Four Discourses

The Four Discourses (Les quatre discours) is a theoretical framework introduced by Jacques Lacan in his Seminar XVII: The Other Side of Psychoanalysis (1969–70), offering a structural account of how social bonds, subjectivity, and language interact. The model articulates four fundamental types of discourse:

• Discourse of the Master
• Discourse of the University
• Discourse of the Hysteric
• Discourse of the Analyst

Each discourse represents a unique configuration of language, desire, power, and knowledge in intersubjective and institutional relations. They function as topological matrices governing how speech acts bind subjects together and mediate access to truth, authority, and jouissance.

“Discourse is not simply the use of language; it is a social bond founded in language.”

Origins and Context

Lacan formulated the four discourses as a response to:

• the limits of the Oedipus complex as a psychoanalytic structure;
• the crisis of authority and knowledge (notably after May 1968);
• the need to formalize psychoanalytic practice and transmission.

The discourse model also serves as a means of limiting the analyst’s imaginary projections, replacing interpretive free association with logical structure rooted in linguistics, semiotics, and topology. Lacan draws from Freud, Saussure, and Hegel, particularly the Master–Slave dialectic, to shape the logic of discourse.

Structure of the Discourses

Each discourse is structured by a four-position matrix:

• Agent (upper left): initiator of the discourse
• Other (upper right): addressee or field of action
• Truth (lower left): what underlies or supports the agent
• Product (lower right): what the discourse produces

And four rotating elements:

• S₁ — Master Signifier: foundational term of authority or identity
• S₂ — Knowledge (savoir): the chain of signifiers, or structured information
• $ — Barred Subject: the divided subject, alienated in language
• a — objet petit a: the object-cause of desire; surplus enjoyment (plus-de-jouir)

Each discourse results from a permutation of these terms across the matrix. Starting with the Master's discourse, successive 90° rotations yield the other three.

Lacan's Four Discourses matrix

The Four Discourses

Discourse of the Master

S₁ → S₂  
──   ──  
$     a

• Agent: Master Signifier (S₁)
• Other: Knowledge (S₂)
• Truth: Barred Subject ($)
• Product: Objet petit a (a)

This discourse reflects authority, command, and domination. A master imposes meaning (S₁) on knowledge (S₂), while disavowing their own subjective division. The truth of the master’s power is lack, and the product is surplus jouissance, extracted from the Other.

“The master is the one who does not want to know anything about his own division.”

The Discourse of the Master structures authority and traditional power relations. The Master commands; knowledge responds. The subject’s division is repressed, and desire is produced as surplus.

→ See main article: Discourse of the Master

Discourse of the University

S₂ → a  
──   ──  
S₁    $

• Agent: Knowledge (S₂)
• Other: Objet a
• Truth: Master Signifier (S₁)
• Product: Barred Subject ($)

The university discourse masks power with objectivity. Institutional knowledge operates on subjects via the semblance of neutrality, while its ideological foundation (S₁) remains hidden. The product is a subject formed by systems of knowledge—administered, standardized, and shaped.

"The university speaks in the name of knowledge, but always on behalf of some master."

The University Discourse represents the rule of institutional knowledge. It masks its master signifiers and targets the object a as something to manage or regulate. The subject is produced as divided, but this is obscured by technocratic rationality.

→ See main article: Discourse of the University

Discourse of the Hysteric

$ → S₁  
──   ──  
a     S₂

• Agent: Barred Subject ($)
• Other: Master Signifier (S₁)
• Truth: Objet a
• Product: Knowledge (S₂)

This is the discourse of questioning, resistance, and desire. The divided subject confronts the master in search of meaning (“What am I for the Other?”), generating new knowledge but never reaching full satisfaction. The truth is the elusive cause of desire (a).

“The hysteric’s discourse reveals the failure of the master to provide meaning.”

The Hysteric’s Discourse is the speech of protest and questioning. The divided subject demands knowledge from the Other and exposes the failure of master signifiers to provide adequate answers. It is the starting point of psychoanalytic speech and critique.

• The analysand typically begins in this position, questioning the analyst as master.
• Freud’s discovery of psychoanalysis itself can be seen as emerging from this discourse.

→ See main article: Discourse of the Hysteric

Discourse of the Analyst

a → $  
──   ──  
S₂    S₁

• Agent: Objet a
• Other: Barred Subject ($)
• Truth: Knowledge (S₂)
• Product: Master Signifier (S₁)

Here, the analyst embodies the object-cause of the analysand’s desire, operating silently or minimally. The analysand is invited to speak, confronting their own division. This discourse does not impose meaning, but enables the subject’s own signifiers to emerge as interpretation.

“The analyst must occupy the position of the object, to let the subject produce their truth.”

The Analyst’s Discourse inverts the others: it does not impose meaning, but allows the subject’s desire to emerge. The analyst withdraws, occupying the position of the object-cause, and supports the analysand’s confrontation with their own division and truth.

This is rare discourse that subverts mastery; it is the ethical foundation of analytic treatment; a model of non-domination, aiming at subjective transformation

→ See main article: Discourse of the Analyst

Diagrammatic Rotation

Each discourse is produced through rotating the terms clockwise. Lacan writes:

“Each discourse is a transformation of the prior, rotating the positions and generating new effects.”

The model captures the dynamic relations of speech, power, knowledge, and desire in society, theory, and the clinic.

Symbolic Function and Failure

The discourses make visible the inherent failure of speech: the subject (S̷) is always split from the object a, and discourse can never fully reconcile this. The link between S₁ and S₂—between authority and knowledge—depends on speech and the symbolic order. But this always leaves an excess, a remainder, which takes the form of symptom, desire, or surplus-jouissance.

Historical and Cultural Significance

Transmission and Innovation

Lacan believed that Freud had uncovered the Hysteric’s discourse, but failed to theorize the Analyst’s discourse. Lacan sought to formalize it as a condition for the ethical practice and teaching of psychoanalysis.

“The discourse of the analyst is perhaps my one invention.”

Cultural Criticism

Slavoj Žižek uses the discourses to analyze:

Žižek's application of the Four Discourses

Discourse	Don Giovanni	Parsifal	Features
Master	Don Ottavio	Amfortas	Inauthentic, inconsistent
University	Leporello	Klingsor	Inauthentic, consistent
Hysteric	Donna Elvira	Kundry	Authentic, inconsistent
Analyst	Donna Anna	Parsifal	Authentic, consistent

Summary Comparison

Structural Matrix of Lacan's Four Discourses

Discourse	Agent	Relation	Truth	Product	Social Function
Master	S₁	→ S₂	$	a	Authority, command, ideology
University	S₂	→ a	S₁	$	Institutional knowledge, systems
Hysteric	$	→ S₁	a	S₂	Protest, critique, questioning
Analyst	a	→ $	S₂	S₁	Psychoanalysis, interpretation

See Also

Discourse analysis Objet petit a

Lacanian topology Unconscious structured like a language

Master–slave dialectic Transference