Aggressivity in Psychoanalysis

Aggressivity in Psychoanalysis (L’agressivité en psychanalyse) is a foundational essay by Jacques Lacan, originally presented in 1948 at the International Congress of Psychiatry in Brussels and later published in his major collection Écrits (1966). The text provides a critical and systematic account of aggressivity as a psychoanalytic concept, distinguishing it from biological aggression and emphasizing its central place in subject formation and analytic technique.

L’agressivité en psychanalyse
French title	L’agressivité en psychanalyse
English title	Aggressivity in Psychoanalysis
Year	1948
Text type	Conference paper / essay
Mode of delivery	Oral
First presentation	International Congress of Psychiatry, Brussels, 1948
First publication	Revue française de psychanalyse (1949)
Collected in	Écrits (1966)
Text status	Authorial text
Original language	French
Psychoanalytic content
Key concepts	Aggressivity • Mirror stage • Imaginary • Narcissism • Misrecognition
Themes	Ego formation; imaginary identification; rivalry and violence; critique of ego psychology; psychoanalytic technique
Freud references	Beyond the Pleasure Principle • On Narcissism • The Ego and the Id
Related seminars	Seminar I • Seminar II
Theoretical context
Period	Early / pre-structuralist period
Register	Imaginary

Lacan’s essay serves as a polemical intervention into mid-20th century psychoanalytic discourse, particularly against the prevailing currents of ego psychology and behaviorism. It introduces key theoretical articulations that anticipate major aspects of his later structuralist turn, especially the importance of the Imaginary register and the formative role of the mirror stage in the genesis of aggressivity.

Rather than treating aggressivity as a clinical symptom or instinctual drive in isolation, Lacan develops it as an imaginary structure—a constitutive moment of the ego and its specular misrecognitions. This reframing places aggressivity at the heart of both neurosis and human relationality, transforming it into a critical analytic and philosophical category.

Historical and Intellectual Context

Delivered in the aftermath of World War II, the 1948 essay reflects Lacan’s early efforts to reframe psychoanalysis through a return to Freud and a critical engagement with contemporary psychological paradigms. At the time, ego psychology had achieved dominance within the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA), promoting a developmental and adaptive model of the ego that emphasized reality testing, conflict resolution, and ego strengthening.

Lacan’s address intervenes in this milieu by questioning the presuppositions of ego psychology, particularly its minimization of unconscious processes and its idealization of ego autonomy. Instead, Lacan reasserts the Freudian insistence on the unconscious and argues that the ego itself is a misrecognized object, founded in a specular image and shot through with aggressivity. He criticizes attempts to “scientize” psychoanalysis by divorcing it from its dialectical and linguistic roots, positioning aggressivity as an aporia that resists behaviorist objectification.

This text thus marks a pivotal moment in Lacan’s critique of prevailing psychoanalytic trends and initiates a trajectory of thought that will later culminate in his formalization of the registers of the Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the Real.

Conceptualizing Aggressivity: A Structural Phenomenon

Lacan opens the essay by distinguishing aggressivity from simple biological aggression. He defines it as a structural and subjective phenomenon, rooted not in instinct but in the psychic economy of the human subject. “Aggressivity,” he writes, “manifests itself in an experience that is subjective by its very constitution.”

Rather than arising from a quantifiable drive or neurological impulse, aggressivity is revealed in the interplay of the subject’s imaginary identifications and distortions. It appears not merely in violent acts, but in the entire constellation of gestures, fantasies, and affective tensions that mark the subject’s relationship to their own image and to the Other.

Mirror Stage and the Genesis of Aggressivity

Central to Lacan’s theory of aggressivity is its intrinsic relation to the mirror stage, a concept he first developed in the mid-1930s and formalized in the 1949 essay “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the I.” In the mirror stage, the infant identifies with its own reflection in a mirror, constructing an image of bodily unity and mastery that contrasts sharply with the child’s still uncoordinated motor reality.

This jubilant yet alienating identification marks the birth of the ego as an imago—a gestalt that is fundamentally Other to the subject. Lacan describes this process as “a primordial Discord that precipitates the formation of the I” and that sows the seeds of “all the imaginary substructure of the subject’s psychic reality.”

The crucial link between the mirror stage and aggressivity lies in the competitive and rivalrous structure of identification. The ego, formed through an alienated image, becomes the site of both idealization and hostility. This dual relation—at once libidinal and aggressive—produces a subject whose very identity is imbued with tension, rivalry, and fragmentation.

Aggressivity, then, is not an episodic or secondary affect but a structural consequence of subjectivation in the Imaginary. It is the reactive force that emerges from the misrecognition of one’s image, the internalization of the gaze of the Other, and the splitting between the subject and its ego.

The Imaginary Register and the Fragmented Body

Lacan extends his theory of aggressivity by invoking a set of powerful visual and mythic images—dismemberment, castration, and bodily fragmentation—that define what he calls the imagos of the fragmented body. These imaginary figures emerge in dreams, fantasies, and early play and represent primitive scenes of corporeal violence. They index the traumatic effects of specular identification and the persistence of bodily anxieties in psychic life.

These imagos are not simply pathological byproducts; they are constitutive of human subjectivity. Aggressivity arises from the subject’s struggle with a body image that is simultaneously ideal and persecutory. Lacan associates this with cultural phenomena ranging from children’s games to religious rituals, thereby locating the imaginary dimension of aggressivity within a broader anthropological and symbolic framework.

The fragmented body image precedes the coherent ego and continues to haunt it, surfacing in hysterical symptoms, dreams, and especially in transference, where the analyst may be invested with persecutory or idealizing projections.

Theses on Aggressivity

In the essay, Lacan organizes his arguments around a series of explicit theses, each of which advances a structural and dialectical view of the concept:

1. Aggressivity is inherently subjective and must be approached as a phenomenon emerging within a dialogical and intersubjective field.
2. Aggressivity manifests as both intention and image, especially in bodily figures that encode symbolic meaning—e.g., dismemberment or mutilation.
3. The dynamic of aggressivity structures analytic technique, particularly in the analyst’s neutral position, which resists identification and provokes defensive reactions in the analysand.

These theses set the foundation for a reconceptualization of psychoanalytic technique as one that navigates—not avoids—the turbulent field of imaginary aggressivity and its structural repetition in the transference.

Aggressivity and the Transference

A critical clinical implication of Lacan’s theory of aggressivity is its effect on the analytic situation, especially the phenomenon of transference. Lacan warns that aggressivity must not be treated as an incidental expression of resistance, but rather as a structural element that shapes the subject’s position toward the analyst and the analytic setting. In fact, transference itself often reproduces the imaginary relation of rivalry and misrecognition originally established in the mirror stage.

Within the analytic frame, the analyst—by maintaining a position of relative opacity—can become the site of projected imagos, especially the idealized or persecutory alter ego. This leads to oscillations between idealization and hostility, which Lacan identifies as a function of imaginary aggressivity. Thus, managing transference requires recognizing its imaginary dimension and resisting the temptation to reinforce the analysand’s narcissistic identifications or to resolve tensions prematurely.

Rather than working through interpretation alone, the analyst must also structure the analytic frame in such a way that aggressivity does not collapse into acting out. The neutrality and abstinence of the analyst help maintain the conditions under which the symbolic can emerge, allowing the analysand to move beyond the closed circuit of imaginary rivalry.

Relation to Freudian Theory

Lacan’s reflections on aggressivity are deeply informed by Freud, but also revise and extend Freudian theory in important ways. Freud had linked aggression to the death drive (Todestrieb) in Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920), and he described narcissistic injuries and ambivalent object-relations in his accounts of primary narcissism. Lacan acknowledges these contributions but reframes aggressivity as primarily an imaginary phenomenon rather than a derivative of instinctual drives.

Where Freud often theorized aggression in terms of libidinal economy or energy discharge, Lacan locates its origin in the subject’s identification with an alien image—thus grounding aggressivity in intersubjectivity and structural misrecognition. This approach shifts the explanatory model from a metapsychology of forces to a topological understanding of positions within the Imaginary and Symbolic registers.

Lacan does not entirely reject Freud’s death drive; rather, he reinterprets it within a broader theory of subjectivity that includes symbolic alienation and imaginary capture. The destructive tendency described by Freud finds a structural equivalent in Lacan’s view of the ego as inherently misrecognized and riveted by images that evoke both idealization and aggression.

Structural Methodology and the Critique of Psychology

Lacan’s approach to aggressivity also reflects his broader methodological commitment to structure and dialectics. He insists that psychoanalysis cannot be assimilated into the empirical frameworks of psychology, particularly behaviorism or adaptation theory. These approaches, he argues, ignore the role of language, subjectivity, and the unconscious in favor of observable behaviors or normative development.

Against this trend, Lacan proposes a return to the dialectical logic inherent in Freud’s case studies and theorization. For Lacan, aggressivity is not a behavior to be corrected but a structural position that reveals the split nature of the subject. The dialectic of the mirror stage shows how the subject is formed through alienation and how this alienation continues to structure desire, fantasy, and interpersonal relations.

The structural nature of Lacan’s theory is evident in his distinction between the Imaginary, Symbolic, and Real registers. Aggressivity, tied primarily to the Imaginary, becomes a terrain that must be mediated by the Symbolic (language, law, and the Name-of-the-Father) if psychic development is to proceed without pathological fixation. Thus, the function of psychoanalysis is not to eliminate aggressivity, but to reinscribe it within a symbolic economy where desire can be articulated rather than acted out.

Clinical Consequences: The Analyst’s Stance

One of the practical conclusions of the essay is a redefinition of the analyst’s role in managing the manifestations of aggressivity in the analytic encounter. Lacan warns that any attempt by the analyst to act as an ego ideal, authority figure, or therapeutic manager risks reinforcing the very imaginary identifications that produce aggression.

Instead, the analyst must occupy a position that allows the analysand to confront their projections without confirming them. This means resisting both seduction and confrontation, and operating as a surface upon which the transference can unfold, while avoiding mirror-like responses that might intensify the specular duality.

In this context, neutrality is not a moral or behavioral stance, but a structural position within the analytic dispositif. By refusing to fill in the imaginary identifications of the patient, the analyst creates a space in which symbolic interpretation and subjective division can emerge.

Aggressivity and Cultural Forms

Beyond the clinic, Lacan views aggressivity as a cultural and anthropological phenomenon. He connects it to forms of ritualized violence, symbolic contests, and collective identifications in which the mirror stage logic is writ large. In particular, Lacan discusses how aggressivity structures relationships in educational institutions, political movements, and even scientific communities where rivalry and identification often displace the pursuit of truth.

The social dimension of aggressivity reflects Lacan’s broader belief that psychoanalysis cannot be confined to a clinical context. Human subjectivity, he argues, is always already mediated by social discourse and symbolic laws. The mirror stage and aggressivity are thus not merely stages of individual development, but structural constants of intersubjective life.

Aggressivity, Narcissism, and Misrecognition

A central theoretical contribution of Aggressivity in Psychoanalysis is Lacan’s reformulation of narcissism. Building on Freud’s account of primary narcissism, Lacan argues that narcissistic identification is inseparable from aggressivity because it is founded on méconnaissance (misrecognition). The ego, constituted through identification with an external image, is both idealized and experienced as alien. This duality gives rise to a fundamental ambivalence: love for the image is inseparable from hatred toward it.

Aggressivity thus emerges not as a reaction to frustration alone, but as a structural consequence of ego formation. The ego’s dependence on an image that promises unity but conceals division leads to rivalry with others who appear to embody that unity. Lacan stresses that this mechanism explains why aggressivity often arises most intensely in relationships of proximity—siblings, peers, lovers—where identification is strongest.

This insight allows Lacan to reinterpret clinical phenomena such as jealousy, envy, and paranoia as effects of imaginary identification rather than as expressions of instinctual excess. The aggressivity directed at others is inseparable from the subject’s alienation in their own ego image.

Resistance, Negative Therapeutic Reaction, and Technique

Lacan’s theory of aggressivity also sheds light on resistance and the negative therapeutic reaction described by Freud. He argues that resistance frequently takes the form of wounded narcissism: the analysand resists not because interpretation is incorrect, but because it threatens the imaginary coherence of the ego. Improvement itself may provoke hostility, since it risks exposing the subject’s dependence on the Other.

From this perspective, aggressivity is not merely an obstacle to analysis but a sign of its efficacy. When the analytic process destabilizes imaginary identifications, aggressivity may intensify as the ego defends itself against symbolic displacement. Lacan emphasizes that the analyst must not respond by reassurance, moral guidance, or ego support, as such responses reinforce the imaginary relation and intensify rivalry.

Instead, analytic technique requires maintaining a position that neither gratifies nor confronts aggressivity directly. This stance allows aggressivity to be articulated symbolically rather than discharged through acting out. Bruce Fink underscores that Lacan’s insistence on analytic neutrality is inseparable from his theory of aggressivity: neutrality is a structural necessity, not a technical affectation.

Aggressivity Beyond the Imaginary: Toward Later Lacanian Theory

Although Aggressivity in Psychoanalysis is primarily concerned with the Imaginary register, it anticipates Lacan’s later developments regarding the Symbolic and the Real. Aggressivity, while rooted in imaginary identification, becomes clinically manageable only when it is mediated by symbolic structures such as language, law, and prohibition.

Later Lacanian theory will increasingly distinguish aggressivity from jouissance and from the Real of destructive drive. Nonetheless, the early formulation remains foundational: it establishes that violence and hostility cannot be explained solely by instinctual models or social conditioning. They are structurally inscribed in subjectivity itself, as effects of alienation in language and image.

Commentators have noted that this early essay provides a conceptual bridge between Freud’s metapsychology and Lacan’s mature structuralism. Vanheule and colleagues emphasize that aggressivity functions here as a “hinge concept” linking narcissism, identification, and the ethics of analytic practice.

Influence and Legacy

Aggressivity in Psychoanalysis has exerted a lasting influence on Lacanian psychoanalysis and on broader theoretical debates. Within Lacan’s own work, the essay establishes the Imaginary as a distinct register and prepares the way for later formulations of the Symbolic order and the subject of the signifier.

Clinically, the essay reshaped the understanding of transference, resistance, and the analyst’s position, challenging approaches that emphasize ego adaptation or conflict resolution. Its insistence on the structural nature of aggressivity has been particularly influential in work on psychosis, paranoia, and violence, where imaginary rivalry and fragmentation play a central role.

Beyond psychoanalysis, the essay has been taken up in philosophy, political theory, and cultural studies. Thinkers influenced by Lacan have drawn on his theory of aggressivity to analyze phenomena such as nationalism, racism, and ideological conflict, where identification with an ideal image produces hostility toward perceived rivals.

Reception and Commentary

Scholarly reception of Aggressivity in Psychoanalysis has consistently highlighted its originality and enduring relevance. John P. Muller and William J. Richardson describe the essay as a decisive moment in Lacan’s break with ego psychology and his articulation of the Imaginary as a structural dimension of subjectivity.

Bruce Fink emphasizes that the essay clarifies why aggressivity cannot be eliminated through therapeutic goodwill or behavioral modification. Instead, it must be understood as a constitutive feature of the ego and worked through via symbolic mediation. Contemporary Lacanian commentators continue to treat the text as indispensable for understanding the ethical and technical foundations of psychoanalytic practice.

Conclusion

Aggressivity in Psychoanalysis remains one of Jacques Lacan’s most important early contributions to psychoanalytic theory. By redefining aggressivity as a structural effect of imaginary identification, Lacan transformed a marginal clinical notion into a central category of subjectivity. The essay challenges biologistic, behaviorist, and adaptationist accounts of violence and hostility, insisting instead on the primacy of misrecognition, image, and symbolic mediation.

In doing so, Lacan not only renewed Freud’s insights into narcissism and the death drive, but also laid the groundwork for a psychoanalytic theory capable of addressing both clinical impasses and social conflict. Aggressivity, far from being an accidental disturbance, emerges as a constitutive tension at the heart of human subjectivity.