Introduction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Notes Introduction 1. References to those of Lacan’s seminars that have been published take the form ‘S’ followed by the relevant seminar number and page number, as in ‘Sx, p. x’. Details as to the publication status of the seminars referenced can be found in the Bibliography. All references to the unpublished seminars are to Cormac Gallagher’s unofficial translations, with references following the form ‘Sx, lesson of date month year’. All references to published seminars are to Jacques- Alain Miller’s edited series, with references to the English version where available. I have sometimes made use of Gallagher’s translations even where a published seminar exists in French. All references to Lacan’s Écrits are to Bruce Fink’s 2006 English translation; publication details are located in the bibliography under ‘Abbreviations’. 2. Lacan’s orientation of psychoanalytic theory away from the ego as the proper seat of the subject, and from any psychoanalytic practice that would shore up the ego, is reflected in his long rhetorical battle with ‘ego psychology’ as developed initially by Heinz Hartmann from Anna Freud’s work on defence mechanisms, and is reflected more generally in his hostility to any attempt to link psychoanalytic practice with the adaptation of the subject to the norms of wider society. See S1, p. 11; A. Freud, The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense: The Writings of Anna Freud, vol. 2 (New York: International Universities Press Inc., 1971); H. Hartmann, Ego Psychology and the Problem of Adaptation (New York: International Universities Press Inc., 1968); P. Van- Haute, Against Adaptation: Lacan’s ‘Subversion of the Subject’ (New York: Other Press, 2002). 3. C. Shepherdson, Vital Signs: Nature, Culture, Psychoanalysis (New York: Routledge, 2000), p. 57. 4. P. Verhaeghe, ‘Causality in Science and Psychoanalysis’, in J. Glynos and Y. Stavrakakis (ed.), Lacan and Science (London: Karnac, 2002), p. 126. 5. M. de Kesel, Eros and Ethics: Reading Jacques Lacan’s Seminar VII (Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 2009), p. 88. 6. Ibid., pp. 88–9. 7. In this, my book could be considered to be in the recent lineage of philosophical readings of Lacan by young scholars, distinguished by their immanent reconstruction of Lacanian theory as an alternative to philosophical comparativism. Three representative, and no doubt supe- rior, texts are P. Van- Haute, Against Adaptation; L. Chiesa, Subjectivity and Otherness: A Philosophical Reading of Lacan (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007); and E. Pluth, Signifiers and Acts: Freedom in Lacan’s Theory of the Subject (Albany NY: State University of New York Press, 2007). 8. In 1953, Lacan writes of the subject’s ‘satisfactions whose objects are in the Real, plain and simple’ ( J. Lacan, ‘The Symbolic, the Imaginary and the Real’, unpublished translation by Scott Savaiano; French text available as 165 166 Notes ‘Le symbolique, l’imaginaire et le rèel’ in Bulletin de l’Association Freudienne 1, pp. 4–13). A similar conflation of the Real with the commonsensical notion of ‘reality’ can be found in the multiple references to the ‘real object’ in Lacan’s first seminar, where the substantive nonetheless also operates as part of the triad of the Symbolic, the Imaginary and the Real, and thus as distinct from any notion of ‘reality’ (S1, passim). 9. Especially in the articles ‘Aggressiveness in Psychoanalysis’ (Écrits, pp. 82–102) and ‘The Mirror Stage as Formative of the I Function as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience’ (Écrits, pp. 75–82); see Chapter 1 in this book. 10. S1, p. 206. 11. F. de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics (London: Peter Owen, 1974). 12. See, in particular, Lacan’s appropriation of Aristotle’s distinction between ‘tuche’ and ‘automaton’ in S11, p. 53. 13. Jacqueline Rose, ‘Introduction: II’, in J. Mitchell and J. Rose, Feminine Sexuality: Jacques Lacan and the école Freudienne (New York: Macmillan, 1982), p. 56. 14. L. Mulvey, ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’, Screen 16(3) (1975), pp. 6–18. 15. See, among a number of relevant articles by MacCabe, ‘Theory and Film: Principles of Realism and Pleasure’, Screen 17(3) (1976), pp. 7–28; the gen- eral ethos of Screen’s marriage of post- Althusserian Marxist criticism and psychoanalytic theory was laid out in R. Coward and J. Ellis, Language and Materialism: Developments in Semiology and the Theory of the Subject (London: Routledge, 1977). 16. See P. Dews, Logics of Disintegration: Poststructuralist Thought and the Claims of Critical Theory, 2nd edn (New York: Verso, 2007 [1987]); D. Macey, Lacan in Contexts (New York: Verso, 1988); M. Bowie, Lacan (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1993). 17. Malcolm Bowie, ‘Lacan After the Fall: An Interview with Malcolm Bowie’, in M. Bowie, Psychoanalysis and the Future of Theory (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), p. 148. 18. S. Žižek, The Sublime Object of Ideology (London: Verso, 1989). 19. See, in particular, J. Butler, Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’ (New York: Routledge, 1993); J. Gallop, The Daughter’s Seduction: Feminism and Psychoanalysis (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986). Butler’s influential critique of Lacan centres on the supposed fixity of his concept of Symbolic law: ‘the symbolic law in Lacan can be subject to the same kind of critique that Nietzsche formulated of the notion of God: the power attributed to this prior and ideal power is derived and deflected from the attribution itself’. I would want, with Žižek and others, to emphasize, by contrast, that aspect of Lacan’s account of the Symbolic that foregrounds the substantial inexistence of the law that Lacan represents in the matheme for the ‘barred Other’ in the graph of desire constructed in ‘The Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire’ (Écrits, pp. 671–703). There is, of course, a strong current of feminist thought that draws positively on Lacan, including E. Grosz, Jacques Lacan: A Feminist Introduction (New York: Routledge, 1990); J. Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 1990); K. Campbell, Jacques Lacan and Feminist Epistemology (New York: Routledge, 2004). Notes 167 20. Many of Žižek’s most sustained readings of politics via Lacanian concepts, taking in his gradual move away from Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s ‘radical democracy’ and towards Marxism, can be found in the collection S. Žižek, The Universal Exception: Selected Writings, eds R. Butler and S. Stephens (London: Continuum, 2006). 21. See J.-A. Miller, ‘Matrix’, Lacanian Ink 12 (Fall) (1997), pp. 45–51; J.-A. Miller, ‘Jacques Lacan’, Psychoanalytic Notebooks of the London Circle 8 (2002), pp. 9–22; J.-A. Miller, ‘H20: Suture in Obsessionality’, Hystoria: Lacan Study Notes 6–9 (1988), pp. 34–44. Miller provides a particularly formalistic reading of Lacan, and it is arguably Miller who has most influentially propagated the notion that Lacan’s seminars of the 1970s, in their supposed turn defini- tively towards the Real, mark a break in his work, an argument that I attempt to counter. Miller’s latter argument is expressed most plainly in his ‘Lacan’s Later Teaching’, although there he also emphasizes the continuity underly- ing the different phases of Lacan’s teaching and openly labels his isolation of a ‘late Lacan’ as a ‘biographical construction’: ‘there is something called Lacan’s late teaching, so called because I have isolated it with this signifier, giving it ex- sistence … I’ve thus isolated a cut that individualizes his later teaching. Isolating it this way is a biographical construction. How can we describe this cut? It isn’t obvious; it is bound up on continuity’ ( J.-A. Miller, ‘Lacan’s Later Teaching’, trans. Barbara P. Fulks, Lacanian Ink 20 (Spring) (2002), p. 4). 22. This conflation is seen most clearly in The Parallax View, where Žižek’s project to create a simultaneously Hegelian and Lacanian logic of contin- gency reaches its apotheosis. The following quote, ostensibly a reflection on Kant and Hegel, is highly similar to descriptions elsewhere of Lacan, especially of the non- existence of Lacan’s ‘big Other’: ‘there is nothing “beyond”, the “Beyond” is only the void of the impossibility/failure of its own representation – or, as Hegel put it at the end of the chapter on con- sciousness in his Phenomenology of Spirit, beyond the veil of phenomena, the consciousness finds only what it itself has put there’ (S. Žižek, The Parallax View (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), pp. 389–90, n. 19). Compare with the following on Lacan: ‘The final dénouement of The Golden Bowl offers no solution proper, no act that would tear the web of lies apart, or in Lacanian terms, would disclose the big Other’s non-existence’ (The Parallax View, p. 143). 23. A. Johnston, Žižek’s Ontology: A Transcendental Materialist Theory of Subjectivity (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2008). 24. A. Johnston, Time Driven: Metapsychology and the Splitting of the Drive (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2005). 25. A. Zupancˇicˇ, Ethics of the Real: Kant and Lacan (New York: Verso, 2000). 26. C. Shepherdson, Vital Signs; C. Shepherdson, Lacan and the Limits of Language (New York: Fordham University Press, 2008); J. Copjec, Read my Desire: Lacan against the Historicists (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996); J. Copjec, Imagine there’s No Woman: Ethics and Sublimation (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004). 27. For a critical account of the French feminist use of ‘sex’, see S. Sandford, ‘Sex: A Transdisciplinary Concept’, Radical Philosophy 165( January/February) (2011). 168 Notes 28. G. Le Gaufey, Le pas- tout de Lacan (Paris: EPEL, 2006). See especially the chapter ‘Towards a Critical Reading of the Formulas of Sexuation’, an English translation of which is available at www.lacaninireland.com/web/ wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ TOWARDS- A- CRITICAL- READING-2506.pdf.