10/8/2016 OpenYaleCourses

PRINT

ENGL300:INTRODUCTIONTOTHEORYOFLITERATURE
Lecture13JacquesLacaninTheory[February24,2009]

Chapter1.PeterBrooksandLacan[00:00:00]

ProfessorPaulFry:Well,I'dreallybetterstart.Icaninfer,Ithink,fromlookingaroundtheroomthat
thereiseitherpostpaperdepressionatworkorthathavingwrittenthepaper,youscarcelyhadtimetoreada
fifteenpagelabyrinthineessaybyLacan.That'sunfortunate,andIhopeyou'reabletomakeupforitsoon.
Thoseofyouwhoareheretodaycantakesuchnotesasyoucanfigureouthowtotakeandthengobackto
thetextofLacanandtrytomakeuseofthem.Itisapitythatnoteveryone'shere,butwe'llfareforward
nevertheless.

NowthereisanobviouslinkbetweentheworkofPeterBrooksthatyouhadlasttimeandthisparticular
essayofLacanwhich,ofcourse,I'dliketobeginbyunderlining.Ithastodowiththepartoftheargumentof
Lacanwhichprobablyismostaccessibletoyouafteryourtourthroughstructuralismandrelated"isms"and
which,inaway,IthinkreallycanbeusedtoanchoracertainunderstandingofLacan.It'ssomethingIam
goingtowanttospendalotoftimewithinthelongruntoday.

Inanycase,Brooksunderstoodthefictionaltextandthecompletedfictionalnarrativeasasustainingof
desirethroughaseriesofdtours,detours,inadequateandimproperendpointsovercome,resultingina
continuationofdesire,resultinginaproperendingthatistosay,somethingcorrespondingtowhatFreud
understoodasthedesireoftheorganismtodieinitsownwayandnotaccordingtothemodificationor
pressureofsomethingfromwithout.ThissequenceofdtourintheelaborationofanarrativeplotBrooks
calledmetonymy,inawaythatbythistimeweoughttorecognizeaswhathappensintheputtingtogetherof
signsalongtheaxisofcombinationasit'sdescribedbyJakobson.ButBrooksremarksalsothatatthesame
time,thereisabindingofthissequenceofsignsofeventsinthecaseofaplotthereisaneffectofunity,a
feelingthattheexperienceonehasinreadingafictionalplotisanexperienceofunity.Thiseffecthecalls
"metaphor":thatistosay,oursenseoftheunityofafictionalplotweunderstandasmetaphoric.Somekind
ofidentity,selfidentity,orclosecorrespondenceinthemeaningofthevarietyofeventsthatwehave
encounteredresultsinaunitythatcanbeunderstoodinmetaphoricalterms.Inotherwords,somethinglike
whatJakobsoncallsthe"poeticfunction"hasbeensuperimposedonthemetonymicaxisofcombinationin
suchawaythatthefeelingofunity,thesenseoftherecurrenceofidentityinthesignsused,issomething
thatwecancomeawaywith.This,Brooksargues,accountsforoursenseoftheunityoftheplotevenaswe
understandittobeaperpetualformofthedelayofdesire.Ispeakofthedelayofdesire:That'smostobvious,
ofcourse,inamarriageplot,themarriageplotbeingtheheartoffiction,perhaps,andmostimmediately
intelligiblebutofcoursedesiretakesmanyforms.Therearemanysortsofplot,andtheyalwaysdoinone
formoranotherhavetodo,inBrooks'sense,withdesire.

NowIpauseinthiswayoverBrooksbecauseIthinkyoucanseewhateverfrustrationyoumayalsobe
feelinginencounteringLacanIthinkyoucanseethatthesamebasicmovementisatworkinLacan's
understandingoftheunconscious.ThediscourseofdesireforLacan,theperpetualdeferralofbringinginto
consciousness,intobeing,intopresence,theobjectofdesireLacan,too,harkensbacktoFreudasBrooks
does,harkensbacktotheconnectionmadeinFreudianthoughtandpickedupbyJakobsonbetween
condensationinthedreamworkandmetaphorinthedreamwork,anddisplacementinthedreamworkand
metonymyinthedreamworkthisiscentralaswelltoLacan'sargument.Thedeferralofdesire,andfor
Lacantheimpossibilityofeverrealizingone'sdesireforacertainkindof"other"thatI'mgoingtobetrying
toidentifyduringthecourseofthelecture,isunderstoodasmetonymy,justasBrooksunderstandsthe
movementofmetonymyasnotaperpetualbutasaplotsustainingdtourordeferraloftheend.
http://oyc.yale.edu/transcript/463/engl300 1/9
10/8/2016 OpenYaleCourses

Sothis,too,onefindsindesireinLacan.Metaphor,ontheotherhand,heunderstandstobewhathecallsat
oneinterestingpoint"thequilting"ofthemetonymicchain,thepointdecapitonor"quiltingbutton"that
suddenlyholdstogetherasequenceofdisparatesignifiersinsuchawaythatakindofsubstitutionofsigns,
asopposedtoadisplacementofsigns,canbeaccomplished.We'llcomebacktothislateroninattemptingto
understandwhatLacanhastosayaboutthatlinefromVictorHugo'spoem,"BoazAsleep,"theline:"His
sheaveswerenotmiserlynorspiteful."We'llcomebacktothat.

Inthemeantime,thepointofLacanandwhatmakesLacan'sreadingofdesiredifferentfromBrooks's,and
indeedwhatmakeshisreadingofdesiredifferentfromthatofanyonewhothinksofthesestructuralistissues
inpsychoanalyticterms,isthatLacanreallydoesn'tbelievethatwecaneverhavewhatwedesire.Hehasno
doubtthatwecanhavewhatweneed.Hemakesthefundamentaldistinctionbetweenhavingwhatwedesire
andhavingwhatweneed.ThedistinctionisoftenputandwhenyoureadSlavojieknextweekwho
makesamuchmorecentralpointofthis,it'softenputasthedistinctionbetweenthe"bigother"[laughs]
andlateronwe'lltalkaboutwhyit'sbigthe"bigother,"whichonecanneverappropriateasanobjectof
desirebecauseitisperpetuallyandalwayselusive,andthe"objetpetit,"thelittleobjectofdesire,whichis
notreallyanobjectofdesireatallbutisavailabletosatisfyneed.Sociobiologically,youcangetwhatyou
need.Psychoanalytically,youcannotgetwhatyoudesire.

Nowtheobviousglosshere,Ithink,istheRollingStones.IfLacanweretheRollingStones,he'dhave
slightlyrewrittenthefamousrefrainbysaying,"Youcan'tever'git'whatyouwant,"right:"butsometimesif
youtry"andyougottotry.Evenforwhatyouneed,yougotto[laughter]right?[laughter]Youcan'tjustsit
there"Sometimesifyoutryyou'git'whatyouneed."I'msurethatMickJaggerhadmanystickyfingersin
thepagesofLacaninordertobeabletomakethatimportantdistinction,butIthinkit'sonethatperhapsyou
mightwanttosaltawaythenexttimeyoufeelconfusedaboutthedistinctionbetweendesireandneed.

Chapter2.LacanandFreudianScholarship[00:09:03]

Nowobviously,it'dbegreatifwecouldjuststopthere,butwedohavetogetalittleclosertothetextandtry
tofigureoutwhyinthesetermsgiventousbyLacan,termsbothstructuralistandpsychoanalyticwehave
tofigureoutwhythisdistinctionprevailsandwhatitamountsto,sowesoldieron.Firstofall,letmejustsay
acoupleofthingsinpassing.ThereisforhumanisticstudiesmorethanoneJacquesLacan.Thereisthe
Lacanforliterarystudieswho,Ithink,isverywellrepresentedbythetextwehavebeforeus,eventhough
someofhismostimportantideasareonlyhintedatinthistext.Forexample,wehearnothinginthistext
abouthisfamoustriadicdistinctionamongthereal,theimaginaryandthesymbolic.Thisissomethingwe
can'treallyexplorewithonlythistextbeforeus.Thereisonlytheslightesthintattheveryendoftheessay
onthelastpageofthedistinctionIhavejustmadebetweenthe"bigother"andthe"objetpetit."We'llhave
lotsoftimetothinkaboutthatbecauseit'scentraltotheessayofiekthatyou'llreadnextweek,butfor
literarystudiesfocusingonthestructuralistlegacyforLacan,thisisanexemplaryselection.

Butthere'salsotheLacan,perhapsamorecurrentLacanonebetterknown,perhaps,eventosomeofyouin
filmstudies:theLacanof"thegaze,"thecomplicateddialecticof"thegaze"whichdoesverymuchinvolve
negotiatingthedistinctionsamongthereal,theimaginaryandthesymbolic.AsIsay,thisLacanwe're
obligedlargelytoleaveasideifonlybecauseoftheselectivityofwhatI'vegivenyoutoread,butasIsaythese
areLacanswithquitedifferentemphasesoverlappingonlytoacertaindegree.

NowtheotherthingIwanttosayinpassingexplainssomeoftheratherstrangetoneofthisessay.You
noticethatLacanisjustsortofbristlingwithhostility[laughs]and,ofcourse,aswell,condescension.Ofall
thebigegosinoursyllabus,thisisbyfarthebiggest.It'sjustsomethingwehavetolivewithandcometo
termswith,butthecondescensionisn'tjusttowardthenaturalstupidityofalltherestofus.It'stoward,in
particular,whathetakestobethedistortionofthelegacyofFreudbymostofhispsychoanalytic
contemporaries,particularlytheInternationalPsychoanalyticAssociation,manymembersofwhomwere
thesocalledAmerican"egopsychologists."
http://oyc.yale.edu/transcript/463/engl300 2/9
10/8/2016 OpenYaleCourses

Nowwhatisanegopsychologist?It'ssomebodywhobeginsasLacandoesandthisissomethingwe'll
wanttocomebacktosomebodywhobeginswithFreud'sfamousproposition,"Woeswarsollichsein":
"Whereitwas,thereIshouldbe."Inotherwords,outoftherawmaterialsoftheidit,esinthe
unconscious,theegothatistosay,thecapacityofthehumanorganismtodevelopintoitsmaturityshould
arise.Inotherwords,therelationshipbetweeninstinctualdrivesandtheproperinhibitionsofhumanor
adultconsciousnessshouldbeaprogressiveone,andthepurposeofpsychoanalysis,thepurposeofbringing
peoplebeyondtheirentrapmentinthevariousinfantilestagesorbeyondtheirentrapmentinsomeformor
anotherofneurosis,theideaofprogressordevelopmentinpsychoanalysisithastodowiththeemergence
andreinforcementoftheego.Lacanhatesthisidea,andthereasonhehatesitisbecausethatideaofthe
emergenceofastableandmatureegoispresupposedbytheideathatthereissuchathingasstablehuman
subjectivity:inotherwords,thatthereissuchathingasconsciousnessfromwhichourcommunicativeand
linguisticandothersortsofsystemsderive.

Lacantakesacompletelydifferentviewofconsciousness.This,ofcourse,issomethingtowhichwewillturn
inamoment,butthebasicdisagreementandthesourceofhismostintensehostilitythroughoutthisessay
concernsthequestionwhetherornotthereisforeachofusastableandbyimplicationuniquesubjectivity.
Wearenoteachother.Wesupposeourselvesindeed,wecomplainwhenwethinkaboutethics,aboutour
isolationfromeachotherwesupposeourselvestobealtogether[laughs]individualwhereasforLacan,
thereisakindofcontinuousnessinconsciousness,thereasonforwhichI'llexplain,whichisnotabsolute.
Inthelongrun,inthisessayyouwillfindandIhopetobeabletounderstandthisasakindofturninhis
argumentyouwillfindthatLacandoesactuallyholdoutalimitedsenseofindividualsubjectivity,notreally
asautonomoussubjectivity,notsomethingthatcanauthorizeasenseoffreewillorpowerofagency,buta
wayinwhich,owingsimplytothecomplexityoftheunconscious,eachofus,asitwere,inhabitsaslightly
differentformofthatcomplexity.Lacangoesthatfarinthedirectionofthesubject,orofsubjectivity,but
refusestheideathatthesubjectissomethingthatcanemergefromanalysisorinthecaseof,Isuppose,
mostofussimplythroughmaturationasastable,coherent,wellorganizedsenseofselfandidentity.

Chapter3.TheMirrorStage[00:15:51]

Allright.Let'sstart,then,withtheonepieceofreallysolidclinicalworkthatLacaneverdid.Lacan's
psychoanalyticphilosophyis,ashewouldbethefirsttoadmitandevensortofcheerfullytoendorse,largely
speculative.Thatistosay,heworksindepthwithphilosophicalandliterarymaterials.Heisnotgluedtothe
analyst'schair.Heisnotoriouslyimpatientwithhisanalysandsandisveryinterestedinmattersofanalysis
eitherin,ontheonehand,shortcutsor,ontheotherhandchampioningFreud'slateessay,"Analysis
TerminableorInterminable"takingthesidethatanalysisis,justobviously,suchisthecomplexityofthe
thing,interminable.ButtheonereallysolidpieceofclinicalresearchthatLacandidandthatisacceptedas
partofthepsychoanalyticloreistheworkthathedidinthe1930sonthemirrorstage.Thatworkactually
doesgeneratethesystemofideasthatLacanhastooffer.

Sowhatisthemirrorstage?Ababyintheanalphasethatistosay,nolongeridentifyingwiththebreastof
themother,butawareofasenseofdifferencebetweenwhateveritmightbeandthatothernesswhichisout
thereababyviewsitselfinthemirror,andmaybeitviewsitselflikethis[turnstowardsboardwithhands
up].Right?Itcanonlycrawl.Itcanbarelytouchitsnose.Itcan'tfeeditself,andtheactualnatureofitsbody
isstillfragmentedanddisorganized.Itlackscoordination.Infact,itlacks,inanyordinarysenseofthe
term,"uprightness."

Butlet'ssayit'slookingatitselfinthemirrorlikethis[turnstowardsboardwithhandsup],andsowhatit
seesissomethinglikethis[gesturestowardsdiagramonboard].Inotherwords,itseessomethingwhichis
coherent,coordinated,andreallyratherhandsome."Oh,"[laughs]itsays,"Wow,youknow,I'm[laughs]
okay."[laughter]Itacknowledgesitselftobe,itrecognizesitselftobeit'stheobjectofthemother'sdesire.
Right?Thatisthemomentinwhichitnolongeridentifieswiththebreastbutthinksofitselfastheobjectof

http://oyc.yale.edu/transcript/463/engl300 3/9
10/8/2016 OpenYaleCourses

thedesireofanotherbecauseit'ssopleasedwithitself."Somebody'sgottodesireme.It'sprobablyMom."So
[laughs]thereitis,andthisisthemomentofthemirrorstage.

Nowwhathappensafterthatandbytheway,theratherwonderfulepigraphfromLeonardodaVinciwhich
beginsyouressayisallaboutthiswhathappensafterthatisrathertragic.Thebabyfallsintolanguage,
andinthemomentandI'mgoingtocomebackinaminutetothewholequestionofwhyitislanguagethat
doesthisinthemomentatwhichitfallsintolanguage,itnolongerseesitselfastheidealI"dasIdealIch"
inFreud'slanguage.Itcomesintotherecognitionthatitdoesn'tevenhaveitsownname,letalonean
identity.Ithas"thenameofthefather,"butitdoesn'thavethephallusofthefather,anditbeginsto
recognizecompetitionindesire.Itbeginstorecognizethatwhatititselfdesiresisnotaccessibleinakindof
mutualityofdesireandthatithasnochoicebuttoadmirewhileatthesametimeenvyingandindeed
formingasanobjectofdesirebecausethat'swhatitlacksthefather.That'sthesenseinwhichbutit'sthe
fatheronlyinaphantasmagoricsense.InLacantheobjectofdesirecanbejust
absolutelyanythingdependingonthecourseoftheunravelingofthemetonymicsequencethatdesire
followsbutthisiswhatLacanassociateswiththeOedipalphasethat'swhyIsay,inpassing,"thefather."

ItdoeshavesomethingtodowithLacan'srevisionofFreudinsayingthattheobjectoflackthatperpetually
motivatesdesire,thedesireforwhatonelacks,isnotatallphysical.Ifyoumakethatmistake,you'reright
backinsortofmindlessFreudianism.Youknow,it'snotthepenis!Itis,onthecontrary,somethingwhich
isbynaturesymbolic,somethingwhichisanegoidealbutnolongeroneselfthatistosay,nolongerwhat
onehasbutwhat,throughthegapopenedupbylanguage,onerecognizesthatonelacks.Soittakesavariety
of,let'sjustsay,phallogocentricforms.Infilmcriticism,someofyoumayknowtheessay,theLacanian
essayofLauraMulveyinwhichthefemaleobjectofthespectator'sdesireorgaze,dressedinasheathdress,
isactuallyjustlikethebaby,justlikeanythingelsethat'supright,itisthis[pointstotheverticalaxisonthe
board].Inotherwords,itis,despitebeingobviouslyanincrediblydifferentkindofthing,nevertheless.in
symbolicterms,thephallus.

Chapter4.LanguageandtheUnconscious[00:22:18]

Allright.Nowthequestionthenis:whyisitthatit'slanguagethatdoesthis?Lacanspeaksofthe
impossibilityofrealizinganobjectofdesire,becausethemetonymicstructureofdesirefollowswhathecalls
"anasymptoticcourse,""asymptotic"meaningthelinewhichcurvestowardthelineitwantstomeetbut
neverreachesit.There'sakindofanunderlyingpunningsenseinthatwordofthemetonymiccourseof
desirenotrevealingthesymptom.It'sasymptoticinthatsenseaswell.Theonlythingthatcanrevealthe
symptomisthosemomentsofquilting,themomentsatthepointdecapitonwhenmetaphor,asLacansays
ontwodifferentoccasionsintheessay,revealsthesymptom.Sothisiswhathappenswhenyoucan't"git"
everwhenyoucan'tever"git"whatyouwant.Butdon'tworry,becauseyoucanalwayshavewhatyouneed
aslongasyoutry.

Sothequestionis:whydoeslanguagedothis?Whatisitaboutlanguagethatintroducesthisproblematic
beyondrepair?LacanbeginstheessaywithaclaimabouttheFreudianunconscious,aclaimwhichhe
takes,hesays,fromTheInterpretationofDreamswhereFreudspeaksoftherelationshipbetween
condensationanddisplacementinthedreamwork.Lacansays,"Theunconsciousisstructuredlikea
language."That'sperhapsthesingleexpressionthatpeopletakeawayfromLacan,andrightlyso,becauseit
is,again,foundationalforwhatweneedtounderstandifwe'retogetalongwithhim:"theunconsciousis
structuredlikealanguage."Nowwhatdoesthismean?Hedoesn'tsay,"Theunconsciousisalanguage,"by
theway,andhedoesn'tsaythathemeanstheunconsciousisstructuredexclusivelylikehumanlanguage.
Hemeansthattheunconsciousisstructuredlikeasemioticsystem.Infact,hedrawsfrom
Freud'sInterpretationofDreamstheideathatthewaythedreamworkworksandthewayeverydaylife,in
Freud'ssenseofthepsychopathologyofeverydaylife,worksislikearebusinotherwords,oneofthose
puzzlesinwhichyoucanfindanunderlyingsentenceifyoufigureouthowtoputtogetherdrawings,
numbers,andsyllables:inotherwords,asequenceofsignstakenfromdifferentsemioticsystemsthatcan
http://oyc.yale.edu/transcript/463/engl300 4/9
10/8/2016 OpenYaleCourses

putthemselvestogetherintoameaning.That'showLacanunderstandsthedreamworkandthemovements
ofconsciousnesstounfold.Theunconsciousthenisstructuredlikealanguage,whichisnotthesamething
astosayitisalanguage.

Okay.Structuredlikealanguage.ThismeansandthisiswherethereisthisenormousgulfbetweenLacan
andmostotherpractitionersofpsychoanalysistheunconsciousisnot,inthatcase,tobeunderstoodasthe
seatoftheinstincts.It'snottobeunderstoodassomethingprior,inotherwords,tothoseformsofderivative
articulation,thoseformsofarticulationemergingthroughmaturitythatwe'reaccustomedtocall"language."
Iftheunconsciousisstructuredlikealanguage,thenittheid,esitselfispreciselythesignifier,the
signifierthatemergesaslanguage:notthatitisfoundationaltolanguage,becauseLacan'spoint,likethe
pointofmanyotherpeopleinoursyllabus,isnotthatlanguageexpressesthought.It'snotatallthat
languageexpressesthought,butthatlanguageconstitutesthought,thatlanguagebringsthought,
consciousness,orasenseofthingsintobeing,andthatthisisarticulatedthroughlanguage.

Nowthis,ofcourse,bringsusimmediatelytocertainissuesofconflictthatLacanhasnotjustwithother
formsofpsychoanalysisbutwithawholephilosophicaltradition.Ifyouareamaterialistinotherwords,if
youbelievethatthingscomefirstandconsciousnesscomessecond:thatistosay,ifyou'reaMarxist,ifyou
believethatconsciousness,ideology,orcallitwhatyouwill,isdeterminedbyexistingmaterial
circumstancesasonesaysyoucan'tverywellthinkthatexistingmaterialcircumstancesareproducedby
language.Whoa.Ifbythesametokenyou'reapositivist,ifyoubelievethatthemeaningofthingsis
somethingthatisexpressedbylanguage,somethingthatlanguageisbroughtintobeingtoexpress:then
alsoyouaregivingprioritytothings,tothatwhichisbehindlanguage,tothatwhichgivesrisetolanguage
ratherthan,asLacandoes,givingprioritytolanguage.HeactuallyattacksboththeMarxisttraditionand
thepositivisttraditionatvariouspointsinyourtext.ThesidewaysblowatMarxismisonpage1130,the
righthandcolumn.Thesidewaysblowatpositivismisonpage1132,therighthandcolumn.Idon'twantto
pausetoquotethembutyoucangototheminyourtext.

Sowhatisit,id,ores?Whatisthatwhichisnormallycalled"theinstinctualdrives,"theid,theunmediated
wishforsomething?Well,Lacansaysitisnothingotherthanthesignifier.Hesays,"WhatdoImeanby
literalism?HowelsecanImeanitexceptliterally?Itistheletter."Thatistosay,consciousnessbeginswith
theletter.RememberLeviStrausssayinginthetextquotedbyDerridathatlanguagedoesn'tcomeintobeing
justalittlebitatatime.Onedaythereisnolanguage,andthenextdaythereislanguage:whichistosay,
suddenlythereisawayofconferringmeaningonthings,andthatwayofconferringmeaningonthingsis
differential.Thatistosay,itintroducesthearbitrarynatureofthesignandthedifferentialrelationsamong
signswhicharefeaturedintheworkofSaussure.SoitisforLacan.Theletterisnotthatwhichisbrought
intobeingtoexpressthings,notthatwhichisbroughtintobeingintheserviceoftheegotodisciplineand
civilizetheid,butratheris"it"itself.Thatistosay,itisthebeginning."Inthebeginningwastheword."In
thebeginningwastheletter,whichdisseminatesconsciousnessthroughthesignifyingsystemthatitmakes
available.

Chapter5.Metonymy,Metaphor,andDesire[00:30:25]

NowactuallyI'mhopingthatinsayingthesethingsyoufindmemerelyandratherdullyrepeatingmyself,
sayingthingsthatI'vesaidbefore,becauseitseemstomethatthisisthepartofLacanwhichisaccessible
andwhichiscentraltothesortsofthingsthatwe'vebeentalkingabout,whichIratherimagineyoumustbe
gettingusedtobythistime.Lacansharesastructuralistunderstandingofhowtheunconsciousdiscourses.
HeacceptsJakobson'sdistinctionbetweenmetaphorandmetonymyandheseesthecooperativebuildingup
relationshipofmetaphorandmetonymyinthediscourseoftheunconsciousandofthepsychopathologyof
everydaylifeinmuchthesamewaythatJakobsondoes.RememberJakobsonassociatesmetaphorand
metonymynotjustwithpoetryandprose,notjustwithcertainkindsofstyle,butactuallywithpathologies.
Initsextremeforms,metaphorandmetonymyasmanifestinlinguisticpracticetaketheformofaphasias,as
LacanpointsoutandsoJakobson,too,isconcernedwithsomethingsortofbuiltin,hardwiredintheway
http://oyc.yale.edu/transcript/463/engl300 5/9
10/8/2016 OpenYaleCourses

inwhichlanguageworksinandastheunconsciousthat,initsextremeforms,isaphasicandalways
expressesitselfintendencieseithermetonymicormetaphoric.

Now,ofcourse,healsodrawsonSaussurebutasyoureditorrightlypointsoutinafootnotethewayin
whichhereadsSaussure[drawsonchalkboard],thesignifier,thebigsignifieroverthelittle,rather
insignificantsignifiedbecauseafterall,whatdoesthesignifiedmatter?Youcannevercrossthebarright?
togettoit.Youarebarredfromit.Thesignifiedisthatfromwhichyouareforeverexcluded,andwe'llgo
intoLacan'sexamplesofthisinaminute.ThisisactuallyquitedifferentfromSaussure's[drawson
chalkboard]"signifiedoverthesignifier,"anchoredbyakindofmutualitywherebyit'sneveraquestionwhat
generateswhat,butratheraquestionwhichhasincommon,Ithink,withLacan'ssocalled
algorithmonlyinfactthebaritselfthefactthattherelationshipbetweensignifierandsignified,orsignified
andsignifier,isanarbitraryonethatcan'tbecrossedbyevokinganythingnaturalinthenatureofthe
signifiedthatcallsforththesignifier.Theretheyagree,butastowhatproduceswhat:Saussureisagnostic
aboutitandLacaninsiststhatthebigSisthatwhichgeneratesthesignifiedthatfromwhichany
possibilityofgraspingasignifiedarisesandderives.SoLacan'salgorithmis,infact,ratherdifferentfrom
Saussure'sdiagram.

Okay.Let'sexemplifythisbygoingbacktowhatIsaidabouttheredlight[gesturestotheboardrepeatedly
throughoutthisparagraph]right?becausehere,too,Ithinkwe'llhavecontinuity.Theredlightovera
doorisasignifierwhichhasagreatdealtodowithdesire,right?Thiswetakeforgranted.Theredlightin
othercontextshasnothingtodowithdesire,butthesignifier,"redlightoveradoor,"suggestsdesirebut
desireforwhat?Well,wethinkweknow"desireforwhat,"butlookatthesignifier."Desireforthedoor,"
right?Whatistherelationshipbetweenthesignifierandwhatwouldseemtobethesignified?That'snot
whatyoudesire.Youdon'tdesirethedoor,andit'sthesamewithhommesetfemmes,right?Whatis
thishommesetfemmes?Well,okay.Thelittlegirlsays,"We'vearrivedatGentlemen,"andthelittleboysays,
"We'vearrivedatLadies."Well,thatseemstobequitehealthy,right?We'reonourwaytosomethinglike
heteronormativedesiregreat,terrific.

Butwaitaminute.Thishommeshere:whatishommes?Whatdoesthathavetodowiththepriceoftheonly
thingyoucandoevenbehindthisdoorisrestoreyourpersonalcomfort.Ithasnothingtodowithhommes,
right,oranythingelseforthatmatter.Ifthevisiblesignifiedisinquestion,well,inwhatsensecanwecall
thisdoorhommes?Right?It'sthesamewithfemmes.Thereis,inanycase,inLacan'sanecdotethe
wonderfulexistenceoftherailroadtracks,whichforhimconstitutesthebar:thatistosay,thatowingtothe
natureoflanguage,owingtothearbitraryrelationofthesignifiertothesignified,thelittleboyandlittlegirl
whoarewonderfulcharactersrightoutofNabokov'sAdaIdon'tknowifanyofyouknowthatnovel,but
thelittleboyissortofalittlegenius,obviouslyLacan,buthissisterisevensmarterthanheis."Idiot,"she
says,justlikeacharacterinNabokov,butboththislittleboyandlittlegirlarebarredfromdesirefromtheir
desirebecausetheyarealreadyputtingupwithasubstitutepreciselyinsofarastheyseemtobeontrack
towardsomethingliketheheteronormativeexpressionofdesire.It'snotanexpressionofdesireatall.It's
anexpressionofneedbecausetheyarenotabletobringintobeing,consciousness,orbeforethemselvesthe
objectofdesireindicatedbythesignifier.Thesignifierisalwaysdisplacedfromtheobjectofdesirein
preciselythewaysthatareborneoutdiagrammaticallyintheseformulas.

Chapter6.WhatIsDesire?[00:37:03]

Allright.Sowhatthenisdesire?Well,perhapswe'vecoveredit:itistheendlessdeferralofthatwhich
cannotbesignifiedinthemetonymicmovementofdiscourse,ofdreaming,orofthewayinwhichthe
unconsciousfunctions.Lacanisveryingeniousin,Ithink,convincinglyshowingushowitisthatweget
fromonesignifiertoanother:inotherwords,howwhathecallsthechainofthesignifierworks.Youhavea
seriesofconcentricrings[gesturestotheboard],buteachconcentricringismadeupofalotoflittle
concentricringswhichhookontoassociatedsurroundingsignifiersinwaysthatcouldbevariable.This,I
think,verynicelyrediagramsSaussure'ssenseoftheassociativestructureoftheverticalaxis:thatistosay,
http://oyc.yale.edu/transcript/463/engl300 6/9
10/8/2016 OpenYaleCourses

ofthesynchronicmomentoflanguage,thewayinwhichsomesignifiersnaturallyclusterwithother
signifiers,andnotjustwithonegroupofsignifiersbutavarietyofgroupsofsignifiers.Buttheydon'tatall
naturallyclusterwithjustanyorallsignifiers,sothatyougetassociativeclustersintheaxisofselection,
andtheyareindicatedbythis[gesturestoboard].Asthechainofsignifiersunfolds,theoneoranotherof
thesepossibleassociationslinksonandrememberallofthesesignifiersaremadeup,inturn,ofachainof
concentriccircles.SoIthinkthisisarathergoodwayofunderstandingtheunfoldingofmetonymy.

Noweveryonceinawhileyougetmetaphorwhoa!andit'samomenttobecelebratedinLacanbecause
it's,ashesays,"poetic"anditisalso,ashesays,inanumberofplacesthemanifestation,theonlypossible
manifestation,ofthesymptom.Whatisthesymptom?Itistheawarenessofthelackofanobjectofdesire
expressedinadisplacedmannerthatistosay,expressedinamannerwhichisnot,however,completely
obfuscatoryofthelackoftheobjectofdesire,justsortofcaughtupinmyendlessbabblingbutratheristhat
momentofpauseinwhichthereisagatheringtogetherofsignifiersand,ultimately,asubstitutionofone
signifierforanotherinsuchawaythatonesays,"Aha.Iseeit.Ican'tgraspit,Ican'thaveit,butIseeit.I
seetheobjectofdesire.Iseewhathasbeendisplacedbytheveryactofsignification."That'swhathecalls
"metaphor,"andheseesmetaphorasappearingatthesepointsdecapiton.Thinkofthisasaquilt.You
knowwhatI'mtalkingabout:quiltingknots,pinsno,notneedles.That'swhatyoumakeaquiltwith.
[laughs>Thoselittlebuttons,quiltingbuttons,right?That'swhataquiltislike.It'sfilledwithsomething
andthenthestuffingisheldinplacebybuttons.Right?Sothestuffingofmetonymicsignificationisheldin
placeusefullyfortheanalyst,forthereader,andfortheinterpreterbythesequiltingbuttonsorpointsde
capiton.

SotheexamplethatLacangivesisasIsay,hegivesseveralexamples.Therearewonderful,dazzling
readings,bothwithfourlinesfromValryandoftheonelinefromVictorHugo.IfocusontheHugobecause
it'salittleeasier,justtheoneline.Hesays,"Thereissomethingthathappensinthislinewhichis
metaphoric,"andI'mdelightedthatheusestheword"sparks."Inotherwords,themetaphoric,thepresence
ofthemetaphor,isaspark.RememberIwastalkingabout,inWolfgangIser,theneedtogapasparkplug:in
otherwords,theneedtohaveacertaindistancebetweentwopointsinorderforthesparktohappen.Ifit's
tooclose,itdoesn'thappenyoujustshortout.Ifit'stoodistant,itdoesn'thappenbecausethedistanceistoo
great.SothesparkthatLacanistalkingaboutistherelationship"hissheaveswereneithermiserlynor
spiteful"betweenBoazandhissheavesbecausethesheavesthemselveswhichgiveofthemselvesjustas
certainotherthingswecouldmentiongiveofthemselvesthesheavesthemselveswhichgiveofthemselves,
andcertainlyarenotmiserlyorspitefulforthatreasonthey'regenerous,they'reopen,theygive,theyfeed
us,etc.,etc.,etc.aresupposed,inmetonymy,toindicatethatBoazislikethat.

LookatthemunificenceofBoaz'scrop.It'sneithermiserlynorspiteful,butasLacanpointsout,the
miserlinessandspitefulnesscomesbackinanunfortunatewaypreciselyinthatword"his":[laughs]
becauseifheisapossessorofthesheaf,heisthisinvolvesthewhole,asitwere,structureofcapitalistor
Darwiniancompetitionandinvolves,atleastinanunderlyingway,alltheelementsofthrift,ifyouwill,and
competitiveenvyorspite,ifyouwill,thatseemtohavebeenbanishedfromthesentence.Inotherwords,
metaphoricallyspeaking,Boazreturnsinhisabsence.Hesubstitutes.Heissubstitutedforbytheexpression
"hissheaves."Thepossessivemeansthatheisnotthethingsthathe'ssaidtobe,metonymicallyspeaking,
andthesheavesthemselvesarepreciselywhatheisintheOedipalphase:thatistosay,preciselywhatheis
ifheisobjectifiedbyababylookingathimbutatthesametime,notatallwhatorwhereweexpectedhimto
be.Inotherwords,thepointdecapitonofthesentence,oftheline,isthesubstitutionofBoazforhis
sheavesandhissheavesforBoaz.Sothelinehasbothametonymicreadingandametaphoricreading.

HereIthinkyoucanseeLacan'ssenseoftherelationbetweenmetaphorormetonymyhoveringbetweenthat
ofJakobsonorBrooksandthatofdeMan,becausethereseemstobeanunderlyingirreducibletension
betweenreadingthelineasthoughitsaysthatBoazwasgenerousandfreeofspite,andreadingthelineas
thoughitsaidthatBoazjustnecessarilybecausehe'sonewhopossessessomethingisapersonwhohas

http://oyc.yale.edu/transcript/463/engl300 7/9
10/8/2016 OpenYaleCourses

thecharacteristicsofmiserlinessandspitefulness.Thetension,inotherwords,seemstometobeinLacan
anirreducibleonesothat,atleastinthatregard,wecanplacehimclosertodeManthanwehaveto,say,
BrooksorJakobsonwhichisn'ttosaythatJakobsonisnottheprimaryandcentralinfluenceonLacan's
wayofthinkingabouttheaxisofcombination.Theappearanceofmetaphorontheaxisofcombination,the
wayinwhichwecanidentifythesequiltingbuttonsontheaxisofcombination,isnothingotherthanwhat
Jakobsonsaidandmeantwhenhesaidthatthepoeticfunctionisthetransferenceoftheprincipleof
equivalencefromtheaxisofselectiontotheaxisofcombination,right?I'mnotsayinginspeakingin
passingofthesortofirreducibleconflictonesensesbetweenmetonymyandmetaphorhereI'mnotsaying
thatJakobsonisnottheprimaryinfluencebehindLacan'sthinkinginthisregard.

Allright.NowLacansayslanguageisarebus,asI'vesaid,andhesaysthemovementofthesignifier,which
isthemovementofdesire,isthearticulationofalack.Thatistosay,itisintheimpossibility,ascertain
kindsoflanguagephilosopherswouldsay,ofmakingthesignifierhookontothesignifiedor,aswemight
say,hookupwiththesignifiedintheimpossibilityofdoingthatispreciselytheimpossibilityofrealizing
anobjectofdesire.SoallofthisshouldIhopenowbeclear.

Sosomeoftheconsequencesarethatlanguagethemostobviousconsequenceis,andthisisn'tthefirsttime
orlasttimethatwewillhaveencounteredthisinvariousvocabulariesandcontextsthat"languagethinks
me."Onpage1142,therighthandcolumn,forexample:"IthinkwhereIamnot,thereforeIamwhereIdo
notthink."Thatistosay,thatwhichbringsmythinkingintobeingisnotpresenttome.Itisit.Itisthe
letter.Itisthesignifiedwhichperpetuallyevadesusandwhichcannotpossiblybepresenttous.Iamnot
presenttomyself.Icannotbepresenttomyselfbecausewhatispresentisthewayinwhichmyselfcomes
intobeingindiscoursewhichcannotidentifyme.Itcannotidentifymeeitherassubject,or,inaphaseof
narcissism,supposingIcansomehoworanotherreimaginemyselfinthemirrorphase,asanobjectof
desire.

Chapter7.Slavojiek[00:46:50]

Allright.SoIactuallythinkthatwithoutquitehavingmeantto,IhaveprettymuchexhaustedwhatIhaveto
sayinoutlineaboutLacan.Ihaven'tsaidnearlyenoughabouttherelationshipbetweendesireandneedasit
plotsitselfinouractuallivesandinfiction,becausetheextraordinarythingaboutitisit'snotjustaslogan
fromtheRollingStonesorfromLacan.Aswethinkaboutit,it'snotthatwe'renothappywithour
relationshipwiththethingsthatweneed:obviouslyweare,buttheextraordinarythingaboutitisthatwe
recognizeinourlives,inthemagicalworldoffilmthatistosay,theworldofillusiondeliberatelypromoted
byfilmandinfictionwerecognizetheabsolutelycentralsignificanceofthisdistinction.

That'swhat'ssowonderfulandamazingabouttheessaybyiekyou'llbereadingfornextweekcalled
"CourtlyLove,"whichIloveandwhichheadlines,whichfeaturesreadingsofaseriesoffilmsinwhichthe
LacaniandistinctionbetweentheimpossibilityeverofachievingtheBigOtherbytheway,therearetimes
invariouskindsoffictionalplotsinwhichyoucanactuallyhavetheobjectofdesire,butwhatalways
happensinplotslikethatisthattheunconscious,thepsyche,findswaysofrejectingit.Ican'thavethatit's
mybrotherorIcan'thavethatitisinoneformoranotherforbidden.Inotherwords,inactuality,inthe
wayinwhichthepsycheworksaccordingtothestructureofthefilmsiekundertakestoanalyzeandhe's
soprofuseinexamplesthathereallydoesleaveusfeelingthatthere'sakindofuniversalityinwhathe's
sayingyeah,thereareallkindsofobjectchoicesthatcanhappenanddohappenandmayevenseem
satisfactory,butthoseareallobjects,objetspetitwhereastheBigOther,thatwhichisthetrueobjectof
desire,issomethingthatwillperpetuallyevadepossession.

Okay.Sonexttimewe'reactuallytalkingabouttheanxietyofinfluenceinHaroldBloom,andtheninthe
ensuinglecturewe'llreturninawaytoLacanwhenwetakeupDeleuze,GuattariandSlavojiek.Thank
you.

[endoftranscript]
http://oyc.yale.edu/transcript/463/engl300 8/9
10/8/2016 OpenYaleCourses

Top(#navigationtop)

http://oyc.yale.edu/transcript/463/engl300 9/9