24,656
edits
Changes
Real
,no edit summary
[[Real]] (rÈel) Lacan's use of the term '[[Real]]' as a substantive dates back to an
early paper, published in 1936. The term was popular among certain philos-
ophers at the time, and is the focus of a work by Emile Meyerson (which Lacan
refers to in the 1936 paper; Ec, 86). Meyerson defines the [[Real]] as 'an
ontological absolute, a true being-in-itself' (Meyerson, 1925: 79; quoted in
Roustang, 1986: 61). In speaking of 'the [[Real]]', then, Lacan is following a
common practice in one strand of early twentieth-century philosophy. How-
ever, while this may be Lacan's starting point, the term undergoes many shifts
in meaning and usage throughout his work.
At first the [[Real]] is simply opposed to the [[Real]]m of the image, which seems to
locate it in the [[Real]]m of being, beyond appearances (Ec, 85). However, the fact
that even at this early point Lacan distinguishes between the [[Real]] and 'the true'
indicates that the [[Real]] is already prey to a certain ambiguity (Ec, 75).
After appearing in 1936, the term disappears from Lacan's work until the
early 1950s, when Lacan invokes Hegel's view that 'everything which is [[Real]] is
rational (and vice versa)' (Ec, 226). It is not until 1953 that Lacan elevates the
[[Real]] to the status of a fundamental category of psychoanalytic theory; the [[Real]]
is henceforth one of the three ORDERs according to which all psychoanalytic
phenomena may be described, the other two being the [[Symbolic]] order and and
the [[Imaginary]] order. The [[Real]] is thus no longer simply opposed to the
[[Imaginary]], but is also located beyond the [[Symbolic]]. Unlike the [[Symbolic]],
which is constituted in terms of oppositions such as that between presence
and absence, 'there is no absence in the [[Real]]' (S2, 313). Whereas the [[Symbolic]]
opposition between presence and absence implies the permanent possibility
that something may be missing from the [[Symbolic]] order, the [[Real]] 'is always in
its place: it carries it glued to its heel, ignorant of what might exile it from
there' (Ec, 25; see Sll, 49).
Whereas the [[Symbolic]] is a set of differentiated, discrete elements called
signifiers, the [[Real]] is, in itself, undifferentiated; 'the [[Real]] is absolutely without
fissure' (S2, 97). It is the [[Symbolic]] which introduces 'a cut in the [[Real]]' in the
process of signification: 'it is the world of words that creates the world of
things - things originally confused in the hic et nunc of the all in the process of
coming-into-being' (E, 65).
In these formulations of the period 1953-5, the [[Real]] emerges as that which is
outside language and inassimilable to symbolisation. It is 'that which resists
symbolization absolutely' (Sl, 66); or, again, the [[Real]] is 'the domain of
whatever subsists outside symbolisation' (Ec, 388). This theme remains a
constant throughout the rest of Lacan's work, and leads Lacan to link the [[Real]]
with the concept of impossibility. The [[Real]] is 'the impossible' (Sl l, 167)
because it is impossible to imagine, impossible to integrate into the [[Symbolic]]
order, and impossible to attain in any way. It is this character of impossibility
and of resistance to symbolisation which lends the [[Real]] its essentially traumatic
quality. Thus in his reading of the case of Little Hans (Freud, 1909b) in the
seminar of 1956-7, Lacan distinguishes two [[Real]] elements which intrude and
disrupt the child's [[Imaginary]] preoedipal harmony: the [[Real]] penis which begins
to make itself felt in infantile masturbation, and the newly born sister (S4,
308-9).
The [[Real]] also has connotations of matter, implying a material substrate
underlying the [[Imaginary]] and the [[Symbolic]] (see [[Materialism]]). The connota-
tions of matter also link the concept of the [[Real]] to the [[Real]]m of BIOLOGY and to
the body in its brute physicality (as opposed to the [[Imaginary]] and [[Symbolic]]
functions of the body). For example the [[Real]] father is the biological father, and
the [[Real]] phallus is the physical penis as opposed to the [[Symbolic]] and [[Imaginary]]
functions of this organ.
Throughout his work, Lacan uses the concept of the [[Real]] to elucidate a
number of clinical phenomena:
e [[Anxiety]] and trauma The [[Real]] is the object of anxiety; it lacks any
possible mediation, and is thus 'the essential object which isn't an object
any longer, but this something faced with which all words cease and all
categories fail, the object of anxiety par excellence' (S2, 164). It is the missed
encounter with this [[Real]] object which presents itself in the form of trauma (Sll,
55). It is the tyche which lies 'beyond the [[[Symbolic]]] automaton' (S11, 53) (see
CHANCE).
e HALLUCINATIONS When something cannot be integrated in the [[Symbolic]]
order, as in [[Psychosis]], it may return in the [[Real]] in the form of a hallucination
(S3, 321).
The preceding comments trace out some of the main uses to which Lacan
puts the category of the [[Real]], but are far from covering all the complexities of
this term. In fact, Lacan takes pains to ensure that the [[Real]] remains the most
elusive and mysterious of the three orders, by speaking of it less than of the
other orders, and by making it the site of a radical indeterminacy. Thus it is
never completely clear whether the [[Real]] is external or internal, or whether it is
unknowable or amenable to reason.
e Externallinternal On the one hand, the term 'the [[Real]]' seems to imply a
simplistic notion of an objective, external [[Real]]ity, a material substrate which
exists in itself, independently of any observer. On the other hand, such a
'naive' view of the [[Real]] is subverted by the fact that the [[Real]] also includes
such things as hallucinations and traumatic dreams. The [[Real]] is thus both inside
and outside (S7, 118; see EXTIMACY) (extimitÈ). This ambiguity reflects the
ambiguity inherent in Freud's own use of the two German terms for [[Real]]ity
(Wirklichkeit and [[Real]]it‰t) and the distinction Freud draws between material
[[Real]]ity and psychical [[Real]]ity (Freud, 1900a: SE V, 620).
e Unknowable/rational On the one hand, the [[Real]] cannot be known, since
it goes beyond both the [[Imaginary]] and the [[Symbolic]]; it is, like the Kantian
thing-in-itself, an unknowable x. On the other hand, Lacan quotes Hegel to the
effect that the [[Real]] is rational and the rational is [[Real]], thus implying that it is
amenable to calculation and logic.
It is possible to discern in Lacan's work, from the early 1970s on, an attempt
to resolve this indeterminacy, by reference to a distinction between the [[Real]]
and '[[Real]]ity' (such as when Lacan defines [[Real]]ity as 'the grimace of the [[Real]]' in
Lacan, 1973a: 17; see also Sl7, 148). In this opposition, the [[Real]] is placed
firmly on the side of the unknowable and unassimilable, while '[[Real]]ity' denotes
subjective representations which are a product of [[Symbolic]] and [[Imaginary]]
articulations (Freud's 'psychical [[Real]]ity'). However, after this opposition is
introduced, Lacan does not maintain it in a consistent or systematic way, but
oscillates between moments when the opposition is clearly maintained and
moments when he reverts to his previous custom of using the terms '[[Real]]' and
'[[Real]]ity' interchangeably.
== def ==
The state of nature from which we have been forever severed by our entrance into language. Only as neo-natal children were we close to this state of nature, a state in which there is nothing but need. A baby needs and seeks to satisfy those needs with no sense for any separation between itself and the external world or the world of others. For this reason, Lacan sometimes represents this state of nature as a time of fullness or completeness that is subsequently lost through the entrance into language. The primordial animal need for copulation (for example, when animals are in heat) similarly corresponds to this state of nature. There is a need followed by a search for satisfaction. As far as humans are concerned, however, "the real is impossible," as Lacan was fond of saying. It is impossible in so far as we cannot express it in language because the very entrance into language marks our irrevocable separation from the real. Still, the real continues to exert its influence throughout our adult lives since it is the rock against which all our fantasies and linguistic structures ultimately fail. The real for example continues to erupt whenever we are made to acknowledge the materiality of our existence, an acknowledgement that is usually perceived as traumatic (since it threatens our very "reality"), although it also drives Lacan's sense of jouissance. The Real works in tension with the imaginary order and the symbolic order. See the Lacan module on the structure of the psyche.
