Seminar XIX
| ...Or Worse | |
|---|---|
| Seminar XIX | |
 Cover image commonly associated with published editions of ...ou pire. | |
| French Title | Le Séminaire, Livre XIX : …ou pire |
| English Title | The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XIX: …or Worse |
| Seminar Information | |
| Seminar Date(s) | 3 November 1971 – 21 June 1972 |
| Session Count | 19 sessions |
| Location | Faculté de Droit (Place du Panthéon), Paris |
| Psychoanalytic Content | |
| Key Concepts | the One (l'Un) • Master signifier (S1) • Unary trait (trait unaire) • Jouissance • Sexuation • Phallus (as semblant) • No sexual relation (il n'y a pas de rapport sexuel) • Modal logic • Oedipus complex • Totem and Taboo |
| Notable Themes | From myth to logical formalization; signifier and jouissance; sexuation and impossibility; critique of theatrical/imaginary explanatory models; Freud's myths reread through logic |
| Chronology | |
| Preceded by | Seminar XVIII |
| Followed by | Seminar XX |
…Or Worse (...ou pire) is the nineteenth annual seminar of Jacques Lacan, delivered during the academic year 1971–1972 in Paris.[1] Situated in Lacan's early-1970s teaching—after Seminar XVIII (D'un discours qui ne serait pas du semblant) and immediately before Seminar XX (Encore)—the seminar is widely read as a transitional volume in which Lacan intensifies his shift from narrative and mythic explanation toward the use of mathemes, logical operators, and formal distinctions to articulate the relation between the signifier and jouissance.[2]
A central axis of Seminar XIX is Lacan's sustained elaboration of the thesis that “there is no sexual relation” (il n'y a pas de rapport sexuel), a formula he repeatedly clarifies and reformulates through the year and which would become a keynote of his subsequent work on sexuation and the Real.[2] In this context Lacan proposes that the very positing of “man” and “woman” is primarily a matter of language: “qu'il y ait au départ l'homme et la femme, c'est d'abord affaire de langage” (“that there be, at the outset, man and woman is first of all a matter of language”).[2] The seminar is also associated with Lacan's renewed interrogation of the status of “the One” (l'Un) in psychoanalysis—both as a logical operator of counting/unification and as a signifier implicated in identification, authority, and the organization of jouissance.
Overview
Seminar XIX continues Lacan's project of redefining psychoanalysis as a theory of the speaking being (parlêtre) rather than a psychology of adaptation. In the wake of the Four Discourses formalized in Seminar XVII and the emphasis on semblant in Seminar XVIII, Lacan re-approaches foundational Freudian motifs—especially the Oedipus complex and the anthropological myth of Totem and Taboo—by asking what in these myths can be retained once the analyst aims for a “tightened” articulation in logical form rather than a theatrical or imagistic narrative.[2]
Secondary commentary on the seminar often underlines this methodological move: the year is presented as a passage from “myth” to a progressively more compact “writing” and then to “logic,” intended to strip away imaginary richness in order to isolate structural relations between signifiers, law, and jouissance.[2] This orientation prepares the dense logical formulas and distinctions of Seminar XX, while also connecting to Lacan's contemporaneous text “L'étourdit” (1972), which likewise pursues formalization of sexuation and the limits of signification.[2]
Historical and institutional context
Post-1968 context and the public seminar
Lacan's seminars in the early 1970s occurred in the aftermath of May 1968 and amid major institutional and intellectual reconfigurations in French universities and psychoanalytic organizations. By this period Lacan was teaching within the milieu of the École Freudienne de Paris (EFP), which he founded in 1964 after his break with the International Psychoanalytical Association's French affiliates.[3]
From the late 1960s onward, Lacan's weekly seminar was hosted in a university setting associated with the Faculté de Droit at the Panthéon (Place du Panthéon), marking a shift from the earlier Sainte-Anne hospital context toward a more public academic venue.[4] Seminar XIX belongs to this phase and is frequently discussed as part of Lacan's “late teaching,” characterized by an increasing emphasis on jouissance, the Real, and formal devices (logical notation, algebraic writing, and topological analogies).[5]
Composition, publication, and translation
As with many of Lacan's seminars, the text circulated for years in stenographic notes and unofficial transcripts before appearing in a standardized published form. The French edition, established by Jacques-Alain Miller, was published by Éditions du Seuil in 2011 in the Champ freudien series.[2] The first widely distributed English translation (A. R. Price) appeared with Polity Press in 2018.[6]
Because editorial establishment relies on heterogeneous sources (notes, transcriptions, and the conventions of seminar reconstruction), scholarly citation practice typically references the Seuil edition (French) and the Polity edition (English), while noting that pagination and headings may vary in earlier circulating versions.[5]
Conceptual framework and methodology
From theatrical explanation to logical articulation
A recurring methodological theme in Seminar XIX is Lacan's skepticism toward explanatory reliance on the “theatrical”—that is, on imagistic representation, dramatized narrative, and mythic scenography. Secondary commentary linking Seminar XVIII and XIX emphasizes Lacan's explicit “attack” on the prestige of theatrical models in psychoanalysis and his attempt to extract the function of signifiers from the imaginary richness of classical myths and tragedies.[2]
This methodological stance is continuous with Lacan's long-standing distinction between the Imaginary (images, identifications, rivalry) and the Symbolic (signifiers, law, structural relations), but in the early 1970s it is increasingly coupled with the claim that psychoanalysis must articulate, in formal terms, how jouissance is “apparatused” (appareillée) by language rather than represented by images.[2]
Language and sexuation
One of the most cited claims associated with the seminar is Lacan's insistence that sexual difference cannot be grounded in anatomy or myth alone, because “man” and “woman” are positions produced within language. The formula cited in contemporary commentary—“qu'il y ait au départ l'homme et la femme, c'est d'abord affaire de langage”—encapsulates this approach by locating the initial determination of sexed positions at the level of signifiers and discourse rather than natural categories.[2]
Within this framework, Lacan's claim that “there is no sexual relation” is not ordinarily read as a sociological statement (e.g., about the failure of relationships), but as a thesis about the absence of a complete signifying formula that would write a complementary relation between two sexes as such. The seminar's attempts to formalize this absence help set the stage for later Lacanian distinctions between the phallus as signifier, the various forms of jouissance, and the logical operators used in Lacan's “formulas of sexuation.”[5]
The One, identification, and logical unity
The “One” (l'Un) in Seminar XIX is treated in multiple registers: as the One of counting (the operator that makes an element count-as-one), the One of the signifier (the Master signifier or S1), and the One of identification (associated with the unary trait). In Lacanian theory the unary trait (trait unaire) names an elementary mark by which the subject identifies and is counted within a symbolic order; in later Lacan it becomes a key relay for thinking how “unity” is produced through signifying marks rather than discovered as an underlying essence.[7]
In this seminar, the One is thus approached less as a metaphysical principle than as a function that produces apparent unity in the field of the symbolic and organizes the subject's relation to jouissance. The problem of the One also intersects with Lacan's continuing critique of egoic self-identity: unity is an effect of signifying operations, and the subject remains structurally divided ($) in relation to the signifier and to the Other.[7]
Key themes, concepts, and case studies
The title “...or Worse” and the logic of forced choice
The title …ou pire (“…or worse”) is frequently read as invoking the structure of a forced choice—an “either/or” whose alternative threatens a worse outcome, recalling Lacan's broader interest in how choice is structured by the symbolic and by the demand of the Other. In Lacanian logic, “choice” is rarely treated as a purely voluntary act; it is constrained by signifiers (names, laws, identifications) that position the subject and delimit what can be said, desired, or enjoyed.
Scholarly discussions often connect this forced-choice motif to Lacan's account of castration and the paradox of subjectivity: to enter the symbolic order is to accept a loss (a limit on jouissance), yet refusal does not restore fullness but tends toward “worse” outcomes (invasion by the Other, confusion of law and enjoyment, or the collapse of symbolic mediation).[8]
“There is no sexual relation” (il n'y a pas de rapport sexuel)
A prominent aim of the seminar is to clarify Lacan's recent enunciation that “there is no sexual relation,” which he later described as the “saying” of Freud. Contemporary commentary on Seminar XIX presents the year as a sustained effort to account for this formula by shifting from mythic narration to formal writing and logic, thereby articulating how the absence of a “relation” concerns the non-existence of a complete signifying formula that would write the complementarity of the sexes.[2]
Within this orientation, Lacan argues that sexuation is not established by anatomical difference alone; it is produced by language and the symbolic positions available within discourse. The cited statement—“that there be, at the outset, man and woman is first of all a matter of language”—is frequently treated as a compact formulation of this thesis.[2] The seminar's later reception often situates this claim as a hinge between Lacan's structural linguistics of the 1950s–60s and his later logic of jouissance and the Real.
The One (l'Un) and the unary trait
The seminar's interrogation of “the One” extends Lacan's earlier work on the unary trait and identification. The unary trait is commonly understood in Lacanian theory as the minimal signifying mark (a “stroke”) through which an identification is effected, enabling the subject to be counted and named within a symbolic order.[7] In Seminar XIX, the One is often presented not as the goal of integration but as an operator that produces unity effects—effects that can be clinically and politically consequential insofar as they sustain ideals, authorities, and forms of social bonding.
This focus also allows Lacan to revisit the master signifier (S1) in relation to jouissance: S1 is not merely a signifier of meaning but a signifier that “marks” the subject and can function as a point around which enjoyment is organized and repeated. In later Lacanian vocabulary, this repetition is tied to the persistence of jouissance beyond utilitarian or adaptive aims.
Semblant, the phallus, and sexual jouissance
Seminar XIX continues the line of inquiry from Seminar XVIII concerning semblant—the structured appearance that supports discourse and the social link. In this context, the phallus is treated not simply as an anatomical reference or an imaginary image, but as a signifier (and, in the vocabulary of the early 1970s, as a semblant) that coordinates sexual jouissance within discourse.
Contemporary commentary summarizing Lacan's position in this period describes the phallus as a function that coordinates sexual jouissance “insofar as it is coordinated to a semblant,” underscoring the claim that jouissance in the speaking being is not “natural” immediacy but is mediated and “apparatused” by language.[2] In this framework, the phallus functions as a pivotal signifier for the organization of desire and enjoyment, yet it does not supply a complete “relation” between sexes; rather, it marks a structural limit and asymmetry that Lacan formalizes through logic.
Modal logic, impossibility, and the Real
A major theoretical stake of the seminar is the relation between sexuation and the modalities of necessity, possibility, contingency, and impossibility. While Lacan's explicit “formulas of sexuation” are most closely associated with Seminar XX, Seminar XIX is often read as developing the logical terrain on which those formulas will be written: the sexual relation is not merely absent as a contingent social failure but “impossible” in the technical sense that it cannot be written as a complete symbolic formula.
This emphasis on impossibility is consistent with Lacan's definition of the Real as what resists symbolization—what returns as an impasse in the signifying order. The “no sexual relation” thesis thereby becomes a privileged site for thinking the Real as a logical limit rather than as an ineffable substance.[5]
Freud's myths: Oedipus and Totem and Taboo
In the later parts of the seminar Lacan returns to “classic” Freudian texts and myths, notably the Oedipus complex and Totem and Taboo. Secondary commentary highlights Lacan's insistence on a “schism” (schize) separating the Oedipal myth from the totemic myth, emphasizing that these narratives do not simply converge on a single story but articulate different structural problems concerning law, prohibition, and jouissance.[2]
In Lacan's rereading, Totem and Taboo becomes especially significant as a myth of the impossible: a narrative that attempts to account for the emergence of law and social contract through the murder of the primal father and the subsequent institution of prohibition. The seminar's interest in such myths is not primarily ethnographic, but structural: myths are treated as “apparatuses” that historically organize jouissance and provide a narrative solution where a strict logical writing is not yet available.[2]
Neologisms and stylistic devices
Like many late seminars, …ou pire is marked by Lacan's distinctive rhetorical style: puns, neologisms, and compressed formulas intended to force a shift in reading practice. Commentators frequently note that such devices are not ornamental but methodological: they aim to loosen the reader's reliance on intuitive meanings and to direct attention to the signifier as such—its cuts, equivocations, and effects of enjoyment.
In this respect the seminar exemplifies the broader Lacanian claim that psychoanalysis is not primarily a hermeneutics of hidden content but an analysis of how signifiers produce subject positions and organize jouissance within discourse.
Theoretical significance and clinical implications
Sexuation as a clinical and logical problem
In Lacanian clinical theory, “sexuation” does not coincide with gender identity as a sociological category; it concerns the subject's position with respect to the phallic function, law, and jouissance—positions that can be read in speech and symptom formation. Seminar XIX is therefore often cited as an important step in the elaboration of a clinic attentive to how symptoms are anchored in signifying structures and how jouissance persists at points where signification fails.[8]
The seminar's insistence that the sexes are “a matter of language” is sometimes taken to imply a shift in clinical emphasis: rather than treating sex difference as a biological datum, the analyst attends to the subject's signifying identifications, fantasies, and modes of enjoyment—how “man” and “woman” function as signifiers in a subject's discourse, and how these signifiers relate to impasses in desire and jouissance.[7]
Limits of interpretation and the status of the Real
By framing the sexual relation as an impossibility (a non-writeable relation), Seminar XIX contributes to Lacan's late-ethical orientation: analytic work encounters limits that cannot be dissolved by interpretation into meaning. This has been linked in later clinical writing to a more careful differentiation between interpretation aimed at producing meaning-effects and interventions oriented toward the subject's relation to jouissance (including the ways jouissance is localized, circumscribed, or displaced by signifiers).[8]
In this perspective, the “Real” is not an ultimate truth behind speech but the structural point at which writing fails—an impasse that psychoanalysis must acknowledge and work with rather than overcome through explanatory narratives.
Re-reading Freud through formalization
The seminar's return to Freud's myths is significant for Lacanian doctrine because it displays a characteristic late move: Freud's narratives are not rejected, but they are re-situated as historically effective “apparatuses” whose function becomes clearer when translated into logical and algebraic terms. Secondary commentary emphasizes that Lacan's aim is not to specialize in tragic theatre or mythic exegesis but to articulate the “genealogy of desire” and its cause through a combinatory more complex than mythic “family romance.”[2]
Reception and legacy
Place within Lacan's late teaching
In Lacanian scholarship, Seminar XIX is commonly positioned as a bridge between the analysis of semblant and discourse in Seminar XVIII and the explicit elaboration of sexuation and jouissance in Seminar XX (Encore). It is frequently cited in accounts of Lacan's early-1970s turn toward logical writing, and as a key locus for the maturation of the “no sexual relation” thesis.[5]
Publication and Anglophone reception
The publication of the Seuil edition in 2011 provided a standardized textual reference for a seminar that had long circulated in partial notes and unauthorized transcripts. The 2018 English translation expanded Anglophone access to the seminar and has been referenced in scholarship on Lacan's late logic, sexuation, and the relation between psychoanalysis and formal disciplines (logic, linguistics, mathematics).[6]
While Lacan's late seminars are often regarded as difficult, commentators have emphasized their importance for understanding how Lacan reconceives psychoanalysis around the relation of signifier and jouissance, and around formal impasses (the Real) rather than interpretive completion.
See also
- Jacques Lacan
- The Seminar of Jacques Lacan
- Seminar XVIII
- Seminar XX
- L'étourdit
- Four Discourses
- Master signifier
- Unary trait
- Sexuation
- No sexual relation
- Jouissance
- Phallus
- Totem and Taboo
- Oedipus complex
- Real
- Symbolic order
- Imaginary
- École Freudienne de Paris
References
- ↑ “Seminar XIX: …ou pire (1971–1972)” session calendar and headings, Encyclopedia of Lacanian Psychoanalysis (nosubject.com).
- ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 Thamer, M. “Commentaire: ‘Logique versus théâtre'” (with citations to Lacan, Le Séminaire, Livre XIX : …ou pire, Seuil 2011), Mensuel 188 (June 2025), Champ lacanien France (PDF).
- ↑ Roudinesco, Élisabeth. Jacques Lacan. Trans. Barbara Bray. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.
- ↑ “Seminars of Jacques Lacan,” location and chronology notes for the post-1969 period (including the Panthéon law faculty setting), Wikipedia (accessed for venue chronology).
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Rabaté, Jean-Michel (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Lacan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Princeton University Library catalog record for The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XIX: …or Worse (Polity Press, 2018), listing translator and publication data.
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Evans, Dylan. An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. London/New York: Routledge, 1996 (entries “unary trait,” “master signifier,” “jouissance,” “sexuation”).
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Fink, Bruce. A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis: Theory and Technique. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
Further reading
|
|
English
An English translation of Seminar XIX, made from unpublished French transcripts, was made by a reading group associated with Jacques Lacan in Ireland and arranged in a presentable form by Tony Hughes: Download, Mirror #1, Mirror #2, Mirror #3
<pdf>File:Book-19-Ou-pire-Or-worse.pdf</pdf>
| Author(s) | Title | Publisher | Year | Pages | Language | Size | Filetype | Downloads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jacques Lacan | Seminar of Jacques Lacan ...or Worse [19] 978-0745682440 |
Polity Press | 2018 | 271 | English | 15 Mb | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
English Audio
Spanish
French
| Date | |
| 04 novembre 1971 | link |
| 02 décembre 1971 | link |
| 08 décembre 1971 | link |
| 15 décembre 1971 | link |
| 06 janvier 1972 | link |
| 12 janvier 1972 | link |
| 19 janvier 1972 | link |
| 03 février 1972 | link |
| 09 février 1972 | link |
| 03 mars 1972 | link |
| 08 mars 1972 | link |
| 15 mars 1972 | link |
| 19 avril 1972 | link |
| 04 mai 1972 | link |
| 10 mai 1972 | link |
| 17 mai 1972 | link |
| 01 juin 1972 | link |
| 14 juin 1972 | link |
| 21 juin 1972 | link |
French versions of Lacan's Seminars Source: http://ecole-lacanienne.net
__NOAUTOLINKS__