Every Dream Is a Discourse : MANZI 73 Every Dream Is a Discourse: Lacan, Jung, and the Linguistic Nature of Unconscious Dreamscapes GEOFFREY C. MANZI “The unconscious is that chapter of my history that is marked by a blank or occupied by a falsehood: it is the censored chapter. But the truth can be rediscovered; usually, it has already been written down elsewhere.”1 —Jacques Lacan INTRODUCTION Despite their status as major influences in the history of psychoanalysis, exceedingly little academic scholarship within the discipline of psychology focuses on bringing Jacques Lacan and Carl Gustav (C.G.) Jung into dialogue GEOFFREY MANZI is a doctoral student of philosophy in the Institute of Philosophic Studies at the University of Dallas. His primary research interests include twentieth century continental philosophy, the intersection of philosophy and psychology (esp. psychoanalysis), and the role of narrative in personal identity formation. 1 Jacques Lacan, “The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis,” 38. 74 RAMIFY 5.1 (2015) with one another, and casting a wider net over all areas of research yields no greater catch. Perhaps one reason for such hesitation among scholars is the prevailing notion that the psychologists’ respective approaches to the mysteries of the unconscious are so fundamentally disparate that bridging the gulf without the aid of interpretive concessions seems impossible. The conclusion one may draw from this lack of exchange on two of psychology’s most influential spearheads is that scholars—treating them as though they were awkward guests at a dinner party—have deemed it better for the sake of the soirée that the two remain muted mutual acquaintances—nay, veritable strangers—rather than force shared conversation upon them. And yet, with a little effort, some of life’s most engrossing discussions emerge in spite of popular expectation; perhaps the time has come for a host to seat each thinker across from the other at the dinner table, so to speak. It is in the spirit of such cautious optimism that I propose a scholarly toast to temerity in the form of a carefully drawn out comparison of two of psychology’s most cryptic contemplatives and uncompromising critics. The following comparison provides the reader with a salient account of each psychologist’s notion of the unconscious, beginning with Lacan before moving on to Jung. The purpose of these overviews is twofold: to provide a context out of which each thinker’s approach to dream interpretation emerges and, accordingly, to articulate the interpretive method by which each thinker investigates dreams. For this reason, I have either omitted or downplayed those facets of thought in either's psychoanalytic theory that do not directly attend to dream interpretation. Ultimately, such a comparison yields insight into the primacy of language—and specific manifestations thereof—in both Lacanian and Jungian psychoanalytic dream interpretation, thereby situating our otherwise psychoanalytic antipodes on common ground, itself an indispensable condition for engendering rich and rewarding dialogue.2 Most 2 This article is part of a larger work, in which I continue the investigation introduced here by venturing beyond the rarified air of the theoretical and into the realm of applied understanding via the case study. Specifically, I recall in detail Jung’s analysis of the infamous Frank Miller dream series, which is found in his Symbols of Transformation, followed by an endeavor to apply a Lacanian-influenced hermeneutic approach to the same set of dreams. A comparison of these respective interpretations—both Jung’s published findings and my own determination of what Lacan’s conclusion’s might have been, given what I establish about his analytic method in this article—arguably bears the fruit of the overall labor; in what follows, I establish the grounds for Every Dream Is a Discourse : MANZI 75 importantly, it is my hope that the following comparison inspires the reader toward attentive reflection upon the nature and significance of one’s own dreams. PART I, SECTION I A SEMIOTICS OF SYMPTOMS: LACAN’S LINGUISTIC REFORMULATION OF PSYCHOANALYSIS Perhaps the most noted aspect of Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory is its foundational apothegm, namely, that the unconscious is structured like a language.3 That such a provocative proposition monopolizes the attention paid to Lacan’s work is appropriate, for, beyond grounding Lacan’s interpretive method of dream analysis, this insight into the nature of the unconscious impacts his theory on subjectivity, informs his understanding of the psychological dimension of human lifespan development, and even tempers his expectation for the rehabilitative capacity of psychoanalysis. Indeed, this singular premise presides over all facets of Lacan’s thought, for it is the orienting principle—of a particularly disorienting quality—that allows one to recognize the precise way in which seemingly disparate elements of his psychoanalytic theory cohere. However, in order to begin to understand what Lacan might mean by this rather mystifying statement—especially as it relates to our investigation of dreams—one must first be aware of its place in the gradual unfurling of psychoanalysis in general, that is, from psychoanalysis’ nascence as a science intent on studying previously unconsidered psychic phenomena with the overall aim of helping disturbed individuals, to what might be perceived as a such a case study through a careful (and what I hope is compelling) comparison of Lacan and Jung. 3 The first time this formula appears in print is in one of Lacan's seminars. There, it appears in rudimentary form: “Translating Freud, we say—the unconscious is a language” (Lacan, Seminars, 11). Interestingly, Lacan himself expressed some concern over his somewhat tautological formulation on at least one occasion: when speaking to a gathering of international scholars in Baltimore during the autumn of 1966, he admits that the qualification, “as a language,” is wholly redundant because it means exactly the same thing as “structured” (See Lacan, “Of Structure,” 188). For further elaboration and contextualization of this qualification, see also Nobus, “Lacan’s science of the subject,” 58. 76 RAMIFY 5.1 (2015) multifarious academic enterprise—one that has forgotten its dialogical and curative roots. Thus, it is in response to what Lacan views as a schism within the psychoanalytic movement of the early 1950’s that he often characterizes his own approach to psychoanalysis as a return to Freud.4 In doing so, Lacan intends to suggest that his approach to psychoanalysis is a “return to the meaning of Freud,” which is to say, a return to a particular kind of symbolic order yielded by the unconscious, one that begs for interpretation in, by, and through language.5 Not incidentally, Lacan’s contribution to Freudian psychology in this regard is to suggest that, in order to do so truly (and thereby remain authentically Freudian), one must first interpret the unconscious as a language by virtue of fully recognizing its intrinsic linguistic structure. To be sure, Lacan is not suggesting that an unconscious is located at a specific spot within each one of us—as though it were an observable piece of the brain or its own bodily organ—wherein it “speaks” its own particular language similar to all other languages found throughout the world. Rather, he means to claim that, collectively, those psychical symptoms of an individual that manifest outside of the realm of one’s conscious intentions and circumvent one’s conscious awareness reveal, or communicate, themselves in such a fashion that indicates a kinship with the way in which language itself operates, especially with regard to those governing features that afford language its perceived organic quality and structural integrity. Furthermore, Lacan argues for such an understanding of the unconscious by synthesizing preexisting, albeit refined, Freudian tenets with linguistic elements, a synthesis that he accomplishes through a novel appropriation of certain key precepts found in structuralism. To present most clearly Lacan’s position within the proper context of his most significant influences, I follow the trajectory of Lacan’s development of Freud by beginning with the emergence of the unconscious in childhood development prior to its articulation in dream form, followed by Freud’s identification—and Lacan’s subsequent deepening—of the operative elements organizing dreams, before finally 4 Lacan, “The Function and Field of Speech in Psychoanalysis,”197–201. For a separate and, arguably, more impassioned plea, please see Lacan, “Beyond the ‘Reality Principle,’” 58–74. 5 Ibid., My emphasis. Lacan employs this banner-statement in several different essays throughout his corpus as a way to describe his overall objective. Perhaps most poignantly, Lacan unequivocally proclaims the following at a public lecture that he delivered roughly one year prior to his death: “It is up to you to be Lacanians if you wish; I am Freudian” (See Jacques Lacan, “Overture to the 1st International Encounter of the Freudian Field,” 18). Every Dream Is a Discourse : MANZI 77 arriving at Lacan’s uncovering of the inherently linguistic nature of such formative principles. Prior to tracing the links in the chains of association that comprise the unconscious, however, it is first necessary to differentiate it from another element of the psyche with which it often gets conflated: the preconscious. To be sure, the unconscious differs from the