24,656
edits
Changes
no edit summary
dual relation (relation duelle) Duality and dual relations are
essential characteristics of the imaginary order. The paradigmatic dual rela-
tion is the relation between the EGo and the SPECULAR IMAGE (a and a') which
Lacan analyses in his concept of the MIRROR STAGE. The dual relation is always
characterised by illusions of similarity, symmetry and reciprocity.
In contrast to the duality of the imaginary order, the symbolic order is
characterised by triads. In the symbolic order all relations involve not two
but three terms; the third term is the big Other, which mediates all imaginary
dual relations. The illusion of reciprocity in the imaginary dual relationship
contrasts with the symbolic, which is the realm of 'absolute non-reciprocity'
(Ec, 774). The Oedipus complex is the paradigmatic triangular structure, since
the Father is introduced into the dual relation between mother and child as a
third term. The Oedipal passage from a dual relation to a triangular structure is
none other than the passage from the imaginary to the symbolic order. Indeed,
the very concept of structure itself involves a minimum of three terms; 'there
are always three terms in the structure' (Sl, 218).
The opposition between imaginary dyads and symbolic triads is complicated
by Lacan's discussion of the 'imaginary triad' (E, 197; S4, 29). The imaginary
triad is Lacan's attempt to theorise the PREOEDIPAL STAGE in terms other than
those of a merely dual relationship, and refers to the moment preceding the
Oedipus complex, when a third element (the imaginary phallus) circulates
between the mother and infant. When the father intervenes in the Oedipus
complex he can therefore be seen either as a third element (between mother
and child) or as a fourth element (in addition to mother, child and phallus). It is
for this reason that Lacan writes that in the Oedipus complex 'it is not a
question of a father-mother-child triangle, but of a triangle (father)-phallus-
mother-child' (S3, 319).
One of Lacan's most frequent criticisms of the psychoanalytic theory of his
day is that it constantly fails to theorise the role of the symbolic, and thus
reduces the psychoanalytic encounter to an imaginary dual relationship
between analyst and analysand. Lacan argues that this error lies behind a
whole series of misunderstandings in psychoanalytic theory (see E, 246). In
particular, it reduces analytic treatment to an ego-to-ego encounter which,
because of the aggressivity inherent in all imaginary dual relations, often
degenerates into a 'fight to the death' between analyst and analysand, a power
struggle in which they are 'at daggers drawn' (see MASTER).
Against such a misconception, Lacan insists on the function of the symbolic
in the analytic process, which introduces the Other as the third term in the
analytic encounter. 'It is within a three- rather than two-term relation that we
have to formulate the analytic experience' (Sl, ll). Rather than seeing the
treatment as a power struggle in which the analyst must overcome the patient's
resistance, which is not psychoanalysis but suggestion, the analyst must realise
that both he and the patient are equally subjected to the power of a third term:
language itself.
Lacan's rejection of duality can also be seen in his rejection of all dualistic
schemes of thought in favour of triadic schemes; 'all two-sided relationships
are always stamped with the style of the imaginary' (Lacan, 1956b: 274). For
example instead of the traditional binary opposition between what is real and
what is imaginary, Lacan proposes a tripartite model of real, imaginary and
symbolic. Other such triadic schemes are the three clinical structures of
neurosis, psychosis and perversion; the three formations of the ego (ego-
ideal, ideal ego and superego); the triad nature-culture-society; etc. How-
ever, as if to counteract this trend, Lacan also emphasised the importance of
schemes involving four elements (see QUATERNARY).
essential characteristics of the imaginary order. The paradigmatic dual rela-
tion is the relation between the EGo and the SPECULAR IMAGE (a and a') which
Lacan analyses in his concept of the MIRROR STAGE. The dual relation is always
characterised by illusions of similarity, symmetry and reciprocity.
In contrast to the duality of the imaginary order, the symbolic order is
characterised by triads. In the symbolic order all relations involve not two
but three terms; the third term is the big Other, which mediates all imaginary
dual relations. The illusion of reciprocity in the imaginary dual relationship
contrasts with the symbolic, which is the realm of 'absolute non-reciprocity'
(Ec, 774). The Oedipus complex is the paradigmatic triangular structure, since
the Father is introduced into the dual relation between mother and child as a
third term. The Oedipal passage from a dual relation to a triangular structure is
none other than the passage from the imaginary to the symbolic order. Indeed,
the very concept of structure itself involves a minimum of three terms; 'there
are always three terms in the structure' (Sl, 218).
The opposition between imaginary dyads and symbolic triads is complicated
by Lacan's discussion of the 'imaginary triad' (E, 197; S4, 29). The imaginary
triad is Lacan's attempt to theorise the PREOEDIPAL STAGE in terms other than
those of a merely dual relationship, and refers to the moment preceding the
Oedipus complex, when a third element (the imaginary phallus) circulates
between the mother and infant. When the father intervenes in the Oedipus
complex he can therefore be seen either as a third element (between mother
and child) or as a fourth element (in addition to mother, child and phallus). It is
for this reason that Lacan writes that in the Oedipus complex 'it is not a
question of a father-mother-child triangle, but of a triangle (father)-phallus-
mother-child' (S3, 319).
One of Lacan's most frequent criticisms of the psychoanalytic theory of his
day is that it constantly fails to theorise the role of the symbolic, and thus
reduces the psychoanalytic encounter to an imaginary dual relationship
between analyst and analysand. Lacan argues that this error lies behind a
whole series of misunderstandings in psychoanalytic theory (see E, 246). In
particular, it reduces analytic treatment to an ego-to-ego encounter which,
because of the aggressivity inherent in all imaginary dual relations, often
degenerates into a 'fight to the death' between analyst and analysand, a power
struggle in which they are 'at daggers drawn' (see MASTER).
Against such a misconception, Lacan insists on the function of the symbolic
in the analytic process, which introduces the Other as the third term in the
analytic encounter. 'It is within a three- rather than two-term relation that we
have to formulate the analytic experience' (Sl, ll). Rather than seeing the
treatment as a power struggle in which the analyst must overcome the patient's
resistance, which is not psychoanalysis but suggestion, the analyst must realise
that both he and the patient are equally subjected to the power of a third term:
language itself.
Lacan's rejection of duality can also be seen in his rejection of all dualistic
schemes of thought in favour of triadic schemes; 'all two-sided relationships
are always stamped with the style of the imaginary' (Lacan, 1956b: 274). For
example instead of the traditional binary opposition between what is real and
what is imaginary, Lacan proposes a tripartite model of real, imaginary and
symbolic. Other such triadic schemes are the three clinical structures of
neurosis, psychosis and perversion; the three formations of the ego (ego-
ideal, ideal ego and superego); the triad nature-culture-society; etc. How-
ever, as if to counteract this trend, Lacan also emphasised the importance of
schemes involving four elements (see QUATERNARY).
