Talk:Desire of the Other

From No Subject
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Desire of the Other (désir de l'Autre)

The Desire of the Other (French: désir de l'Autre), formally designated in Lacan’s mathemes as d(A) or often simply as 𝐃 for Desire, is the central concept in Lacanian psychoanalysis that establishes the subject's desire as fundamentally mediated by the symbolic lack and desire of the Other. It signifies that what the subject truly desires is not a particular object, but the definitive **recognition** of their desire by the Other, or, more profoundly, a decisive position within the symbolic structure ($Symbolic Order$) that constitutes the Other itself.[1]

Lacan’s formulation inverts the traditional understanding of desire: the subject's desire is always experienced as the desire of the Other. This relationship is articulated in the famous Lacanian maxim: *“Man’s desire is the desire of the Other.”*[2] The concept is essential for understanding the genesis of subjectivity, the formation of the unconscious, the structure of the Graph of Desire, and the dynamics of transference in the analytic cure.

History and Genealogy

Freudian Antecedents: Wish (Wunsch) and Desire

Lacan's concept of desire, and specifically the desire of the Other, is a structural re-reading of Freud's notion of *Wunsch* (wish) and its relation to the unconscious. Freud posited that the unconscious operates via the *wish to return to an original state of satisfaction* (e.g., the hallucinated breast of the mother, the primary experience of fulfillment). This primordial wish persists in the unconscious and seeks expression through dream, symptom, and slip of the tongue.[3]

Lacan formalizes this Freudian insight by noting that the object of the *Wunsch* is permanently lost through the subject's immersion in the symbolic order. Desire thus becomes defined not by the object it aims for, but by the object's essential absence—the lack (French: *manque*). The desire of the Other emerges as the decisive factor in regulating this primal Freudian wish. Lacan states that the truth of desire lies *“in the discourse of the Other,”* emphasizing its linguistic, rather than biological, origin.[2]

Hegelian Dialectics and Recognition

Lacan’s early theory of desire, articulated fully in the mid-1950s, is heavily indebted to Hegel's master-slave dialectic as interpreted by Alexandre Kojève. The human subject, for Hegel, desires not things, but the recognition of their value from another subject.

Lacan adapts this dialectic by positing that the subject's initial desire is purely aimed at being recognized by the Other (the primordial Other, usually the mother). However, the Other itself is revealed to be lacking and desiring. The subject's desire thus shifts from seeking simple recognition *from* the Other to seeking the content *of* the Other's desire: "What do I represent for the Other?" and "What does the Other desire?" This structural demand for the Other's desire establishes the fundamental alienating condition of the subject's entry into the symbolic order.[4]

Distinction of Need, Demand, and Desire

The concept of the Desire of the Other is structurally dependent on Lacan's tripartite schema distinguishing Need, Demand, and Desire:

  • Need (*besoin*): A biological requirement aimed at a specific, real object (e.g., food, warmth). It is fully satisfied by the object.
  • Demand (*demande*): Need articulated through language. Since language transforms a simple need into a plea for recognition and presence ("Feed me" becomes "Love me"), demand always carries an *absolute demand for love* that exceeds the satisfaction of the need. Demand is essentially the demand *of* the Other.
  • Desire (*désir*): The irreducible remainder left over when Need is subtracted from Demand. Desire is neither the appetite for real objects (Need) nor the absolute demand for love (Demand); it is what persists *qua* lack, an absolute and unfulfillable movement. Desire is ultimately the desire *for the desire of the Other*.

As Lacan writes, demand becomes contaminated by desire, leaving a permanent gap: *“Desire is neither the appetite for satisfaction, nor the demand for love, but the difference resulting from the subtraction of the first from the second.”*[2] Desire thus emerges in the wake of the Other's demand, taking the Other's desire as its fundamental object.

Development in Key Seminars

The concept was developed across several key periods in Lacan's teaching:

  • **Early Period (Seminars I–V):** Desire of the Other is initially articulated as the *Word* of the Other, focusing on the symbolic mediation of the mother-child relationship. The crucial distinction between the Other's word and the subject's meaning is established, setting the stage for the structural model.
  • **Middle Period (Seminars VI–X):** The concept is formalized in the Graph of Desire. The focus shifts to the structural function of the Name-of-the-Father in mediating the mother's desire. The formulation becomes definitively structural: desire is desire for $d(A)$, which is itself marked by the **lack in the Other** ($\bar{A}$).
  • **Late Period (Seminars XVII–XX):** The concept is re-contextualized in terms of *jouissance* and the Four Discourses. The emphasis moves from the Name-of-the-Father's prohibition to the question of **surplus-jouissance** that remains after $d(A)$'s regulating function, and how the Other's desire is an articulation of its own fundamental *lack*.

Psychoanalytic Significance: Structure and Formalization

The Desire of the Other and Symbolic Castration

The subject's initial entry into the Symbolic Order is defined by the necessary intervention of the Name-of-the-Father (*Nom-du-Père*). This intervention resolves the primordial, dual relationship between the child and the mother (*Mutter*) by placing a **signifier of prohibition** (the Name-of-the-Father) over the **Mother's Desire** ($D_M$).

The Desire of the Other is revealed initially as the Mother's Desire, which the child perceives as omnipotent and potentially engulfing. The Name-of-the-Father serves as the signifier that *regulates* this desire, establishing the law of incest and introducing symbolic castration. This is the mechanism Lacan formalizes as the **Paternal Metaphor**.[2]

The subject's access to desire thus passes through the recognition that the Mother's Desire is itself mediated and subject to a higher symbolic Law. This process transforms the subject's question from: "What does the Mother want of me?" (a totalizing question) to "What does the Law want of the Mother?" (a mediated, regulated question). By placing a bar over the Mother's Desire, the Name-of-the-Father enables the subject's own desire to emerge, marked by the resulting lack.

The Barred Other ($\bar{A}$) and Lack

The Desire of the Other is fundamentally rooted in the notion that the **Other is lacking**; the Other is not complete, not a source of ultimate meaning, and not capable of providing total fulfillment. Lacan formalizes this lack through the **Barred Other** (A¯).

If the Other were complete, its desire would be satisfied by its knowledge, and there would be no space for the subject's own desire to emerge. The desire of the Other is precisely the Other's articulation of its own lack, its inability to provide the final word or ultimate meaning. The subject desires the desire of the Other because they unconsciously believe that the Other's desire holds the key to the ultimate, missing signifier that would complete the self.[5]

However, the realization gained through analysis is that the Other is also barred—that *“there is no Other of the Other”* (Il n′y a pas d′Autre de l′Autre). The Other cannot guarantee its own completeness, and thus cannot guarantee the subject's completeness either. The subject's desire is ultimately marked by the realization that it is only the Other's desire for an object that is itself *lost*.

Formalization in the Graph of Desire

Lacan’s Graph of Desire provides the most intricate formalization of the Desire of the Other, positioning it at the very foundation of the subject's discourse. The desire of the Other is located on the upper vector of the Graph, labeled as 𝐃 for Desire (of the Other).

The Graph illustrates how the subject’s **demand** (A→𝐬(A¯), the demand from the Other's treasury of signifiers) and their **desire** (d, the subject's own desire) are structured by the Desire of the Other ($\mathbf{D}$). The subject's desire is articulated only by referring back to the Desire of the Other, which retroactively gives meaning and direction.

The key points demonstrated by the Graph are:[2]

  • **The Chain of Signifiers:** The subject's discourse travels along the chain of signifiers, but the final *meaning* (signified, $\mathbf{s}$) of any utterance is deferred until the final punctuation, which is itself controlled by the overall desire structure (D).
  • **The Point of Subjective Emergence:** The subject (S¯) emerges at the intersection where the signifier of the Desire of the Other (S(A¯)) operates, thereby being structurally dependent on the Other’s lack.

The Desire of the Other and Objet petit a

The Desire of the Other must not be confused with the object of desire. For Lacan, the object that the Other appears to desire (which the subject attempts to be) is eventually revealed to be the **Objet petit a** (objet a): the non-mirrorable, non-specularizable, unrepresentable object that serves as the *cause* of desire.

The circuit can be summarized as:[5] 1. The subject wants to be the object that would satisfy the Desire of the Other (d(A)). 2. The subject's desire (d) is fundamentally the desire for the Other's desire, *i.e.*, to know what the Other wants. 3. The ultimate cause of this entire circuit—what keeps the desire in motion—is the *Objet petit a*.

As the ultimate, unrepresentable cause of desire, objet a is precisely what the subject *lacks* and what the Other *lacks* in its treasury of signifiers. The Desire of the Other is thus ultimately a desire *for* the objet a that would complete it, a completion that is structurally impossible.

Clinical Implications and Technique

Transference and the Desire of the Analyst

The concept of the Desire of the Other is arguably the central theoretical motor of the psychoanalytic cure, specifically in the phenomenon of transference.

In transference, the analysand unconsciously posits the analyst as the **Subject Supposed to Know** (SS˙K), believing that the analyst holds the key to the unconscious truth of the analysand's own desire and history. The transference neurosis is largely constituted by the analysand's demand that the analyst reveal the truth of *their* desire—the Desire of the Other (analyst)—as a means of establishing the analysand's own identity.[6]

The technical function of the analyst, therefore, is to **refuse to occupy the position of the supposed desire of the Other** in a conventional sense. The analyst must embody the **Desire of the Analyst**—a pure desire that remains enigmatic and unfulfilled, thus preventing the closure of the transference. This refusal forces the analysand to move beyond seeking the answer to their existence in the Other and to confront the structural lack in their own desire.

Interpretation and the Symptom

The Desire of the Other is embedded within the subject's **symptom**. Lacan defines the symptom as a kind of riddle or a fixed signifier that expresses an unconscious truth. The symptom expresses the subject's desire *and* the structural dilemma that desire presents in relation to the Desire of the Other. The symptom is essentially the subject's creative response to the question: "What does the Other want of me?"[5]

Interpretation in the Lacanian cure is directed not at providing the *meaning* of the symptom, but at revealing the **Desire of the Other** that structures the symptom's form. The analyst aims to break the analysand's assumption that the Desire of the Other is complete or fixed. Interpretation seeks to demonstrate that the Desire of the Other is itself marked by the bar ($\bar{A}$), thus opening up a space for the subject's own singular desire to emerge beyond the Other's control.

The Direction of the Cure and Traversal of Fantasy

The trajectory of the psychoanalytic cure, its "direction," is precisely the movement from the subject being alienated by the Desire of the Other toward assuming their own desire beyond the Other's guarantee. The end of analysis is marked by the **Traversal of Fantasy**.

Fantasy ($⋄a) is the phantasmatic scenario that the subject constructs to fill the hole of the Other's lack and provide a stable position from which to pose the question of the Desire of the Other. When the analysand traverses this fantasy, they come to realize that the Desire of the Other is not directed at them as a completed being, nor is it aimed at a complete object. The analysand assumes responsibility for their desire in a world where no ultimate Other (God, master, parent) can guarantee or validate it.

Clinical Structures (Neurosis, Psychosis, Perversion)

The three clinical structures are diagnosed according to the way the subject handles the primordial Desire of the Other:

  • Neurosis (Hysteria, Obsessional Neurosis): The subject **represses** the Desire of the Other but attempts to master it through symbolic maneuvering. The neurotic's desire is typically structured as a desire *to be the object* that the Other desires, or a desire *for an unsatisfied desire* (to keep the desire in motion, as in Obsessional Neurosis).
  • Psychosis (Paranoia, Schizophrenia): The Desire of the Other is **foreclosed** (rejected from the symbolic order) and returns in the Real as a concrete, persecutory force (e.g., in a hallucinated voice or delusion). The subject lacks the symbolic mediation of the Name-of-the-Father necessary to regulate the Desire of the Other, which is experienced as invasive and terrifying.
  • Perversion: The Desire of the Other is **disavowed**. The pervert actively attempts to *sustain* the supposed completeness of the Other by seeking to be the object that guarantees the Other’s enjoyment (or *jouissance*), thus trying to deny the symbolic castration ($\bar{A}$) that the Desire of the Other implicitly reveals.[5]

Influence and Legacy

Post-Lacanian Revisions and Extensions

The concept of the Desire of the Other remains fundamental in post-Lacanian schools, though its emphasis has evolved. Jacques-Alain Miller has directed attention to the concept's late-Lacanian shift toward **Jouissance|jouissance** and the logic of the **Sinthome**. In this later phase, the Desire of the Other is read less through the symbolic coordinates of the Name-of-the-Father and more through the subject's singular modes of enjoyment that exceed symbolic regulation.

The Desire of the Other, stripped of the Name-of-the-Father's rigid structure, becomes fractured and multiple. Contemporary psychoanalysis often encounters this desire in the form of "new symptoms" characteristic of a world where traditional symbolic authorities have eroded, leaving the subject exposed to a diffuse, media-driven Desire of the Other that is harder to fix or locate.

Feminist and Gender Theory

Lacan’s concept has been central, and controversial, within feminist and gender theory. Theorists such as Juliet Mitchell and Jacqueline Rose utilized the concept to demonstrate how gender identity is not biological but is determined by the subject's inscription into the symbolic order via the Name-of-the-Father, which structures $d(A)$.

Feminist critics such as Luce Irigaray and Judith Butler challenged the concept, arguing that the structural centrality of the Phallus and symbolic castration inherent in the regulation of the Desire of the Other reinforces a phallocentric system that fails to account for feminine specificity. Joan Copjec, in turn, defended the Lacanian position by arguing that the *Desire of the Other*—as desire *for* the Other's desire—is what breaks down the rigid, specular, and binary identifications often found in the Imaginary Order, thus opening up a space for the critique of normative gender and sexuality.[7]

Political and Cultural Critique

Slavoj Žižek consistently employs the Desire of the Other in his political and cultural critique. He argues that ideological formations are sustained by the subject's unconscious *desire to be the object* of the ideological Other (the Nation, the Party, the Market). Ideology functions to conceal the ultimate **lack** in this Other ($\bar{A}$) by presenting a complete, unified structure.[8]

The moment of the ideological *act* (the revolutionary break or ethical transgression) is, for Žižek, the moment when the subject assumes their desire *beyond* the Desire of the Other, taking responsibility for the void that the Other cannot fill. Political obedience is thus viewed as the ultimate neurosis: the subject's fear of confronting the lack in the Other and the contingent nature of social reality.

Criticism and Debate

The Problem of Structural Determinism

A major and perennial criticism of the Desire of the Other concept, often stemming from ego psychology and humanistic psychology, is that it suggests a **structural determinism** that undermines the subject's free will and autonomy. By positioning the subject's desire as fundamentally alienated and controlled by the symbolic Desire of the Other, critics argue that Lacan reduces the subject to a mere effect of language and external forces.

Lacanian defenders counter that the concept is designed to explain the *conditions* of desire in language, not to prescribe behavior. The **end of analysis** is precisely the movement *out* of this alienation, where the subject ceases to be merely a response to $d(A)$ and instead assumes responsibility for their own desire, even *qua* lack. The Desire of the Other marks the *starting point* of the analytic process, not the final word on the subject.

Evolution and Inconsistency of the Term

Internal Lacanian scholarship has debated the consistency of the term across Lacan's three major periods. Some scholars, like Jean-Alain Miller, focus on the late-Lacanian shift where the **Objet petit a** and **Jouissance** seem to gain primacy over the Desire of the Other. In this view, the Desire of the Other becomes a tool of the symbolic system (an operation of the Master's Discourse, as analyzed in Seminar XVII), rather than the ultimate truth of desire itself.

Specifically, the late introduction of the formulas of **Sexuation** further complicated the Desire of the Other by introducing the "not-all" of feminine *jouissance*, which is said to exist *beyond* the phallic symbolic determination structured by the Desire of the Other. This leads to debates over whether the Desire of the Other is a universal concept or one that is uniquely structured by male subjectivity.[9]

The Phallocentric Critique

Feminist critique remains the most sustained challenge. Critics argue that since the symbolic regulation of the Mother's Desire by the Name-of-the-Father is central to structuring $d(A)$, the concept is inextricably linked to the Phallus as the signifier of the Desire of the Other.

The subject's desire is therefore forced to pass through a masculine-coded term (the Phallus) to be articulated, allegedly erasing the possibility of a non-phallic female desire. While Lacanian scholars like Copjec argue that the Phallus is itself a *signifier of lack* and that $d(A)$ applies equally to all subjects by structuring their *access* to desire, the charge of phallocentrism remains central to any critical engagement with the concept.

See also

References

  1. ↑ Evans, Dylan. An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. Routledge, 1996, p. 38. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Evans" defined multiple times with different content
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Lacan, Jacques. “The Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire in the Freudian Unconscious.” In Écrits: The First Complete Edition in English, trans. Bruce Fink. W. W. Norton & Company, 2006, p. 675. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "LacanEcrits" defined multiple times with different content
  3. ↑ Freud, Sigmund. The Interpretation of Dreams (1900). Standard Edition, Vol. IV-V. Hogarth Press.
  4. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book II: The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. W. W. Norton & Company, 1988, p. 119. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "LacanS2" defined multiple times with different content
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Fink, Bruce. A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis: Theory and Technique. Harvard University Press, 1997, pp. 49-51. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Fink" defined multiple times with different content
  6. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis. Trans. Alan Sheridan. W. W. Norton & Company, 1978, p. 231. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "LacanS11" defined multiple times with different content
  7. ↑ Copjec, Joan. Read My Desire: Lacan Against the Historicists. MIT Press, 1994, pp. 19-21. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Copjec" defined multiple times with different content
  8. ↑ Žižek, Slavoj. The Sublime Object of Ideology. Verso, 1989, pp. 45-47. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Zizek" defined multiple times with different content
  9. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XX: Encore, 1972–1973. Trans. Bruce Fink. W. W. Norton & Company, 1998.

Cite error: <ref> tag with name "Kojève" defined in <references> is not used in prior text.

Retrieved from "https://nosubject.com/index.php?title=Talk:Desire_of_the_Other&oldid=59818"