Symbolic

From No Subject
(Redirected from Stable)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Symbolic (French: le Symbolique) is one of the three fundamental registers—alongside the Imaginary and the Real—that structure human subjectivity in the psychoanalytic theory of Jacques Lacan. Distinct from the common usage of "symbolism" (which implies a direct representation or archetypal imagery), the Lacanian Symbolic designates the trans-individual order of language, law, culture, and the social pact. It is the register of the signifier in its differential nature, operating independently of the subject’s individual intention or biological instincts.

Lacan introduced the Symbolic as the primary engine of his "Return to Freud" in the early 1950s, positing it as the structural antidote to the Ego psychology of the era, which he argued had become trapped in the Imaginary register of the ego. The Symbolic serves as the condition of possibility for the subject; the human being is born into a pre-existing bath of language—names, kinship relations, and prohibitions—that structure their reality before they utter a single word. As Lacan famously declared in his seminal 1953 text, The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis (often called the Rome Discourse):

“Man speaks, then, but it is because the symbol has made him man.”[1]

While the 1950s and 1960s—Lacan's "structuralist" phase—saw the Symbolic elevated to the status of the dominant register (regulating the Imaginary and framing the Real), his later teaching (the 1970s) would demote it. In his final topological phase, utilizing the Borromean Knot, Lacan reconfigured the Symbolic as merely one of three equal rings, prone to failure and requiring knotting with the Real and Imaginary.

Concept definition and distinctions

To understand the specific weight of the Symbolic in Lacanian theory, it must be rigorously distinguished from the other two registers of the RSI triad and differentiated from non-Lacanian theories of symbolism, particularly that of Carl Jung.

The Symbolic vs. the Imaginary

The distinction between the Symbolic and the Imaginary is the foundational cut of Lacan’s early teaching (1953–1955). The Imaginary is the register of the mirror stage, characterized by specularity, duality, and narcissism. It is the domain of the ego (moi), which is formed through an identification with a complete, totalized image of the body. Relationships in the Imaginary are defined by "transitivism": a distinct oscillation between captivation (love) and aggression (rivalry), where the distinction between self and other is blurred.[2]

The Symbolic, by contrast, breaks this dual deadlock ($a - a'$) through the introduction of a third term ($A$, the Big Other). The Symbolic is mediated, discontinuous, and triadic. While the Imaginary relies on vision and resemblance (the image), the Symbolic relies on the word and difference (the signifier).

Lacan utilizes the concept of the "wall of language" to explain how the Symbolic disrupts Imaginary communication. While the ego believes it is communicating a direct meaning to a counterpart, the Symbolic order intervenes, subjecting that message to the laws of language, displacement, and misunderstanding. In Seminar I, Lacan illustrates this:

“The symbolic world is the world of the machine and the standard... It is the order of the exchange which is not the exchange of the real, but the exchange of the signifier.”[2]

The Symbolic introduces absence into the plenitude of the Imaginary. A word (Symbol) allows a thing to be conceptually present even when it is physically absent. This capacity for abstraction and negation—rooted in Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's concept of the "murder of the Thing"—is what allows the subject to step out of the immediate, aggressive rivalry of the Imaginary and into the mediated social pact.

The Symbolic vs. the Real

If the Imaginary is what the subject sees, and the Symbolic is what the subject says, the Real is that which resists both.

In the 1950s, Lacan defined the Real largely as the "in-itself" that is expelled from the Symbolic universe. The Symbolic acts as a net or a grid thrown over the Real; the Real is the chaos of nature or the organism that exists prior to the slicing cut of the signifier. However, as Lacan’s theory developed, specifically in Seminar XI (1964), the relationship became more complex.

The Symbolic functions as an apparatus of defense against the Real. Lacan adopts Aristotle’s distinction between automaton and tuché to illustrate this:

  • The automaton is the network of signifiers, the chain of discourse that functions automatically, generating meaning and regulating homeostasis (the Pleasure principle). This is the Symbolic.
  • The tuché is the encounter with the Real—the trauma that disrupts the smooth functioning of the Symbolic chain.[3]

The Symbolic strives to "write" or formalize the Real, but it structurally fails. There is always a remainder or surplus that the Symbolic cannot metabolize. This failure is constitutive; the Symbolic is characterized by a fundamental lack (manque), whereas the Real is characterized by a suffocating plenitude (it lacks nothing).

Critique of "symbolism" (Jung vs. Lacan)

A persistent source of confusion in the reception of Lacan is the conflation of his "Symbolic" with the "symbolism" found in the depth psychology of Carl Jung or in Romantic poetry. Lacan was explicitly hostile to the Jungian notion of the Archetype.

For Jung, a symbol is an image that is pregnant with meaning, connecting the individual to a collective unconscious of universal themes (e.g., the Hero, the Mother). This view treats the symbol as a bridge between the known and the unknown, possessing an intrinsic, positive content.

For Lacan, the Symbolic is differential, not substantial. Drawing on Structural linguistics, specifically Ferdinand de Saussure, Lacan argues that a signifier (S) has no inherent meaning (s). Its value is determined entirely by its difference from other signifiers in the chain. The Symbolic is a structure of empty places, not a library of meaningful images.

Lacan critiques the "imaginary" use of symbols, where one seeks a one-to-one correspondence between an image and a meaning (e.g., "a snake represents the phallus"). In the Lacanian Symbolic, the meaning of a signifier is strictly determined by its position in the chain, and it slides constantly. As Lacan emphasizes in "The Direction of the Treatment":

“The signifier... is a unit in its very uniqueness, being the symbol only of an absence.”[1]

Therefore, to interpret a symptom "symbolically" in the Lacanian sense is not to find its "hidden meaning" in a dictionary of symbols, but to locate its formal position within the syntax of the subject's history and the discourse of the Other.

Genealogy and intellectual antecedents

The Lacanian Symbolic is not a unified invention but a complex synthesis of Sigmund Freud's metapsychology with mid-20th-century Structuralism. Lacan "structuralized" Freud, replacing hydraulic or biological metaphors with linguistic and topological ones.

Freudian foundations

While Freud did not use the term "the Symbolic" as a noun, Lacan locates the genesis of the register in Freud’s distinction between word-presentation (Wortvorstellung) and thing-presentation (Sachvorstellung), outlined in the metapsychological paper "The Unconscious" (1915).

For Freud, the conscious/preconscious system is bound to word-presentations, while the unconscious is bound to thing-presentations. Lacan radicalizes this, arguing that the unconscious is not merely a reservoir of "things" or drives, but is itself constituted by the laws of the Word (the signifier).

Lacan finds the primal scene of the Symbolic in Freud's observation of his grandson's fort-da game in Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920). The child throws a reel over the edge of his cot (fort — "gone") and pulls it back (da — "here"). Lacan reads this not merely as mastery over the mother’s departure, but as the moment of the subject's birth into the Symbolic order. The child replaces the biological presence/absence of the mother with a phonemic opposition (o–a). The symbol manifests the object as destroyed or absent, allowing the subject to master the trauma of the Real through the repetition of the signifier.

“This reel is not the mother reduced to a little ball... it is a small part of the subject that detaches itself from him while still remaining his, still retained... to make of it the signifier of the presence and absence of the mother.”[3]

The fort-da demonstrates that the Symbolic functions as a machine of repetition (automaton) meant to bind the unbindable anxiety of loss.

Saussure and structural linguistics

Lacan’s most decisive theoretical move was the appropriation of Ferdinand de Saussure’s linguistics to rewrite Freudian theory. From Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics (1916), Lacan extracts the algorithm of the sign, though he famously inverts it.

Saussure defined the sign as a unity of a sound-image (signifier) and a concept (signified), usually depicted as:

[math]\displaystyle{ \frac{s}{S} }[/math] (signified over signifier)

Lacan inverts this algorithm to assert the supremacy of the signifier, removing the bounding ellipse that Saussure used to imply unity:

[math]\displaystyle{ \frac{S}{s} }[/math] (signifier over signified)

The bar between the two letters represents a barrier rather than a link. For Lacan, there is no one-to-one correspondence between a word and a concept. Instead, there is an incessant "sliding" (glissement) of the signified under the chain of signifiers. Meaning is not inherent to the word but is an effect of the play of signifiers, fixed only momentarily by "quilting points" (Point de capiton).

This formulation allows Lacan to redefine the Symbolic not as a tool used by the subject to express reality, but as a structure that determines the subject. The subject is an effect of the signifier, a stance summarized in the definition of the signifier found in Seminar XI and "The Subversion of the Subject":

“The signifier is that which represents the subject for another signifier.”[1]

This circular definition—where the subject is represented not to a person, and not to a reality, but to another piece of the Symbolic code—is the cornerstone of Lacan's structuralist antihumanism.

Roman Jakobson: metaphor and metonymy

To operationalize the Symbolic within clinical psychoanalysis, Lacan turned to the linguist Roman Jakobson. In his study of aphasia, Jakobson identified two poles of language: the axis of selection/substitution and the axis of combination/context.

Lacan mapped Freud’s primary mechanisms of the dream-work onto these linguistic poles:

  • Condensation (Verdichtung) = metaphor (substitution of one signifier for another).
  • Displacement (Verschiebung) = metonymy (connection of signifier to signifier via contiguity).

In "The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious," Lacan asserts that the symptom is a metaphor—a substitution of a somatic or behavioral signifier for a repressed traumatic signifier. Desire, conversely, is metonymy—it is the eternal displacement of the want-to-be along the chain of signifiers, never finding a final object.[1]

[math]\displaystyle{ f(S...S')S \cong S (-) s }[/math] (formula for metonymy) [math]\displaystyle{ f(\frac{S'}{S})S \cong S (+) s }[/math] (formula for metaphor)

This linguistic formalization allowed Lacan to claim that "the unconscious is structured like a language"—not that it is a language (it lacks a code, sender, and receiver in the standard sense), but that it obeys the structural laws of the Symbolic: metaphor and metonymy.


Claude Lévi-Strauss and structural anthropology

If linguistics provided the mechanics of the Symbolic, Claude Lévi-Strauss provided its scope as the domain of law and culture. Lacan was deeply influenced by The Elementary Structures of Kinship (1949), specifically the analysis of the incest taboo.

For Lévi-Strauss, the prohibition of incest is the "zero point" of culture, the transition from Nature to Culture. It forces the biological family to open up, necessitating the exchange of women between clans. Lacan adopted this to argue that the Symbolic is fundamentally an order of exchange and pact.

The Symbolic is the domain of the gift (drawing also on Marcel Mauss). The gift binds subjects together not because of the object given, but because of the symbolic circuit it establishes. In the Symbolic, the object is nothing; the pact is everything.

Lacan identified the incest taboo with the Law of the Father. The Symbolic order is patriarchal in structure (though not necessarily in biological essence) because it operates via the "Name-of-the-Father" (Nom-du-Père), the fundamental signifier that introduces the Law. It separates the child from the mother, breaking the Imaginary dual union and forcing the child into the world of words and exchange.

Thus, the Symbolic is synonymous with the Law:

“The law of man has been the law of language since the first words of recognition presided over the first gifts... The primordial Law is therefore that which in regulating marriage ties superimposes the kingdom of culture on that of a nature abandoned to the law of mating.”[1]

The structuralist phase (1953–1963)

The decade spanning from the "Rome Discourse" (1953) to the establishment of the École Freudienne de Paris (1964) is widely regarded as Lacan's structuralist phase. During this period, Lacan rigorously applied the tools of linguistics and anthropology to psychoanalysis, elevating the Symbolic to the status of the dominant register. In this hierarchy, the Symbolic structures the Imaginary (giving coordinates to the ego) and frames the Real (rendering it as the "impossible" that the Symbolic fails to write). The goal of analysis in this phase was often conceived as the restoration of the subject's full history within the Symbolic order, moving from "empty speech" to "full speech."

The Rome Discourse (1953)

The inaugural manifesto of Lacan's structuralism is the text "The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis," delivered in Rome in September 1953. This text marks the formal break with the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA) and the rejection of Ego psychology.

In this text, Lacan introduces the crucial distinction between full speech (parole pleine) and empty speech (parole vide).

  • Empty speech is the speech of the ego, rooted in the Imaginary. It is characterized by frustration, objectification, and the "wall of language." In empty speech, the subject speaks about themselves as an object, engaging in a dialogue of mirrors with the analyst, seeking validation or rivalry. It is "the labor of the Sisyphus of analysis," an endless loop of misrecognition.[1]
  • Full speech is the speech that realizes the truth of the subject within the Symbolic order. It is performative; it acts rather than describes. Full speech acknowledges the subject's desire and their history as determined by the signifier. It is the moment where the subject assumes their position within the Symbolic pact.

Lacan defines the goal of analysis in this period as the realization of full speech:

"Psychoanalysis has but one medium: the patient's speech. The obviousness of this fact is no excuse for ignoring it... Full speech is speech which performs. One of the subjects finds himself, afterwards, other than he was before."[1]

Full speech is not necessarily "truthful" in the sense of factual accuracy, but "truthful" in the sense of symbolic efficacy. It is the speech that binds the subject to the Law and the Other, much like a vow or a contract.

The unconscious structured like a language

The axiomatic core of the structuralist phase is the proposition: "The unconscious is structured like a language."

This formula, crystallized in Seminar XI, asserts that the unconscious is not a primitive, chaotic reservoir of biological drives (as in the Id), nor is it the seat of irrationality. Instead, it is a complex, logical network that operates according to specific laws—laws that are identical to the laws of language (metaphor and metonymy).[3]

This proposition implies three radical shifts in psychoanalytic theory:

  • Materiality: The unconscious is composed of discrete elements—signifiers (S1, S2, ... Sn)—that function differentially. These signifiers are the "letters" of the unconscious, inscribed in the body and the subject's history.
  • Autonomy: The unconscious chain of signifiers functions autonomously, outside the subject's conscious control. It is an automaton that repeats itself, insisting on discharge not of energy, but of meaning.
  • Discourse: The unconscious is not "inside" the subject (in the depths of the psyche) but "outside," in the trans-individual field of language. Lacan posits that "the unconscious is the discourse of the Other."[1]

The subject is merely a breach or a pulse in this pre-existing chain. The unconscious speaks (ça parle) where the subject suffers.


The Big Other (l'Autre)

To formalize the Symbolic as a trans-individual structure, Lacan introduced the concept of the Big Other (represented by the symbol A for Autre), distinguishing it sharply from the "little other" (a for autre).

  • The little other (a): Belonging to the Imaginary register, the little other is the specular counterpart, the reflection in the mirror, or the peer. The relation to a is one of identification, projection, and rivalry.
  • The Big Other (A): Belonging to the Symbolic register, the Big Other is the radical alterity that cannot be assimilated or mirrored. It is the "locus" or "treasury" of signifiers where speech is constituted.

The Big Other functions as the third party in any dialogue. When two subjects speak, they do not merely exchange information; they send their message to the Big Other (the code, the law, the language), which then returns the message to the receiver in an inverted form. As Lacan states in "The Subversion of the Subject":

"The Other is the locus in which is constituted the I who speaks to him who hears, that which is said by the one being already the reply... or deciding to hear it."[1]

This locus (A) represents the Law, the State, God, or simply the rules of grammar—any structure that mediates the relation between subjects. Importantly, during the structuralist phase, Lacan often treats the Big Other as a complete or consistent system, a guarantor of truth. It is only in the late 1960s that he will formalize the inconsistency of the Other (symbolized as $\cancel{A}$ or $S(\cancel{A})$), acknowledging that there is "no Other of the Other."

The signifying chain and the point de capiton

If the Symbolic is a structure, its mechanic is the signifying chain (chaîne signifiante). Lacan posits that signifiers do not produce meaning in isolation (S \neq s). Instead, they form a chain (S1 \rightarrow S2 \rightarrow S3 \rightarrow ...) where meaning is perpetually deferred or "slides" under the bar.

This sliding (glissement) of the signified implies that meaning is never present in the moment of speaking. It is always anticipated or deferred. To stop this indefinite sliding and produce a stable meaning (and a stable subject), the chain must be anchored. Lacan calls this anchoring mechanism the Point de capiton (quilting point or button tie).

Derived from the upholstery technique of using buttons to hold stuffing in place, the point de capiton creates a fixed relation between signifier and signified. This fixation occurs retroactively (Après-coup or Nachträglichkeit). The sentence is the simplest example: the meaning of the first word is not determined until the final word (the punctuation) is uttered, which retroactively seals the meaning of the whole sentence.

In Seminar III: The Psychoses (1955–1956), Lacan uses the point de capiton to explain sanity versus psychosis. The "normal" (neurotic) subject has a fundamental point de capiton—the Name-of-the-Father—which pins the Symbolic order to the Imaginary, regulating the slide of meaning. In psychosis, this main quilting point is missing, causing signifiers to slide uncontrollably, leading to the "word salad" of schizophrenia or the neologisms of paranoia.[4]

The diagram of the point de capiton is essential to understanding the graph of desire, representing the moment where the vector of the subject's intention crosses the vector of the signifying chain, producing a moment of "punctuation" where a signifier (S) momentarily halts the flux of meaning (s).

Law, father, and phallus

For Lacan, the Symbolic is not a neutral system of signs but a register of authority, prohibition, and lack. It is structured by the intervention of a "third term" that disrupts the immediate, dual relation between the child and the mother. This intervention introduces the Law (loi), which Lacan identifies with the function of the father. However, Lacan is careful to distinguish the Symbolic father from the biological or imaginary father. The Symbolic father is a function, a signifier, and a position within the structure, not a person.

This function is inaugurated by the Name-of-the-Father (Nom-du-Père), which facilitates the operation of the paternal metaphor and installs the phallus as the primary signifier of desire.

The Name-of-the-Father (Nom-du-Père)

The Name-of-the-Father is the fundamental signifier (S1) that anchors the Symbolic order for the subject. It is the signifier of the Law, specifically the law of the incest taboo. Lacan introduces this concept in the 1950s to explain how a human subject moves from the state of nature (unmediated drives) to the state of culture (mediated desire).

Crucially, the Name-of-the-Father is a signifier, not a person. It is the symbol of an authority that is absent. Lacan distinguishes between three types of fathers:

  • The Symbolic father: The dead father, the law-giver, the name itself. He is the agent of castration.
  • The Imaginary father: The ideal father, the terrifying or benevolent figure, the father as rival or protector.
  • The Real father: The biological father, the sperm donor, or the man who effectively occupies the place of the mother's partner.[5]

The Name-of-the-Father functions by intervening in the child’s desire for the mother. In the primordial state, the child wishes to be the object of the mother's desire (to be her Phallus). The Name-of-the-Father prohibits this fusion: "No, you will not sleep with your mother," and "No, she is not yours alone." This prohibition separates the child from the mother and forces the child to seek satisfaction elsewhere, in the wider Symbolic network.

If the Name-of-the-Father is successfully installed (a process Lacan describes as being insisted upon), the subject enters the Symbolic order as a neurotic (or "normal") subject. If the Name-of-the-Father is rejected or foreclosed (verworfen), the result is psychosis.[4]

The paternal metaphor

The mechanism by which the Name-of-the-Father is installed is called the paternal metaphor. A metaphor, in Lacan's linguistic sense, is the substitution of one signifier for another (S' for S). In the paternal metaphor, the Name-of-the-Father substitutes itself for the Desire of the Mother (Désir de la Mère).

Lacan formalizes this operation with the following matheme:

[math]\displaystyle{ \frac{\text{Name-of-the-Father}}{\text{Desire of the Mother}} \cdot \frac{\text{Desire of the Mother}}{\text{Subject}} \rightarrow \text{Name-of-the-Father} \left( \frac{A}{\text{Phallus}} \right) }[/math]

In this formula:

  • Desire of the Mother (DM): The primordial signifier of the mother's enigmatic wanting. The child asks, "What does she want?" and answers, "She wants the Phallus."
  • Name-of-the-Father (NF): The signifier that prohibits the child from being the Phallus for the mother.
  • The result (A/Phallus): The metaphor produces the signification of the Phallus (-φ). The Phallus is barred or repressed; it becomes the symbol of what is lost.

By substituting the Name-of-the-Father for the Desire of the Mother, the subject is liberated from the anxiety of being the mother's object. The desire of the mother is metaphorized into the law of the father. This operation creates a "meaning" (s) for the subject: the meaning of castration (castration). The subject accepts that they do not have the Phallus (if male) or are not the Phallus (if female) but must seek it in the Symbolic exchange.

As Lacan writes in "On a Question Prior to Any Possible Treatment of Psychosis":

"The metaphor of the Name-of-the-Father... is the metaphor of the subject's access to the symbolic order."[1]

The Phallus as symbolic signifier

Central to the Symbolic order is the Phallus (Φ or -φ). Lacan is rigorous in distinguishing the Phallus from the biological organ (the penis). The penis belongs to the Real (anatomy) or the Imaginary (the visible organ). The Phallus, however, belongs to the Symbolic.

The Phallus is the signifier of lack. It is the symbol of what the mother desires but does not have (in the child’s fantasy). Because the mother desires something beyond the child, the child realizes there is a lack in the Other. The Phallus comes to represent this lack.

  • Imaginary Phallus (-φ): The object the child imagines the mother wants. The child attempts to be this object to satisfy her.
  • Symbolic Phallus (Φ): The signifier that circulates in the Symbolic economy. It is the standard of value, the "logo" of desire. It cannot be possessed; it can only be exchanged or signified.

Lacan famously argues that "the Phallus is the signifier of the desire of the Other."[1] It signifies that desire is always desire for something else, something missing. Because the Phallus represents lack, it is the engine of the signifying chain. It pushes the subject from one signifier to the next (S1 \rightarrow S2 \rightarrow S3) in search of the lost object that would complete the chain.

Crucially, in the structuralist phase, Lacan posits that the Phallus is the transcendental signifier—the one signifier that anchors all others and prevents the slide of meaning into nonsense. It is the "1" that gives value to the "0" of the subject.

The Symbolic order is thus phallocentric in the structural sense: it is organized around a central lack/signifier that distributes positions (having/being). Men take up the position of "having" the Phallus (while risking losing it: castration anxiety), while women take up the position of "being" the Phallus (the object of desire), masquerading to cover the lack.

"The phallus is the privileged signifier of that mark in which the role of the logos is joined with the advent of desire."[1]

This phallocentrism would later become a major point of contention for feminist theorists (see Section 8).

Clinical structures (diagnostics)

In Lacanian psychoanalysis, clinical diagnosis is strictly structural, determined by the subject’s relation to the Symbolic order (specifically the Name-of-the-Father). Unlike psychiatric diagnoses based on symptom clusters (e.g., DSM criteria), Lacan categorizes subjects based on the fundamental mechanism that governs their entry (or non-entry) into language and law. These mechanisms are repression (neurosis), foreclosure (psychosis), and disavowal (perversion).

Neurosis: repression (Verdrängung)

Neurosis is the structure of the "normal" subject who has successfully undergone the paternal metaphor. The Name-of-the-Father has replaced the Desire of the Mother, installing the Law and separating the subject from the immediate Jouissance of the Other.

The defining mechanism of neurosis is repression (Verdrängung). The neurotic accepts symbolic Castration—the fact that they cannot be the Phallus for the mother—but represses the knowledge of this lack. This repressed truth returns in the form of symptoms (slips of the tongue, dreams, bodily conversions).

Lacan distinguishes between two main types of neurosis based on the subject's question regarding their existence:

  • Hysteria: The hysteric questions the Other’s desire: "Am I a man or a woman?" "What do you want from me?" The hysteric identifies with the lack in the Other, sustaining desire by keeping it unsatisfied.
  • Obsessional neurosis: The obsessive questions the Other’s existence: "To be or not to be?" "Am I alive or dead?" The obsessive attempts to neutralize the Other’s desire by strictly adhering to the Law, rituals, and impossible tasks.

In both cases, the neurotic is fully inscribed in the Symbolic but suffers from the "passion for ignorance" regarding their own castration.[4]

Psychosis: foreclosure (Verwerfung)

Psychosis results from the radical failure of the Symbolic function. The specific mechanism is foreclosure (Verwerfung), a term Lacan adapted from Freud’s Verwerfung (rejection) and legal terminology (meaning the forfeiture of a right).

In psychosis, the Name-of-the-Father is rejected from the Symbolic universe. It is not repressed (buried in the unconscious); it is abolished. Because the fundamental signifier (S1) is missing, the entire Symbolic order is destabilized. Meaning cannot be anchored (no Point de capiton), and the subject is inundated by the unmediated Real.

Lacan’s famous formula for psychosis is:

"What does not come to light in the symbolic appears in the real."[1]

Because the Law is foreclosed from the Symbolic, it returns from the outside in the form of hallucinations (voices, delusions of persecution). The psychotic is "martyred" by language; words are treated as things (Real), not as symbols. The psychotic cannot establish a metaphorical distance from the Other and is invaded by the Other’s jouissance (e.g., Daniel Paul Schreber’s delusion of being transformed into a woman to become God’s wife).

Perversion: disavowal (Verleugnung)

Perversion is a distinct structure characterized by disavowal (Verleugnung). The pervert perceives the lack in the Other (the mother’s castration) but refuses to accept its symbolic consequences. The pervert says: "I know very well (that she lacks the Phallus), but all the same..."

The pervert disavows the Law of the Father and attempts to plug the hole in the Symbolic with a fetish object or by enacting a scenario of mastery and submission. The pervert makes themselves the instrument of the Other’s Jouissance, working to ensure the Other (Law) is complete and satisfied.

Lacan argues that perversion is the "inverse of neurosis." While the neurotic fantasizes about transgressing the Law, the pervert actually transgresses it in order to uphold it. The pervert's actions are strictly regulated by a ritual that aims to demonstrate that the Law exists and can be defied.[5]

Formalization and mathemes

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, Lacan sought to formalize psychoanalysis into a science capable of transmitting knowledge without relying on intuition or "meaning." He developed topological schemas and algebraic formulas known as mathemes to map the structure of the Symbolic.

Schema L and Schema R

Schema L (first presented in Seminar II) maps the intersubjective dialectic. It demonstrates that communication is never direct but is mediated by the Symbolic and the Imaginary.

[math]\displaystyle{ \begin{matrix} (Es) S & \rightarrow & \text{other} (a') \\ \downarrow & \swarrow & \uparrow \\ (ego) a & \leftarrow & \text{Other} (A) \end{matrix} }[/math]

  • The axis a – a′ is the Imaginary axis. It represents the ego's relationship to its counterpart (reflection). This relationship forms a barrier (the "wall of language") that interrupts true speech.
  • The axis S – A is the Symbolic axis. It represents the subject's relationship to the Big Other (the unconscious). True speech must cross the Imaginary wall to reach the Other.[6]

Schema R (in "On a Question Prior to Any Possible Treatment of Psychosis") expands this model by mapping the fields of Reality (R), the Imaginary (I), and the Symbolic (S) onto a projective plane (the Cross-cap). It visualizes how the Name-of-the-Father cuts the Imaginary dyad to create a space for Reality.

The graph of desire

The graph of desire (graphe du désir) is Lacan’s most complex topological model of the Symbolic, developed in Seminar V and finalized in "The Subversion of the Subject." It maps the trajectory of the subject's need as it passes through the defiles of the signifier.

The graph is composed of two levels:

  • The lower level: The level of the statement (énoncé). Here, the drive meets the signifier, producing meaning via the Point de capiton.
  • The upper level: The level of enunciation (énonciation). Here, the subject questions the Other ("Che vuoi?" — "What do you want?"), giving rise to fantasy ($ \\diamond a$) and the drive ($ \\diamond D$).

The graph demonstrates that desire is not biological but is constructed entirely within the Symbolic. It shows that there is no metalanguage; the Other is inconsistent (S(\\cancel{A})), meaning the Symbolic cannot guarantee its own truth.[1]

The four discourses

In Seminar XVII (1969–1970), Lacan introduced the four discourses to formalize the social bonds created by the Symbolic. Each discourse arranges four mathemes (S1, S2, $, a) in four positions (agent, Other, product, truth).

  • Master's discourse: The rule of the master signifier (S1) over knowledge (S2). The dominant discourse of the Symbolic order.
  • University discourse: Knowledge (S2) in the place of command, masking the master signifier.
  • Hysteric's discourse: The split subject ($) questioning the Master, demanding knowledge.
  • Analyst's discourse: The object a in the place of the agent, causing the subject to produce their own signifiers.[7]

These discourses show that the Symbolic is not a monolithic block but a rotatable structure of relations.

The late phase: topological shifts (1970s)

In the final decade of his teaching (1970–1981), Lacan fundamentally reconfigured the status of the Symbolic. Moving away from the linguistic structuralism of the 1950s (where the Symbolic held supremacy over the Imaginary and the Real), Lacan turned toward topology—specifically knot theory—to formalize the relations between the registers.

This period is characterized by the "decline" of the Symbolic's dominance. Lacan no longer posits the Symbolic as the ultimate cure or the guarantor of truth. Instead, he formalizes the inconsistency of the Symbolic order, asserting that it is inherently flawed ("holey") and incapable of fully absorbing the Real. This shift was driven by clinical necessities (accounting for un-triggered psychoses and the changing social order) and theoretical developments (notably the logic of the not-all (pas-tout)).

From supremacy to equivalence

During the structuralist phase, the Symbolic was the "captain" of the subject; it regulated the Imaginary and framed the Real. However, in Seminar XIX (...ou pire) and Seminar XX (Encore), Lacan began to dismantle this hierarchy.

By the time of Seminar XXII (R.S.I.), Lacan declared the equivalence of the three registers. In the topological figure of the Borromean Knot, the Real, Symbolic, and Imaginary are represented as three rings of string. No ring is superior to the others; they are mutually interdependent. If any one ring is cut, the entire knot falls apart (the rings become unlinked).[8]

This topological shift implies that the Symbolic is no longer the "cause" of the subject but merely one dimension of the subject's consistency (or "ex-sistence"). The Symbolic is revealed to be fragile. It is no longer a rigid structure but a flexible "consistence" that requires the support of the Real and the Imaginary to function.

The pluralization of the Names-of-the-Father

A crucial consequence of this flattening is the pluralization of the Name-of-the-Father. In his single-session seminar of 1963 (Introduction to the Names-of-the-Father), Lacan had already hinted at this development, but in the 1970s it became explicit.

Lacan argued that the singular Name-of-the-Father (the traditional patriarchal law) was merely one possible mode of knotting the three registers. In the modern era, the "Father" as a guarantee of meaning was in decline. Consequently, the function of naming and law could be performed by other signifiers or social symptoms.

In Seminar XXI (Les non-dupes errent), Lacan puns on the "Names of the Father" (Noms-du-Père) and the "Non-dupes err" (Non-dupes errent). He suggests that those who do not allow themselves to be duped by the Symbolic fiction (the non-dupes) are precisely those who err (wander or go astray). To be "normal" or structurally stable is to be "duped" by a Name-of-the-Father—any signifier that successfully knots the Real, Symbolic, and Imaginary together.

"The father is only a symptom, or a sinthome... The Name-of-the-Father is the name given to something which has the function of the symptom."[9]

The inconsistency of the Other (S(\\cancel{A}))

The most rigorous formalization of the Symbolic's decline is the matheme S(\\cancel{A}), which translates as "the signifier of the barred Other" or "the signifier of the lack in the Other."

In the 1950s, the Big Other (A) was treated as the "treasury of signifiers," a complete locus of truth. In the late 1960s and 1970s, Lacan posited that "There is no Other of the Other."[1] This means there is no metalanguage capable of guaranteeing the truth of the Symbolic system. The Symbolic is not a closed set; it is an open set characterized by a fundamental lack.

S(\\cancel{A}) represents the point where the Symbolic fails to signify the Real—most notably in the domain of the sexual relationship, which Lacan famously declared "does not exist." The Symbolic is not-all (pas-tout). It cannot cover the entirety of the subject's experience, particularly the dimension of feminine Jouissance.

Because the Symbolic is inconsistent, the subject cannot rely on it completely for identity. The subject must invent a solution to deal with the "hole" in the Symbolic.

The Borromean Knot and the Sinthome

The culmination of Lacan’s theory of the Symbolic is Seminar XXIII: The Sinthome (1975–1976). Here, Lacan analyzes the writing of James Joyce to demonstrate a new clinical configuration that is neither neurosis nor psychosis in the classical sense.

Lacan proposes that in some cases, the three rings of the Borromean Knot (Real, Symbolic, Imaginary) are not linked Borromeanly on their own. The Symbolic ring, for instance, may be loose (as in the foreclosure of the Name-of-the-Father). In such cases, a fourth ring is required to lock the three together and prevent the unraveling of the knot.

This fourth ring is the sinthome (Σ).

In the case of Joyce, Lacan argues that the Name-of-the-Father was foreclosed (the paternal function was deficient), which would ordinarily risk psychosis. However, Joyce "made a name for himself" through his writing. His artistic practice functioned as a sinthome—a supplemental symbolic prosthesis that knotted his Imaginary (his ego), the Real (his bodily jouissance), and the Symbolic (his language) into a stable configuration.

"The sinthome is what allows the Symbolic, the Imaginary, and the Real to hold together... It is a way of repairing the error of the knot."[9]

The concept of the sinthome fundamentally changes the aim of psychoanalysis with respect to the Symbolic. The goal is no longer to restore the paternal metaphor or to reconcile the subject with the Law (an impossible task if there is no complete Other). Instead, the aim becomes for the analysand to identify with their sinthome—to assume and make use of the singular, idiosyncratic signifier or practice that holds their subjectivity together.

In this final phase, the Symbolic becomes a tool for invention rather than subjection. It is no longer simply the Law to be obeyed, but material to be knotted.

Critique, debate, and legacy

Since the publication of the Écrits in 1966, Lacan's conception of the Symbolic has been a flashpoint in critical theory, particularly regarding its implications for gender, structure, and political agency. While the register was initially embraced as a tool for dismantling the autonomous subject of humanism, it later faced sustained scrutiny for its perceived determinism and phallocentrism.

Feminist critiques

The most significant and sustained critique of the Lacanian Symbolic emerged from French feminism in the 1970s, specifically regarding the centrality of the Phallus and the Name-of-the-Father.

Luce Irigaray, a former student of Lacan, launched a polemical critique in Speculum of the Other Woman (1974). Irigaray argues that the Lacanian Symbolic is isomorphic with the male imaginary. Because the Symbolic economy relies on the Phallus as the universal signifier of lack (-φ) and value, it leaves women with no distinct subject position other than "lack" or "masquerade." For Irigaray, the Lacanian Symbolic is "hommosexual" (hommosexuel)—a closed economy in which men exchange signifiers among themselves, using women as objects of exchange (following Claude Lévi-Strauss), without recognizing a feminine imaginary or symbolic specific to women.[10]

Julia Kristeva offered a different line of critique in Revolution in Poetic Language (1974). Kristeva distinguishes between the Symbolic (the domain of law, syntax, and the father) and the Semiotic (le sémiotique). The semiotic is linked to the pre-Oedipal maternal body and characterized by rhythmic drives and the chora. Kristeva argues that while the Symbolic is necessary for social stability, it represses the semiotic. However, the semiotic constantly erupts within the Symbolic, manifesting in poetry, madness, and avant-garde art. Unlike Irigaray, Kristeva does not reject the Symbolic outright but emphasizes its precarious dependence on what it excludes.[11]

Lacan responded indirectly to these critiques in Seminar XX: Encore (1972–1973) through his formulas of sexuation. He argued that while the Symbolic is structured by the phallic function ("There is no Other of the Other"), woman is not-all (pas-toute) inscribed within it. This positions the feminine subject in a unique relation to the Symbolic—one that includes access to a Supplementary jouissance beyond the phalllic function.[12]


Post-structuralism (Derrida)

The philosopher Jacques Derrida engaged in a well-known debate with Lacan concerning the nature of the signifier and truth, primarily centered on Lacan’s reading of Edgar Allan Poe's "The Purloined Letter."

In "The Purveyor of Truth" (1975), Derrida critiqued Lacan’s assertion that "a letter always arrives at its destination." For Lacan, this maxim illustrates the determinism of the Symbolic: the signifier (the letter) produces the subject’s position regardless of the subject's will. The "destination" is not a person, but the symbolic place the subject must occupy.

Derrida argued that Lacan’s reading was teleological and phonocentric. He accused Lacan of elevating the Phallus into a transcendental signifier—a master term that would escape the endless play of difference (différance) and anchor truth. Derrida maintained that a letter can fail to arrive and that this possibility of dissemination (drift without anchor) is constitutive of language. For Derrida, Lacan’s Symbolic attempts to close the structural openness of the text by imposing a Law (castration) that stabilizes meaning.[13]

Lacanian theorists such as Barbara Johnson have defended Lacan by arguing that the "destination" of the letter is not a harmonious resolution or fixed truth, but the return of the repressed. On this reading, the Phallus is not a presence but a signifier of lack, making it the opposite of a transcendental center.

Contemporary interpretations (Miller vs. Žižek)

In contemporary Lacanian theory, the interpretation of the Symbolic often divides between the clinical orientation of Jacques-Alain Miller and the philosophical–political orientation of Slavoj Žižek.

Jacques-Alain Miller and the World Association of Psychoanalysis emphasize the late Lacan and the devaluation of the Symbolic. Miller argues that in the 21st century, the Name-of-the-Father no longer reliably anchors the Symbolic order. We inhabit an era of the "Other that does not exist." Consequently, the Symbolic is no longer primarily a machine of repression but a proliferating network of "lying truths." Miller’s clinical practice focuses on the Real of the symptom (the "One-all-alone"), treating the Symbolic as a secondary apparatus of elaboration. Interpretation is no longer about adding meaning (Symbolic supplementation), but about making a cut that isolates the non-meaning of enjoyment.[14]

Slavoj Žižek, by contrast, emphasizes the symbolic efficacy of fiction. Drawing on the structuralist Lacan while incorporating insights from the late teaching, Žižek argues that although the Big Other (A) does not exist as a consistent guarantor of truth, it nonetheless functions because subjects act as if it exists. This is the mechanism of ideology. For Žižek, the Symbolic is the domain of "objective belief": subjects obey the law not necessarily because they consciously believe in it, but to sustain the social bond. Žižek interprets the contemporary "decline of symbolic efficiency" as a crisis in which subjects lack a shared Big Other to register their reality, contributing to paranoia, cynicism, and fragmentation.[15]

References and bibliography

The following is a comprehensive list of primary and secondary sources used to define the concept of the Symbolic.


See also

References

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 Lacan, J. (2006). Écrits: The First Complete Edition in English. Trans. Bruce Fink. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 229.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Lacan, J. (1988). The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book I: Freud's Papers on Technique 1953–1954. Trans. John Forrester. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 170.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Lacan, J. (1981). The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 53–55.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Lacan, J. (1993). The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book III: The Psychoses 1955–1956. Trans. Russell Grigg. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 268–270.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Lacan, J. (2020). The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book IV: The Object Relation 1956–1957. Trans. A. R. Price. Cambridge: Polity Press, p. 205–210.
  6. ↑ Lacan, J. (1988). The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book II: The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis 1954–1955. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 243.
  7. ↑ Lacan, J. (2007). The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XVII: The Other Side of Psychoanalysis. Trans. Russell Grigg. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 29–45.
  8. ↑ Lacan, J. (1974–1975). The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XXII: R.S.I. Unpublished translation by Cormac Gallagher.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Lacan, J. (2016). The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XXIII: The Sinthome 1975–1976. Trans. A. R. Price. Cambridge: Polity Press, p. 11.
  10. ↑ Irigaray, L. (1985). This Sex Which Is Not One. Trans. Catherine Porter. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, p. 85; 170–172.
  11. ↑ Kristeva, J. (1984). Revolution in Poetic Language. Trans. Margaret Waller. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 25–30.
  12. ↑ Lacan, J. (1998). The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XX: Encore 1972–1973. Trans. Bruce Fink. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 72–74.
  13. ↑ Derrida, J. (1987). "The Purveyor of Truth." In The Post Card: From Socrates to Freud and Beyond. Trans. Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 413–496.
  14. ↑ Miller, J.-A. (2013). "The Other Without Other." In Lacanian Ink 41, pp. 8–27.
  15. ↑ Žižek, S. (1999). The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology. London: Verso, p. 322–334.


Retrieved from "https://nosubject.com/index.php?title=Symbolic&oldid=67423"