lacan, inthemidstof element relating and asatrait isolatedfrom to other signifiers and repressed by theothersigni- combination with the other signifiers—formalized as S combination with the other signifiers—formalized the excluded other allowing the formation ofacollectivity); the excludedotherallowing (seeNumberThirteen theformation and politicalrole. This role cantake ondifferent concrete appearances andfunctions, including place withinasocio-symbolicstructure, quaobjeta, theotherreturns fulfillinganothersocial means toconstituteacollectivity andthesymbolicOtherallocatinganyone tohisorherproper capable from thatpositiontoinitiateasymbolicorder. Simplyput, otherasa aftertheimaginary operative notion. We have seenthisalready withPensée, positionandis whooccupiesacertain objet a. Within thecontextofthischapter, Lacan, interestingly, madetheobjetaintoan gradually pleteness orlackofunity(i.e., itsdesire) isguaranteedby anelementthatisnonsymbolic, the cates theissueofhow theOtherquasymbolicorder isnot ‘one’ but ‘other’. The Other’s incom- Here ‘the other’ other, does not refer to the imaginary the fellow human being. It instead indi- 3.1). university (Diagram discourses evident by theanalyticdiscourse, by Lacan, asformalized nexttothemaster, andthe thehysteric tion oftheobject, thecauseofsubject’s desire. The latterinstantiation oftheobjetaismade need);object satisfyingacertain andtheenigmaticpresence oftheanalyst, occupying theposi- the consumerby way ofthe commodity, whichinmany ways ismore anddifferent than a mere jouissance that the capitalist extracts from the proletarian’s work to (which then getsreturned 1968). February which itisunclearwhoandhow many willobey thesummons(Lacan1967–1968: lessonof7 classes; oneismerely invited toidentifywithonesignifier, whichhasnoprecise meaningandof the secondphrase, however, instancedifferentiates theclassofworkers noexternal from other under) the combination of the twoidentifiable (and disappears signifiers: good and worker. In phrase,the first apredicate (good)getsconnectedtoasubject(worker), andthereby thelatteris ‘workers oftheworld, unite’, linefrom thefamous MarxandEngels’s Communist Manifesto. In explains, between theword ‘worker’ phrase inthepaternalist ‘they are goodworkers’ andin and withinthesymbolic. In thefigureabove, oftheanalyticdiscourse the objet atakes intheupper-left-corner 1 toS 2 ) andthesubjectasmarked by onesignifier(S 17 Here thesignifieractslike aproper name—compare Hamlet, Coûfontaine— 16 differentiation betweenThis isacrucial thesignifierasasymbolic 19 Dominiek HoensDominiek The Other The 1 discovered the analysis of Claudel’s during 52 2 1 —that the subject gets represented by is barred from isbarred any accesstoan S 1 ). This isthewholedifference, he 18 thesurplus- The 2 , Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 01:55 30 Sep 2021; For: 9781315524771, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315524771-4 hypothesis oftheunconscious?—and thatitresonates withthefundamentalproblem, sketched isspeakingandthe otherislisteningwithandfromthe do andwhathappenswhenone person one, in the sense that it is closest to Lacan’s can psychoanalysis psychoanalytical purposes—what tioned, analyzed, andeventually created? The latter question seemstobethemostimportant canbe ques- place oftheexceptionoutwhich existing(unconscious)symbolicformations as thereasonracism andsexism, topersistent asthe orshouldoneconsideritmore structurally ofany collectiveShould oneconsideritastheexclusioninherent totheformation identityand question ofwhatfunctionsastheexceptiontosymbolic universe andhow itdoesthis. one cancallthesymbolicLacan. empty andnooneclaimstopossessorspeakthetruth. These two optionsbelongtowhat racy, asapoliticalthinkingaccording towhichtheplaceofpower needstobe kept structurally Or onecanpointtoward ofliberaldemoc- thelackinOtherandtake ittobetheprinciple known dissolutionofsymbolicstructures ing thecurrent as ‘family’, ‘society’, and ‘community’. toLacan, Otherandendupdeplor- Referring one can emphasizethenecessityofaprimordial however, isifand how theseelementscanbesynthesizedintoacoherent ‘political Lacan’. It willbeclearthatLacan’s work containsmany usefulelementsforpolitical theory; less clear, nalysis, editedby Jacques-Alain Miller, trans. by RussellGrigg, New York: W. adaptedfromSource: Diagram Lacan, Jacques (2008) [1969–1970]TheSeminar, BookXVII:W. - The OtherSideofPsychoa & Co., Norton p. Diagram 3.1 Next tothis, onemay want tofocusontheextra-symbolicobjeta. This notionraisesthe Lacan’s Four Discourses Conclusion Jacques Lacan 53 29. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 01:55 30 Sep 2021; For: 9781315524771, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315524771-4 f. ofourLacaniansubject: add toourlistonefinalcharacteristic the singularandstupidyet potentiallyuniversalizing signifierS to conceive possible changeinpoliticsasapassingfrom thepositionofexcludedobjectto mordial, collectivizing, andburdening lackand itssubjectwithanopaquedesire andastructural required forpolitics ‘as whatlinkspeopletogether’,- toaxiomaticallyconsidertheOther aspri conclude thatLacanianpsychoanalysisteachesustolookfortheunconscious, operations logical it. oridentifyingthesubjectbut rathersingularizing not somuch determining Therefore, we can with thisabjectobject(thepositionoftheanalyst)andpromise thatitwillreveal asignifier, point outsideof it (objeta).an eccentric The wager of psychoanalysis consists in a confrontation teaching. This problem istheproblem ofthesubjectasbothsituatedwithinOtherandat earlier inthischapter, thatpreoccupies Lacanfrom tothelaterphasesofhis thebeginning 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.

pupil Ernest Jones. pupil Ernest An analysisalongthoselineswould beFreud’s, but Lacantakes himindirectly, care tocriticize viahis Hoens (2016). The following onHamletare borrowed, paragraphs withminorchangesandadifferent emphasis, from such asathttp://staferla.free.fr. totheyears 1964–1968,belonging are available onlyasmore orlessreliable yet unofficial transcripts, published by hisson-in-law Jacques-Alain Miller, seminars, althoughsomeimportant especiallythose (2001). (2006[1966])andAutres Ecrits in hisEcrits Many volumes have oftheseminars beeneditedand ered to be more accessible than the condensed results stemming from them, included to wit the articles Lacan’s tookplace, seminars atdifferent locations, from 1953to1980. These yearly are seminars consid- the individual ortheego; see, forexample, Lacan2006: 99. Not tomentionLacan’s oftheincreasing andmisleadingreduction ofanything critique subjective to such asPascal andLaRochefoucauld, theegoorselfasavain illusion. ofcritiquing Here, ofcourse, LacansituateshimselfwithinaFrench tradition, moralists with17th-century starting imago(2001:so-called paternal 60). This canberelated toLacan’s pointofidentification, earlystatementsonthedeclineofanexternal the them iscapable, andmotivated by theprospect offreedom, reasoning. thesamelogical toperform of them seestwo white disks on the others’prisoners—each backs—and it is supposed that each of This may sound odd, but oneneedstotake intoaccountthatthesituation isthesameforthree commentsonLacan’sfurther text, seeHoens(2020). and ‘the three wisemen’, amongothers. several offers The internet detaileddiscussionsofthem. For This isanotherwell-known puzzle, ofwhichmany exist, variants withnameslike ‘the muddy children’ Freud’s statement: with what ‘links peopletogether andopposesthem’ (1966–1967: lessonof10May 1967). This echoes Even 20 years later, statesthat when Lacanfamously ‘the unconscious is politics’, he identifies politics 41–57). topublish asoundsolution.among thefirst ,For adetailedaccountofNumberThirteen seeCopin(2016: about thismathematicalpuzzleby FrançoisLeLionnais, must have level beenonaninternational See Khovanova (2015) for arecent review ofapproaches tothisproblem. Interestingly, Lacan, informed seminar, bothin1953. and Language in Psychoanalysis (Lacan 2006:the Field of Speech 197–268) and the opening of his public publication ofthepaperTheFunctionand isusuallyidentifiedwiththeoriginal ofthisperiod The start signifier beyond theindividual andwiththe potentialtocreate anon-totalizable collectivity. An ‘objective’ exceptionreveals thesubjectintofieldofOther, asignifierinserting a justifiable senseofthe words, isatthesametimesocialpsychology as well. helper, asanopponent; andsofrom individual thevery first psychology, inthisextended but entirely In theindividual’s mentallifesomeoneelseisinvariably involved, asamodel, asan object, asa Dominiek HoensDominiek Notes 54 1 . Ifthisisthecase, thenwe can (Freud 1981[1921]: 69) Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 01:55 30 Sep 2021; For: 9781315524771, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315524771-4 19. 18. 17. 16. 15. 14. 13. 12. Khovanova, T. (2015) ‘Parallel Weighings of Coins’, in Beineke, J. andRosenhouse, J. (eds.) Hoens, D. (2020) ‘Comments onLogicalTime’, inHook, D., Neill, C. and Vanheule, S. (eds.), Lacan’s Ecrits: Hoens, D. (2016) ‘The ObjectaandPolitics’, in Tomši č, S. andZevnik, A. (eds.)Jacques Lacan: BetweenPsy- Freud, S. (1981)[1921] ‘Group Psychology andthe Analysis of theEgo’, inTheStandard EditionoftheCom- De Kesel, M. (2009) Copin, J. deLacan: (2016)LesPrisonniers UneIntroductionau Temps Logique, Paris: Hermann. Clemens, J. andGrigg, R. (eds.)(2006)Jacques LacanandtheOtherSideofPsychoanalysis: ReflectionsonSemi- Claudel, P. (1972)L’otage suivideLepainduretpèrehumilié, Paris: Gallimard. Lacan, J. (2013)[1958–1959]LeSéminaire, Livre VI:, LeDésiretsonInterpretation Miller, J.-A. (ed.), Paris: La Lacan, J. (2008)[1969–1970]TheSeminar, BookXVII: The OtherSideofPsychoanalysis, Miller, J.-A. (ed.), Lacan, J. (2007)[1954] ‘Du Symbole, etdesa Fonction Religieuse’, LeMytheIndividuelduNévrosé , Paris: Lacan, J., (2006)[1966]Ecrits Fink, B. (trans.), LondonandNew York: Lacan,W.W. J., (2001)Autres Ecrits Paris: Seuil. & Co. Norton Lacan, J. (1998)[1972–1973]TheSeminar, BookXX: Encore , Miller, J.-A. (ed.), Fink, B. (trans.), Londonand Lacan, J. (1992)[1959–1960]TheSeminar, Book VII: The EthicsofPsychoanalysis , Miller, J.-A.Lacan, (ed.), J. Porter, (1967–1968)LeSéminaire, D. LivreXV: L’Acte Psychanalytique, unpublished. Lacan, J. (1966–1967)LeSéminaire, LivreXIV: LaLogiqueduFantasme , unpublished. Lacan, J. (1961–1962)LeSéminaire, LivreIX: L’Identification , unpublished.

A Reader’s Guide—Volume 1, LondonandNew York: Routledge. choanalysis and Politics, LondonandNew York: Routledge. Works Psychological ,plete vol. 18, Strachey, J. (trans.), London: Press.The Hogarth University ofNew York Press. nar XVII, DurhamandLondon: Duke University Press. Martinière. Grigg, R. (trans.), LondonandNew York: W.W. & Co. Norton Seuil. New York: W.W. & Co. Norton (trans.), LondonandNew York: W.W. & Co. Norton of Various Subjects, Entertaining New Jersey: University Press. Princeton (2017: 197–223) ment ofafifthdiscourse, the capitalistone, see Tomšič (2015: 199–229), Vanheule (2016), andŽižek (2006)and to ClemensandGrigg Tomšič andZevnik (2016). For recent accountsofLacan’s develop- reader may want toconsultLacan(2008[1969–1970])and Verhaeghe contributions (1995)and various Lacan’s master, fourdiscourses—the hysteric, analytic, anduniversity—cannot bediscussedhere. The ofauniversalityFor aLacanianenquiry thatisnon-segregationist, seeŠumič2016. acollection,form class, group, orschool. cal question about what makes an analyst into an analyst and whether analysts can(not) or should (not) Lacan’s question. Although obviously crucial, here we cannotexplore Lacan’s ofthepoliti- articulation The questionofwhat ‘is’ apsychoanalystandwhatunitespsychoanalystsprovides thebackgroundto 1961–1962: lessonof6December 1961. seminar inwhich, timeas significantlyforthefirst well,tries toconceptualizetheobjeta; Lacan see signifier’ isproposed by Lacannotbefore theendof1961, stillunpublished theunfortunately during ing totheearly1950s, formula whereas thefamous ‘a signifieriswhat represents asubjectforanother kind ofequationoverlooks thatthesymbolicisanotiononecanalready findintextsbelong- thefact Discussions of Lacan often equate ‘the symbolic’ with ‘the signifier representing the subject’, but this For more aboutthenotionofobjeta, seeHoens(2016). This reading of Antigone’s ‘autonomy’ isinspired by Marc DeKesel (2009: 223–225). For more aboutthis ‘second death’ anditsbackground, seeNobus 2017: 47–72. Creon wants toerasePolynices himwitha asasignifier—tostrike ‘seconddeath’, asLacanqualifiesit. Stavrakakis 2007: 109–149. references,further seethedetailedaccountofadebatebetween Yannis Stavrakakis andSlavoj Žižekin dant tolistithere. For adiscussionof Antigone’s actasamodelofrevolutionary tragic action, andfor Lacan’s discussionofAntigone(1992: 243–283)provoked awealth literature, ofsecondary tooabun- Eros and Ethics: Reading Jacques Lacan’s Seminar VII, Jöttkandt, S. (trans.), Albany: State Jacques Lacan References 55 The Mathematics Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 01:55 30 Sep 2021; For: 9781315524771, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315524771-4 Žižek, S. (2017)Incontinenceofthe Void, Cambridge, MAandLondon: MITPress. Verhaeghe, P. (1995) ‘From ImpossibilitytoInability: Lacan’s oftheFour Discourses’,Theory TheLetter, Vanheule, S. (2016) ‘Capitalist Discourse, Subjectivity andLacanianPsychoanalysis’, FrontiersinPsychology,7. Tomšič, S. andZevnik, A. (eds.)(2016)Jacques Lacan: BetweenPsychoanalysis andPolitics, LondonandNew Tomšič, S. (2015)TheCapitalistUnconscious: London: MarxandLacan, Verso. Šumič, J. (2016) ‘Politics and Psychoanalysisin the Times ofthe Inexistent Other’, in Tomšič, S. andZevnik, Stavrakakis, Y. (2007) Roudinesco, E. (1997)Jacques Lacan, Bray, B. (trans.), New York:Nobus, D. ColumbiaUniversity Press. (2017)TheLawofDesire. OnLacan’s ‘Kant withSade’, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Lacan, Seminar, J. BookVIII: Transference (2015)[1960–1961]The , Miller, J.-A. (ed.), Fink, B. (trans.),- Cam 3, 76–100. York: Routledge. A. (eds.)Jacques Lacan: BetweenPsychoanalysis and Politics, LondonandNew York: Routledge. Press. bridge: Polity Press. The LacanianLeft: Psychoanalysis, Theory, Politics, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Dominiek HoensDominiek 56