Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
discourse of the Other. Lacan held the view that the unconscious is structured like a language
and by this structuring it differed from Freud’s concept of the unconscious as a place or system
of wordless drives or as-yet-un-worded thoughts or ideas. For Lacan, the unconscious is only
available through language, through the discourse of the Other and the unconscious itself is
structured like a language. In order to evaluate this statement the essay has been split into the
following:
These identified areas of discussion are inter-related but will be discussed in brief, separately to
In order to understand and evaluate the statement that the unconscious is the discourse of
the Other we must clarify what the Other is. The Other can be described as a combination of
language as a structure, a symbolic order which mediates the relationship with that other subject,
be that legal, cultural or kin and as the Freudian unconscious. It is language and the law. It is
based in the Symbolic insofar as it is particularised for each subject. It transcends the Imaginary
constituted the I who speaks with him who hears, that which is said by the one being already the
reply and the other deciding to hear it whether the one has or has not spoken. In the first instance
it is the mother who first occupies the position of the Other for the child. She acts as the Other
and receives the cries of the child and retroactively sanctions them as a particular message. Via
the process of castration and the completion of the Oedipus Complex the child discovers that the
Other is not complete and that a lack exists. The Other places itself between the individual and
the objects of their desire. Via language the Other makes desire insatiable and unstable. The
Other takes language as its field of action, it regulates everything. The Other makes the subject
speak and when the subject speaks it is trying to speak to the Other, and when spoken something
of the Other is returned to the subject. The Other is the field of stories before, during and after
the subject. It is the words, images and desires with which the subject identifies. It is the system
of language with rules, laws and regulations that become part of our psyche. The Other should
not be confused with the little other. The little other is the reflection and projection of the ego. It
is the image of the reflection of one’s own body in the mirror or those which are seen as
The symbolic is the networks, social, cultural and linguistic into which a child is born.
Lacan states that the Symbolic is a linguistic dimension. Language reaches farther to the
Imaginary and the Real but the Symbolic is linguistically based in the signifier that is objects,
words, based on differences. By working in the symbolic the analyst can produce changes in the
subjective position of the analysand, the effect of which is seen in the images and appearances in
the Imaginary. For Lacan the Symbolic is a signifying process in which subjectivity is to be
found.
experiences but rather a series of events within language, as proposed by Lacan. Being a person
with a personality comes from the signifying chain of language. Language makes and splits the
subject at once. The speech which takes place between individuals encompasses their social
order. The subject is born into language and language has always been there from the beginning
of the individual’s subject hood. This pre-existing language defines them but does not give the
The Other and the Subject come into being together under speech. There is no meaning
outside of words. Language is reality and everything pertaining to experience is language. Truth
and fact do not exist but in temporary form as language is based on a shifting ground between
words and meanings. We as subjects engage in anti-speech, saying things that have no
relationship to the truth, both consciously and unconsciously. Language provides a protection
against the Real. Language cannot bring totality or bring a final answer, we must reconcile with
this. Language exists before, during and after us, we have no option but to enter into language. If
we do not enter into language we depend on the imaginary which takes the form of delusional
thinking and hallucination with no means of negotiation. Language can be seen as a voluntary
produced set of arbitrary symbols, although we are captured by language born into a pre-existing
set. Language allows us to communicate but defines us as human. It is a set of infinite symbols
arranged in infinite sentences but with a grammar and structure applied. Without structure chaos
would ensue although the ability to generate an infinite number of sentences traps us / releases us
into a place where there is always more to be said. Language can be seen to constrain us and
incorporate us into the Symbolic. Language is a historical sense makes use of a diachronic
structure where one element follows another, where one symbol caused another. Language is
between the subject who enunciates and the subject as the object of the statement. Every speech
act implies an answer but also a frustration as we cannot say everything and are constrained by
the language in which we are borne. In speaking we alienate ourselves by identifying with
another. Language refers to a beyond the pleasure principle, to a lack, a stepping into the
symbolic order and a distancing from the immediate experienced reality. Language is not
equivalent to the Symbolic order. The symbolic dimension of language is the signifier and true
speech while the imaginary dimension is that of the signified, signification and empty speech.
Accoustic
Signifier Words
image
= = SIGN
The values of signifiers and signifieds are based on the difference from within the system. The
constitutive element of language is the Signifier. The signifier is primary as without it signifieds
make no sense. The synchronic and chronological aspect of language creates a shifting, sliding
temporary meaning effect. At the punctuation or halt of a sentence a temporary quilting point is
made which allows meaning to be made. This rhythm and unfolding brings meaning. The chain
of signifiers limits the speaker’s freedom, meaning is always determined by context but equally
the chain of signifiers is not fixed in a one-to-one correspondence with the signified. This allows
for an endless chain of sliding or floating signifiers with no absolute truth. Metaphor and
metonymy are the fundamental basis of language and by association the unconscious. Metaphor
metonymy as the means by which the unconscious expresses its symptoms and desires. He ties
this heavily to the Freud’s Dream-work represses the latent content as seen as the unconscious
into the manifest or conscious content. Condensation is seen as metaphor with a signifying
substitution because it involves the substitution of one signifier for another. In language this
substitution takes place mostly due to a semantic or homophonic similarity. This similarity is not
always immediately identifiable when it occurs on an unconscious level. Only associative chains
can reveal it. Displacement is seen via metonymic progression with the analysis of a dream as a
dismantling of the dream-work through the traversing of the chain of contiguous elements.
For Lacan the unconscious is constituted by series of chains of signifying elements. The
gaps in the series of signifiers are where we find the unconscious. The unconscious comes back
via mistakes, slips of tongue, dreams, and jokes. Unconsciousness is not seen as a bio-energetic
power-house behind or beneath human speech. Lacan sees the unconscious as structured like a
language and that there is no veiled signified-in-waiting that will eventually call the crazy
procession of signifiers to order. Freud designates the unconscious as the collection of all one’s
unsatisfied desires whereas Lacan argues that the important thing is not what the disguised desire
is, but how it chooses to disguise itself. In other words, it is the cloaking mechanism that a given
desire uses to slip past one’s moral filters that reveals the nature of the unconscious. Therefore,
the language the unconscious uses to dissemble is every bit as important as the illicit desires that
it tries to cover up. The unconscious is not without logic or its own reason, it requires linguistic
structures to operate, and it requires language to be articulated. The unconscious reveals more in
PSH 381 Alan Cummins - 1165236 Page 6 of 16
what is implied and not actually said rather than what is explicitly said. It reveals itself not in
speech but in slips of tongue, forgetfulness and silence because it is the censored part of
language. The unconscious is beyond conscious control. It is the discourse of the Other.
Unconsciousness as based in language, speech, discourse and signifiers is located in the order of
attempted discourse between the subject and the Other. The unconscious is seen as a kind of
memory, in the sense of a symbolic history of the signifiers that have determined the subject in
the course of his life. In this sense, since it is an articulation of signifiers in a signifying chain,
The discourse of the Other is the existence of combination and selection, metaphor and
subject and a desiring subject. Lacan’s statement that the unconscious is the discourse of the
Other means: the human subject is divided; the unconscious has a linguistic structure and the
subject is inhabited by the Other. When we speak, we don’t directly speak our minds: we funnel
our thoughts through the framework of a specific language, when we dream we use sanitized
symbols to slip our desires past our own internal filters. Those symbols lend an illusory and
respectable distance to topics we try to study and pretend to control, in part because they don’t
entirely capture the uniqueness and urgency of our individual desires. In this way, dream
symbols clearly constitute a language imposed on us by others. The unconscious is the effects of
the signifier on the subject, in that the signifier is what is repressed and what returns is in the
formations of the unconscious as symptoms, jokes, Para praxes, and dreams. His statement
means that the origin of the unconscious lies in our recognition of the Other and that the
always split between a conscious side, and an unconscious side. The cost of human “knowledge”
is that these drives must remain unknown. We are, as a split subject, what we are on the basis of
something that we experience to be missing from us—our understanding of the other—that is the
other side of the split out of which our unconscious must emerge. Because we experience this
“something missing” as a lack we desire to satiate this lack. But because desire is bound by
language and metonymic and metaphoric processes it cannot be satisfied. Desire is left always
unsatisfied and is either displaced from signifier to signifier or it is substituted for—one signifier
for another—and the whole process makes up a “chain of signifiers,” which remains
unconscious. Psychoanalysis aims to lead the analysand to uncover the truth of their desire if it is
possible to be articulated. The whole truth, as previously discussed cannot be spoken or brought
forth in the discourse with the Other. The unconscious is formed via the mirror stage. The Other
comes into being by the child acquiring language and realising he is not part of his mother but
separate. In recognising oneself as a separate entity coherence is provided but also alienation.
This realization leads to a fragmentation of the ego as it both symbolizes the mental permanence
of the I, and at the same time as it prefigures its alienating destination. The reflection in the
mirror provides proof of the child’s existence, but only at the cost of splitting him into two parts:
the visible reflection and the “real” person, complete with all its internal thoughts and sensations.
A person can only begin to desire when he realizes he is lacking and that realization only comes
about as a result of being able to identify with others, which is in turn dependent on being able to
disassociate from one’s self. This brings the child into language and brings about the symbolic
castration of the child from the mother via the Name of the Father. Desire to regain this
fundamental lack is metonymic in nature, the desire can never be regained but only momentarily
presence of the Other. This is part of the discourse of the Other, the subject has to ask for
something, to demand something. Once language via the mirror stage comes into being the
subject is in a constant rotation of demand circling around desire via signification without full
satisfaction.
Demand
Desire
In identifying ourselves in the mirror phase we need to de-identify ourselves from roles we place
ourselves in and step away from imaginary identification to symbolic identification. The only
access to we have to our self is via something that is outside of ourselves. We gain independence
and step into language with a system of discourse between the subject as desiring and the Other
as mediating that desire. In entering the symbolic we become split into grammatical subject and a
subject of the unconscious. There is a doubling of the subject that of what is said and unsaid. The
analyst tries to bring forth the discourse of the Other, expressed via slips of tongue, hesitation
As discussed during the mirror phase the child has taken an imagined double of himself.
This identification of the child with an imaginary unified ego gives rise to narcissim,
psychoanalysis aims at getting rid of this false sense of a unified ego and to free the subject from
relationship with the other is via language. The ego belongs to imaginary world, language
belongs to symbolic realm. The analyst tries to help to move the subject from the imaginary
world of self to the symbolic world of language in which the subject can interact with the Other.
The division of self or the split I helps the subject to gain an insight into the hidden language of
the unconscious and to understand the lack in the self which is the desire of the Other. This
discourse helps to get rid of the illusion of self-completeness and an integrated ego. As the
Schema-L indicates the subject tries to speak to Other but cannot. It is ego that speaks to Other.
(subject) S o’ (other)
is
ax
y
un
ar
co
in
ag
ns
Im
ci
ou
s
(ego) o O (Other)
The Subject’s utterances about himself perpetuate a hoax in which he is completely alienated
within the imaginary register. The ego is the subject’s imaginary identification of himself. The
ego can attain the status of imaginary representation only through the other and in relation to the
other. The Subject is in position S but sees himself in position o. That is in his ego. The mirror
stage has made achievement of an identity through an image. o’ is the other, that is his fellow
is thus dependent on o’ and inversely, the subject’s relation to the o’ is dependent on o. This
indicates a dialectic of identification of oneself with the other and of the other with oneself.
When a subject communicates with another subject, communication is always mediated by the
imaginary axis oo’. This is alienation as S in attempting to communicate with O always misses
its target. The discourse of the Other is brought about when S addresses O something of this
Other comes to him from the mere fact that he is addressing him. A subject speaking to another
always addresses a message to this other whom he necessarily takes to be an Other; this other
whom he is speaking is recognised as an absolute Other, a genuine subject. But even if the
subject recognises him as Other, Lacan adds, he does not know him as such, because it’s
essentially this unknown in the otherness of the Other that characterises the speech relation at the
level at which speech is spoken to the other. The beyond of speech where implicit inverted
message comes from is thus the Other and this is why human language depends on a form of
communication in which our message comes to us from the Other in an inverted form. Speech
always subjectively includes its own reply. The message from O to S is implicit and therefore
unconscious. At the locus of the ego o, the articulation of the message is totally over-determined
by the message coming from O. The wall of language is the obstruction that hinders direct
communication between subjects. The unconscious is this discourse of the Other where the
subject receives in an inverted form suited to the promise, his own forgotten message.
As a divided subject we try to start a certain way in conscious speech but then we restart
S anticipate O
The discourse of the Other in an unconscious intentionality comes into play. The Other reactions
and the analyst must be vigilante of avoidance, ellipsis, circumlocution, mixed metaphors,
disclaimers, downplaying, offhand comments, distraction, and unprovoked denials when dealing
Examples of the unconscious as the discourse of the Other can be seen in a child’s
alternating exclamations fort and da, as reported by Freud in Beyond the Pleasure Principle. The
paternal metaphor is mediated by language. The Name of the Father is taken as signification as
the desire for the mother and the phallus is lost. Dreams such as Irma’s Injection and those in the
Ratman case show the unconscious as the discourse of the Other. Distortion, symbolisation,
metaphor and metonymy and how the unconscious is structured like a language.
Jokes contain both metaphor and metonymy. Jokes can work through signifying
substitution. This is metaphoric condensation. An elaboration of a joke may also be based on the
unconscious register of displacement. This consists of the diversion of the train of thought, the
displacement of the psychical emphasis on to a topic other than the opening one. This uses
metonymy. Jokes are a good means of expressing hidden desires of the unconscious. Thus
Lacan, 1977.
substitution of a new signifier for an old repressed one occurs. The new signifier, the symptom
maintains a bond of similarity to the repressed signifier it replaces. Metonymy is seen where a
reversal of values occurs, the affect is reversed via the movement of displacement. Unconscious
activity combines metaphor and metonymy as to make the expression of the repressed desire
unrecognisable. The symptom is seen as the return of the truth. It can be interpreted only in the
order of the signifier, which has meaning only in relation to other signifiers. This gives
justification to the thesis that the unconscious is structured like a language, Bowie, 1979.
“The psychical mechanism by which neurotic symptoms are produced involves the pairing of two
signifiers – unconscious sexual trauma and changes within, or actions by, the body – and
involves a constant displacement of energy from object to object and is thus metonymic. An
Several criticisms can be placed at Lacan’s feet with regard to his broad definitions of
“unconscious is structured like a language is …simply selling psychoanalysis short. Far from
being an inoffensive analogical aid to the perception and articulation of mental structure
his slogan and the project that it summarises give language a pre-eminent role. And where
Freud erected barriers against language inside his metal models, Lacan at first seems to
Freud tried to account for and brushed the unconscious under the structure of language.
“Freud found… other non-linguistic modelling devices also fascinated him and prevented him
Bowie notes that Lacan uses the concept of signified and signifier in a very broad sense.
“The problem with expressions like these is that they make a single feature of analytic
experience resemble very closely a variety of other features: the symptoms ‘structured like
a language’ sounds like the unconscious itself, and both sound like a supra-individual and
self-propelling process that may or may not have anything to do with the precise times and
places where human suffering occurs… the apparent technical precision into signifier and
signified still casts its net extremely wide. It catches the strictly verbal symptoms that are
to be observed in the individual patient’s speech, but also the behavioural and somatic
Bowie notes that Freud does speak of wordless drives and desires and latent dream thoughts but
“Lacan ...trust the structure of the dreams Freud discusses, rather than the pseudo-biology with
which he seeks to underwrite it ...the dream work follows the laws of the signifier and that
the signifier has a constitutive role in the unconscious realm to which dreams give access.”
Lacan’s jargon of signification, has as its most conspicuous advantage that of removing minds
and mental processes or apparatus from the scene and Bowie states that the signifier seems to be
a convenient catchphrase:
level of structure, by recourse to which the manifold flowering of social and cultural forms
may be understood. The Symbolic is an equally convenient way of sketching the entire
range of those levels from lowest to highest and the common structural principles that
structured like a language and is ruled over by the primacy of the signifier. We cannot escape
language. In acquiring an identity we form a divided subject, one that speaks and one that is the
object of the statement. This split subject gives rise to a discourse of the Other which returns to
consciousness via dreams, slips of tongue, mistakes and jokes. Metaphor and metonymy are the
structure of language and we as human subjects cannot transcend the limits of language. Speech
of the Other returns in inverted form in unconscious truth, conscious and unconscious
intentionality.
Lacan, J. (1977). Function and Field of Speech and Language, Ecrites: A Selection, Tavistock
Bibliography
Chiesa, L. (2007). Subjectivity and Otherness. A Philosophical Reading of Lacan. MIT Press.
Dor, J. (1998). Introduction to the Reading of Lacan. Feher-Gurewich, J. (Ed), other Press, New
York.
Universitaires de France.