Objet (petit) a
In Lacanian psychoanalysis, objet petit a (French for “object little a”) is a foundational concept developed by Jacques Lacan. It designates the *object-cause of desire*—not an object that desire aims to possess, but that which causes desire to arise and persist. Emerging in Lacan’s work in the 1950s and elaborated throughout his seminars and writings, objet petit a plays a central role in his theorization of the subject, fantasy, drive, and jouissance.
Objet petit a is not a concrete or empirical object. It is a **structural remainder**: a leftover produced by the subject’s entry into language and the symbolic order. As such, it marks a constitutive lack and functions as a cause rather than a goal. Lacan insisted that the term remain untranslated, “thus acquiring, as it were, the status of an algebraic sign.”[1]
Terminology and Origin
Etymology and Algebra
The term objet petit a combines petit (“small”) with a, derived from the French autre (“other”). The adjective petit signals that this is not a complete or total object, but a fragment or remainder. The symbol a is first introduced in 1955 in connection with Schema L, where it designates the little other—as distinct from the big Other (A).
In this early formulation, a refers to the ego, the specular image, or the mirror-stage counterpart situated in the Imaginary order. Lacan describes it as “the other which is not really another at all, since it is essentially coupled with the ego in a reflexive and interchangeable relationship.”[2]
On Not Translating the Term
Although sometimes rendered as “object (little) a,” Lacan insisted that objet petit a remain untranslated. Preserving the French emphasizes its formal, algebraic status and prevents it from being mistaken for an ordinary object or empirical entity.
From Image to Object of Desire
In Lacan’s early teaching, a is closely associated with the ego and mirror image, denoted as i(a). By 1957, with the introduction of the matheme of fantasy ($ ◊ a), the concept undergoes a decisive transformation.
Objet petit a now designates a lost or missing element—a part-object or fragment of the body imagined as detachable. It no longer belongs purely to the imaginary, but becomes the structural support of desire itself.
The Object-Cause of Desire
From 1957 onward, Lacan defines objet petit a as the *object-cause* of desire. Desire does not aim at this object; rather, it is generated by it. Objet petit a emerges in the gap between need and demand, explaining why desire persists even after needs are satisfied.
“What is the objet a if not the cause of desire? Not the object of desire, but that which sets it in motion.” [3]
Because objet petit a can never be possessed or consumed, it accounts for the structural impossibility of full satisfaction.
Partial Objects and the Drives
Objet petit a is central to Lacan’s theory of the drive (pulsion). The drives do not seek completion or a final object; instead, they circulate around objet petit a. Drawing on Sigmund Freud’s notion of partial objects, Lacan identifies the breast, feces, gaze, and voice as paradigmatic forms of a.
These objects do not satisfy desire but organize enjoyment through repetition.
“The drive circles around the objet petit a. It does not aim at it, but its satisfaction is organized around this leftover.” [4]
Fantasy and the Barred Subject ($ ◊ a)
Lacan formalizes the subject’s relation to objet petit a in the matheme of the fundamental fantasy: $ ◊ a, expressing the relation between the barred subject and the object-cause of desire.
Fantasy, in this sense, is not imaginary daydreaming but a structural screen that sustains desire by veiling the lack in the Other. It mediates the subject’s relation to jouissance and stabilizes subjective experience.
Castration and Remainder
Objet petit a can also be understood as the **remainder of castration**—the mark of the impossibility of recovering a pre-symbolic unity with the maternal body. It is what remains after symbolic loss, structuring the subject’s experience of lack and desire.
Agalma: The Hidden Treasure
In Seminar VIII, Lacan likens objet petit a to the Platonic agalma—a precious treasure hidden inside an unremarkable container. The beloved is believed to possess something unique, but this value is projected by the subject.
“Agalma is the object-cause of love… what the lover believes is hidden in the other.” [5]
This formulation is central to Lacan’s account of love and transference.
Surplus Jouissance and Surplus-Value
In Seminar XVII (1969–70), Lacan links objet petit a to surplus production, explicitly drawing on Karl Marx’s concept of surplus value. In the Discourse of the Master, the attempt of a master signifier (S1) to represent the subject inevitably produces a remainder.
This remainder is objet petit a—a surplus jouissance (plus-de-jouir). Like surplus value, it has no use value but functions as the motor of the symbolic economy.
Objet petit a and the Real
Lacan situates objet petit a in relation to the Real, that which resists symbolization and imaginary capture. As a function of the Real, objet petit a appears as an anomaly or rupture within the symbolic field.
In Seminar XI, Lacan describes it through figures such as the gaze—a “stain” or disturbance in the visual field where representation breaks down and the subject encounters itself as seen.
Anxiety and Libido
In Seminar X on anxiety, Lacan clarifies that anxiety arises not from lack, but from its collapse—when objet petit a comes too close. Anxiety is therefore “not without an object,” and that object is a.
Objet petit a is also described as the irreducible reserve of libido—the core of enjoyment that persists beneath symbolic organization.[6]
The Analyst as Object a
In Lacanian clinical practice, the analyst is called to occupy the place of objet petit a—not as the object of desire, but as its cause. This requires maintaining opacity and refusing the position of the subject supposed to know.
“The analyst must become the semblance of object a in the transferential relation.” [7]
Semblance and Being
In Lacan’s later teaching, objet petit a is defined as a *semblance of being*. It is not something that was truly lost, but a retroactively posited absence that structures subjectivity.
“Objet a is the semblance of being… it only ever appears as missing.” [8]
The Borromean Knot
In Seminar XXII and later work, Lacan places objet petit a at the center of the Borromean knot, at the intersection of the Real, Symbolic, and Imaginary. This topological placement reflects its role as the structural pivot of subjectivity.
Clinical and Philosophical Implications
Clinically, objet petit a allows symptoms and fantasies to be understood as attempts to organize the subject’s relation to constitutive lack. Philosophically, the concept has been developed by thinkers such as Slavoj Žižek and Joan Copjec to analyze ideology, aesthetics, and political desire.
See Also
References
- ↑ Alan Sheridan, “Translator’s Note,” in Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977., pp. vii–xii.
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-55. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1988. p. 321
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book XI. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, 1964. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1977. p. 176
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book XI. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, 1964. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1977. p. 179
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre VIII. Le transfert, 1960-61. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 177
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. La Séminaire. Livre X. L'angoisse, 1962-3, unpublished., Seminar of 16 January 1963
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book XI. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, 1964. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1977. p. 274
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 87