A Critical Analysis of the
introduction and first section of Jacques Lacan’s lecture, “The Symbolic, the
Imaginary, and the Real” as translated by Bruce Fink
The purpose
of this analysis is to look critically at what it is Jacques Lacan had to say
about the Imaginary. In addition to that,
there is the additional goal of emphasizing its relation to Sigmund Freud. It is hoped that both goals are realized
concurrently through the numerous in-text citations to be provided, but one
cannot always expect such to be so easy.
It should be noted that Jacques Lacan was holding this lecture on July
8, 1953. He was holding this lecture to his peers, a group which consisted of
the best psychoanalysts of its time.
And, lastly, that this lecture laid the foundations for the next 30
years of his research.1
In the first
few sentences of Lacan’s seminar, he states explicitly, “…there is no firmer
grasp on human reality than that provided by Freudian psychoanalysis and that
one must return to the source and apprehend, in every sense of the word, these
texts.”2 In other words, he’s saying that the foundations for what
he is about to explain, all stems from a thorough analysis of Freud’s
texts.
After his introduction, he opens the
lecture in earnest with, “One thing cannot escape us at the outset – namely,
that there is in analysis a whole portion of our subjects’ reality that escapes
us. It did not escape Freud when he was dealing with each of his patients, but,
of course, it was just as thoroughly beyond his grasp and scope.”3
This is a rather confusing set of statements, but its purpose is to express
that, even though there is this notion of the subjects’ reality that is
unavailable to the analyst, and even though Freud understood that
fundamentally, it was not brought explicitly to light in Freud’s texts and
teachings.
Lacan continues on in his lecture,
posturing questions to his audience to make them think about and challenge
their held beliefs on this notion of reality. And, of what, when the analyst
engages with the analysand (that is, the subject), kind of relation she has
towards the subject. His ultimate goal,
to show that the psychoanalytic experience is based in, or derived from, language,
and ultimately from there, symbols.4
From there, he expresses, “…the
subject hallucinates his world. The subject’s illusory satisfactions are…of a
different order than the satisfactions that find their object purely and simply
in reality.”5 He then alludes to the fact that, the objects that are
“purely and simply in reality,” are those that are able to help sustain
life. For example, air to breathe, food
to eat, and water to drink. The rest of
reality, for an individual, not necessarily just an analysand, is in a way,
hallucinated.6
In a call to Freud, without explicit
reference to him, he says, “The term ‘libido’ merely expresses the notion of
reversibility that implies that there is a certain equivalence…of images. In order to be able to conceptualize this
transformation, a term related to energy is necessary. This is the purpose
served by the word ‘libido’.”7 He goes on to demonstrate on how this
libido is related to the sexual realm, and that it is within the sexual realm
that the imaginary realm is born. The
reasoning for the sexual realm resides in its ability to birth desire. Again, gesturing to the fact that the object
of infatuation for giving or receiving sexual pleasure, does not satisfy one’s
basic, real needs.8
All of this to come to, “So what does
this mean? First, it is not merely
because a phenomenon represents a displacement – in other words, is inscribed
in imaginary phenomena – that it is an analyzable phenomenon. Second, a
phenomenon is analyzable only if it represents something other than itself.”9
Now this is how he closes the first section, and it comes about in respect to
treating the imaginary world as a symbolic element. In that, it is not necessary to know or
understand the contents of the imaginary, but to understand it as a symbolic representation. And, as noted in the second point, this is
only subject to analysis if it stands in place of something else.10
In this analysis of the introduction
and first section of, “The Symbolic, the Imaginary, and the Real,” much was
said about the realm of the Imaginary.
Jacques Lacan did his best to sketch to his audience, the understanding
of the Imaginary, a realm which escapes the purview of no person. He shows the role that the Imaginary plays,
and discusses its import with respect to psychoanalysis. And all of this falls under the umbrella of a
return to Freud’s texts and understanding. Thus establishing a firm connection
between Freud and Lacan, and ultimately fulfilling the goal this paper
established at its beginning.
End Notes
1 1. Lacan, Jacques, and Bruce Fink. On the Names-of-the-father. Malden, MA: Polity, 2013. Print. Pgs vi-vii
2 2.Ibid. pg 3
3 3.Ibid. pg 5
4 4. Ibid. pgs 5-9
5 5. Ibid. pg 9
6 6. Ibid. pgs 9-12
7. Ibid. pg 10
8 8. Ibid. pgs 12-13
9 9. Ibid. pg 14
1 10. Ibid. pgs 12-14
No comments:
Post a Comment