Changes

==Back Cover==Jacques [[Lacan ]] is arguably the most original and influential [[psychoanalytic ]] thinker since [[Freud]]. His [[ideas ]] have revolutionized the [[clinical ]] [[practice ]] of [[psychoanalysis ]] and continue to have a major impact in fields as diverse a [[film ]] studies, [[literary ]] criticism, [[feminist ]] [[theory ]] and [[philosophy]]. Lacan's writings are [[notorious ]] for their complexity and idiosyncratic style and "An Introductory [[Dictionary ]] of [[Lacanian ]] Psychoanalysis" will be invaluable for [[reading ]] in every [[discipline ]] where his influence is felt.

Detailed definitions are provided for over two hundred Lacanian [[terms]]. Attention is given both to Lacan's use of common psychoanalytic terms an how his own terminology developed through the various [[stages ]] of his teaching. Taking [[full ]] account of the clinical basis of Lacan's [[work]], the dictionary details the historical and institutional background to Lacanian ideas. Each major [[concept ]] is traced back to its origins in the work of Freud, [[Saussure]], Hege and otbers.

An Introductory Dictionary of [[Lacanian Psychoanalysis]]provides a unique source of reference for [[psychoanalysts ]] in [[training ]] and in practice. Placing Lacan's ideas in their clinical context, the dictionary is also an [[ideal ]] companion for readers in [[other ]] disciplines.

[[Dylan Evans|DYLAN EVANS ]] trained as a Lacanian [[psychoanalyst ]] in Buenos Aires, [[London ]] and [[Paris]]. He is a Lecturer in Psychoanalytic Studies at the [[University ]] of Brunel and is in private practice in London.____________________________________________________

==Preface to a dictionary about =="My [[discourse]] proceeds in the following way: each term is sustained only in its [[topological]] relation with the [[others]]." [[Jacques Lacan]] (SI 1, 89)

"My discourse proceeds Psychoanalytic theories are [[languages]] in the following way: which to discuss psychoanalytic [[treatment]]. Today there are many such languages, each term is sustained only in with its topological relation with the othersown [[particular]] lexis and syntax." Jacques Lacan (SI 1, 89)

Psychoanalytic theories The fact that these languages use many of the same terms, inherited from Freud, can create the impression that they are in fact all dialects of the same [[language]]. Such an impression is, however, misleading. Each [[psychoanalytic theory]] articulates these terms in a unique way, as well as introducing new terms of its own, and is thus a unique language, ultimately untranslatable. One of the most importailt psychoanalytic languages in use today is that developed by the [[French]] psychoanalyst, [[Jacques lacan|Jacques Lacan]] (1901-1981). This dictionary is an attempt to explore and elucidate this language, which bas often been accused of [[being]] inflatingly, obscure and sometimes of constituting a totally incomprehensible '[[psychotic]]' [[system]]. This obscurity has even been seen as a (deliberate attempt to discuss psychoanalytic treatmentensure that Lacanian discourse remains the exclusive properity of a small [[intellectual]] [[elite]], and to protect it from [[external]] criticism. Today there are many such languagesIf this is the [[case]], then this dictionary is a move in the other direction, each with its own particular lexis an attempt to open Lacanian discourse up top wider scrutiny and syntaxcritical engagement.

The fact that these languages use many of the same terms, inherited from Freud, can create the impression that they are in fact all dialects dictionary is an ideal way of exploiting language since it has the same [[structure]] as a language. Such an impression ; it is, however, misleading. Each psychoanalytic theory articulates these terms a [[synchronic]] system in a unique way, as well as introducing new which the terms of its ownhave no positive [[existence]], and since they are each defined by their mutual differences; it is thus a unique languageclosed, ultimately untranslatable. One of the most importailt psychoanalytic languages [[self]]-referential structure in use today which [[meaning]] is that developed nowhere fully [[present]] but always delayed in continual [[metonymy]]; it defines each term by reference to other terms and thus denies the French psychoanalyst, Jacques Lacan novice reader any point of entry (1901-1981). This dictionary is an attempt to explore and elucidate this language, which bas often been accused of being inflatingly, obscure and sometimes of constituting a totally incomprehensible 'psychotic' system. This obscurity has even been seen as to refer to a (deliberate attempt to ensure that Lacanian discourse remains the exclusive properity of a small intellectual elite[[formula]], and to protect it from external criticism. If this if their is the caseno point of entry, then this dictionary is a move in the other direction, an attempt to open Lacanian discourse up top wider scrutiny and critical engagementthere can be no [[sexual]] [[relationship]]).)

The dictionary is an ideal way Many others have perceived the [[value]] of exploiting language since it has the same structure dictionary as a language; it tool for exploring psychoailalytic theory. The most famous example is a synchronic system in which the terms have no positive existence, since they are each defined classic dictionary of psychoanalysis by their mutual differences; it Laplanche and Pontalis (1967). There is a closed, self-referential structure in also the short dictionary by Rycroft ([[1968]]) which meaning is nowhere fully present but always delayed in continual metonymy; it defines each term by reference extremely readable. In addition to other terms and thus denies the novice reader any point these two dictionaries which concentrate mainly on Freud, there are also dictionaries of [[Kleinian]] psychoanalysis (Hinshelwood, 1989), of entry Jungian psychoanalysis (andSamuels et al., to refer to a Lacanian formula1986), if their is no point and of entrypsychoanalysis and [[feminism]] (Wright, there can be no sexual relationship1992).)

Many others have perceived the value of the dictionary as a tool for exploring psychoailalytic theory. The most famous example is the classic A dictionary of [[Lacanian psychoanalysis ]] is conspicuous by Laplanche and Pontalis (1967)its [[absence]] from the above [[list]]. There It is also the short not that no such dictionary by Rycroft (1968) which is extremely readable. In addition to these two dictionaries which concentrate mainly on Freud, has yet been written; there are also dictionaries of Kleinian psychoanalysis (Hinshelwood, 1989)in fact, a [[number]] of Jungian psychoanalysis dictionaries in French that deal extensively with Lacanian terms (Samuels et al.Chemama, 1993; Kauftman, 19861994), and of psychoanalysis and feminism even a humorous Lacanian dictionary (WrightSaint-Drôme, 19921994).

A dictionary However, none of Lacanian psychoanalysis is conspicuous by its absence from the above list. It is not that no such dictionary these has yet been written; there are, in facttranslated, and thus the anglophone student of Lacan bas been [[left]] without a number useful tool of reference. The dictionaries in French that deal extensively with Lacanian terms by Laplanche and Pontalis (Chemama, 1993; Kauftman, 19941967), and even a humorous by Wright (1992) include articles on some Lacanian dictionary (Saint-Drômeterms, 1994)but not many.

However, none of these has yet been translated, and thus the anglophone student of Lacan bas been left without A few [[English]]-language publications have included glossaries which provide a key to a useful tool number of referenceLacanian terms (e.g. The dictionaries by Laplanche and Pontalis (1967) and by Wright (1992[[Sheridan]], 1977; Roustang, 1986) , but these too include articles on some Lacanian only a few terms, but not manywith extremely brief remarks attached to each. The present work will therefore go some way towards filling an obvious gap in reference [[material]] in psychoanalysis.

A few English-language publications While many have included glossaries which provide seen the value of the dictionary as a key to a number tool for exploring [[psychoanalytical]] languages not so many have been fully aware of Lacanian terms (e.g. Sheridan, 1977; Roustang, 1986), but these too include only a few terms, with extremely brief remarks attached to each. The present work will therefore go some way towards filling an obvious gap in reference material in psychoanalysisthe dangers involved.

While many have seen One important [[danger]] is that by emphasizing the value synchronic structure of language, the dictionary can obscure the [[diachronic]] [[dimension]]. All languages, including those which are otherwise known as psychoanalytic theories, are in a tool for exploring psychoanalytical languages not so many have been fully aware continual [[state]] of flux, since they [[change]] with use. By overlooking this dimension, the dictionary can create the dangers involvederroneous impression that languages are fixed unchanging entities.

One important This dictionary attempts to avoid this danger is that by emphasizing incorporating etymological information wherever appropriate and by giving some indication of how Lacan's discourse evolved over the synchronic structure course of language, the dictionary can obscure the diachronic dimensionhis teaching. All languages, including those which are otherwise known as Lacan's engagement with [[Psychoanalytic Theory|psychoanalytic theoriestheory]] spans fifty years, are in a continual state of flux, since they change with useand it is hardly surprising that his discourse underwent important changes during this [[time]]. By overlooking this dimensionHowever, the dictionary can create the erroneous impression that languages these changes are fixed unchanging entitiesnot always well [[understood]].

This dictionary attempts to avoid this danger by incorporating etymological information wherever appropriate and by giving Broadly [[speaking]], there are two main ways of misrepresenting [[them]]. On the one hand, some indication commentators present the [[development]] of how Lacan's discourse evolved over [[thought]] in terms of dramatic and sudden '[[epistemological]] breaks'; 1953, for example, is sometimes presented as the course [[moment]] of his teachinga radically new '[[linguistic]] turn' in Lacan's work. On the other hand, some writers go to the other extreme and present Lacan's engagement work as a single unfolding [[narrative]] with psychoanalytic theory spans fifty years, and it is hardly surprising that his discourse underwent important no changes during this time. Howeverof direction, these changes are not always well understoodas if all the [[concepts]] existed from the beginning.

Broadly speakingIn discussing how the various terms in Lacan's discourse undergo semantic shifts during the course of his work, there are two main ways l have tried to avoid both of misrepresenting themthese errors. On By showing how the one handchanges are often gradual and hesitant, some commentators present l hope to problematise the development simplistic narratives of epistemological breaks. One important point that such narratives ignore is that whenever Lacan's thought in terms of dramatic and sudden 'epistemological breaks'acquire new [[meanings]], they never lose their older ones; 1953, for example, is sometimes presented as the moment his [[theoretical]] [[vocabulary]] advances by means of a radically new 'linguistic turn' in Lacan's workaccretion rather than mutation. On the other hand, some writers go by pointing out the changes and semantic shifts, l hope to counter the other extreme and present [[illusion]] that all of Lacan's work as a single unfolding narrative with no changes of directionconcepts are always already there (an illusion which Lacan himself condemns; Lacan, as if all 1966c: 67). In this way it should be possible to appreciate both the concepts existed from the beginningelements that remain constant in Lacan's teaching and those that shift and evolve.

In discussing how the various The dictionary contains entries for over two hundred terms used by Lacan in Lacan's discourse undergo semantic shifts during the course of his work. Many new terms could have been included, l have tried to avoid both of these errors. By showing how the changes are often gradual and hesitant, l hope to problematise the simplistic narratives main criterion for selecting these terms rather than others is one of epistemological breaksfrequency. One important point that The reader will therefore find entries for such narratives ignore is that whenever Lacanterms as '[[symbolic]]'s terms acquire new meanings, they never lose their older ones; his theoretical vocabulary advances by means of accretion rather than mutation. On the other hand'[[neurosis]]', by pointing out the changes and semantic shifts, l hope to counter the illusion that all of other such terms which [[figure]] prominently in Lacan's concepts are always already there (an illusion which Lacan himself condemns; Lacanwork, 1966c: 67). In this way it should be possible but not to appreciate both the elements that remain constant in other terms such as 'holophrase', which Lacan's teaching and those that shift and evolveonly discusses on [[three]] or tour occasions.

The dictionary contains entries for over two hundred In addition to terms used frequently employed by Lacan in the course of his work. Many new , a few other terms could have been included, which Lacan employs infrequently or not at all. In this group are terms which serve to provide a historical and the main criterion theoretical context for selecting these Lacan's own terms rather than others is one of frequency(e.g. The reader will therefore find entries for such terms as 'symbolic', 'neurosis[[Kleinian psychoanalysis]]'), and other such terms which figure prominently bring together an important set of related themes in Lacan's his work, but not to other terms such as which would otherwise be distributed among disparate entries (e.g. 'holophrasesexual [[difference]]', which Lacan only discusses on three or tour occasions).

In addition to Besides the criteria of frequency and contextual information, the selection o terms frequently employed has also, inevitably, been governed by my own particular way of reading Lacan. [[Another]] writer, with a different reading of Lacan, would undoubtedly have made a few other different selection of terms have been included which Lacan employs infrequently or . l do not at all. In this group are pretend that the reading implicit in my selection of terms which serve to provide a historical and theoretical context for is the only or the best reading of Lacan's own terms (e.g. 'Kleinian psychoanalysis')It is one reading of Lacan among many, as [[partial]] and terms which bring together an important set of related themes in his work which would otherwise be distributed among disparate entries (e.g. 'sexual difference')selective as any other.

Besides The partiality and limitations of this dictionary concern not only the criteria matter of frequency and contextual information, the selection o of terms has , but also, inevitably, been governed by my own particular way the matter of reading Lacansources. Another writer, with a different reading Thus the dictionary is not based on the [[complete]] works of Lacan, would undoubtedly which have made not yet been published in their entirety, hut only on a different selection of terms. l do not pretend his works (mainly the published works, plus a few unpublished ones), This almost exclusive reliance on published material means that the reading implicit there are inevitably gaps in my selection of terms is the only or dictionary. However, as Lacan himself points out, the best condition of any reading of Lacan. It is one reading , of Lacan among manycourse, that it impose limits on itself' (S20, as partial and selective as any other62).

The partiality aim has not been, therefore, to present a work of the same breadth an detail as the classic dictionary by Laplanche and limitations Pontalis, but merely to present a broad [[outline]] of this dictionary concern not only the matter of most salient terms in Lacanian discourse; hence the adjective 'introductory' in the selection title. At a [[future]] date it may be possible to produce a more comprehensive and detailed edition of termsthis dictionary based o Lacan's complete works, but also the matter current absence of sources. Thus the any English-language dictionary of Lacanian thought is not based on perhaps sufficient justification for publishing the complete works of Lacan, which have not yet been published work in their entirety, hut only on a selection its present incomplete and rudimentary state. This dictionary may thus be thought of his works (mainly the published works, plus as a few unpublished ones)[[resistance]], This almost exclusive reliance on published material means that there are inevitably gaps in the dictionary. However, as way Lacan himself points outdefined resistance, a 'the condition present state of any reading is, of course, that it impose limits on itselfan [[interpretation]]' (S20S2, 62228).

The aim Another self-imposed limitation has not been, therefore, the decision to restrict reference to secondary sources to present a work of minimum. Thus the same breadth an detail as the classic dictionary by Laplanche reader will find few allusions to Lacan's commentators and Pontalis, but merely intellectual heirs. To exclude references to the work of present a broad outline of the most salient terms in -day Lacanian discourse; hence the adjective 'introductory' in the title. At [[analysts]] is not such a future date grave omission as it may be possible to produce a more comprehensive and detailed edition might seem, since this work has consisted almost entirely of this dictionary based o commentaries on Lacan's complete works, but rather than of radically original developments (the current absence work of any EnglishJacques-language dictionary of Lacanian thought [[Alain]] [[Miller]] is perhaps sufficient justification for publishing the work in its present incomplete and rudimentary statea notable exception. This dictionary may thus be Such a scenario is completely different to that of Kein's thought of as a resistance, which has been developed in the way Lacan defined resistancevery original ways by such followers as Paula Heimann, a 'the present state of an interpretation' (S2Wilfred Bion, 228)Doviald Meltzer and others.

Another self-imposed limitation has been the decision to restrict reference to secondary sources to a minimum. Thus the reader will find few allusions However, to Lacan's commentators and intellectual heirs. To exclude references to the work of present-day Lacanian analysts is not Lacal's more radical critics, such a grave omission as it might seemJacques [[Derrida]], Helèna Cixous and Luce lrigaray, since this or to those who have applied his work has consisted almost entirely of commentaries on Lacan rather than of radically original developments (in the work fields of Jacques-Alain Miller is [[literary criticism]] and [[film theory]], may seem a notable exceptionmore glaring omission. There are two main reasons for this omission. Such a scenario Firstly, it is completely different to often forgotten in the English-speaking [[world]] that of KeinLacan's thought, which has been developed work is first and foremost aimed at providing analysts with [[help]] in very original ways by such followers as Paula Heimann, Wilfred Bion, Doviald Meltzer and othersconducting [[analytic]] treatment.

However, to exclude references By excluding ref'erences to the work applications of LacalLacan's more radical critics, such as Jacques Derrida, Helèna Cixous and Luce lrigaray, or to those who have applied his work in the fields of literary criticism , film studies and film [[feminist theory, may seem a more glaring omission. There are two main reasons for ]] I hope to emphasise this omission. Firstly, it is often forgotten in point and thus to counter the English-speaking world that neglect of Lacan's work is first and foremost aimed at providing analysts clinical basis by his English speaking readers. Secondly, l also [[want]] to encourage the reader to engage directly with help in conducting analytic treatmentLacan self, on Lacans own terms, without prejudicing the debate for or against him by reference to his admirers or to his critics.

By excluding ref'erences to the applications of Lacan's work in literary criticismHowever, film studies and feminist theory I hope there are some exceptions to emphasise this point and thus to counter the neglect rule of Lacan's clinical basis by his English speaking readers. Secondly, l also want to encourage the reader to engage directly with Lacan selfomission, on Lacans own terms, without prejudicing when the debate for or against him by reference around a particular term has seemed to his admirers or be so important that it would be misleading to his criticsomit all refererence to it (e.g. "[[phallus]]", "[[gaze]]")

HoweverMy decision to stress the critical basis of Lacan's work is ot aimes at excluding non analysts engaging with Lacan. 0n the contrary; the dictionary is aimed not only at psychoanalysts, but also at readers approaching Lacan's work from other disciplines. Lacan himself actively encouraged debate between psychoanalysts and philosphers, [[linguists]], [[mathematicians]], anthropologists and others, and today there are some exceptions is growing interest in Lacanian psychoanalysis in many other areas especially in fillm studies, feminist theory and literary criticism. For those with backgrounds in these disciplines the difficulties involved in reading Lacan can be especially great precisely due to this rule their unfamiliarity with the dynamics of psychoanalytie treatment. By stresslng the clinical basis of omissionLacans's work, when l hope to situate the debate around a particular term has seemed terms in their proper context and thus make them clearer to be so readers who are not psychoanalysts. It is my [[belief]] that this is important that it would be misleading to omit all refererence even for those readers who [[wish]] to it (e.guse Lacan's work in other areas such as [[cultural]] theory. "phallus", "gaze")

My decision to stress the critical basis of Another probleni for readers approaching Lacan's work is ot aimes at excluding from non analysts engaging -psychoanalytic backgrounds may be the unfamiliarity with the [[Freudian]] [[tradition]] in which Lacanworked. 0n the contrary; the ]'his dictionary is aimed not only at psychoanalystsaddresses this issue by presenting, but also at readers approaching Lacan's work from other disciplines. Lacan himself actively encouraged debate between psychoanalysts and philosphers, linguists, mathematicians, anthropologists and others, and today there is growing interest in Lacanian psychoanalysis in many other areas especially in fillm studiescases, feminist theory and literary criticism. For those with backgrounds in these disciplines a short [[summary]] of the way Freud used the difficulties involved in reading Lacan can be especially great precisely due to their unfamiliarity with term, before outlining the dynamics specifically Lacanian usage. Because of psychoanalytie treatment. By stresslng their brevity, these summaries run the clinical basis risk of Lacans's workoversimplifying [[complex]] concepts, l hope to situate the terms in their proper context and thus make them clearer to readers who are not psychoanalystswill undoubtedly strike those more familiar with Freuds work as somewhat rudimentary. It Nevertheless, it is my belief hoped that this is important even for they will helpful to those readers who wish to use Lacan's work unversed in other areas such as cultural theoryFreud.

Another probleni for Given the wide range of readers approaching at whom this dictionary is aimed one problem has been to decide the level of complexity at which to pitch the entries. The solution attempted here has been to pitch different entries at different levels. There is thus a basic core of entries pitched at a low level of complexity, some of which present the most fundamental terms in Lacan's work from non-psychoanalytic backgrounds may be discourse (e.g. 'psychoanalysis', '[[mirror]] [[stage]]', 'language'), while others [[sketch]] the unfamiliarity with the Freudian tradition historical context in which Lacan workedthese terms evolved (e.g. Freud ([[return]] to), 'International [[Psycho]]-Analytical [[Association]]', '[[school]]', '[[seminar]]'his dictionary addresses this issue by presenting, in many cases'ego [[psychology]]'). These entries then refer the reader to more complex terms, which are pitched at a short summary higher level and which the beginner should not hope to grasp immediately. This will I hope allow the reader to find some kind of direction in navigating through the way Freud used dictionary. However, the termdictionary is not an 'introduction to Lacan'; there are already plenty of introductory works on Lacan available in English (e.g. Benvenuto and Kennedy, 1986; Bowie, 1991; Grosz, 1990; Lemaire, 1970; Sarup, 1992), including some excellent ones (e.g. 7-iYek, before outlining the specifically Lacanian usage1991; [[Leader]], 1995). Because of their brevityThe dictionary is, rather, an introductory reference book, these summaries run a [[guide]] which the risk reader may refer back to in [[order]] to answer a specific question or to follow up a particular line of oversimplifying complex conceptsinquiry. It is not meant to be a [[substitute]] for reading Lacan, and will undoubtedly strike those more familiar with Freuds work as somewhat rudimentarybut a companion to such reading. NeverthelessFor this [[reason]] copious page references have been provided throughout the dictionary, it is hoped that they will helpful the [[intention]] being to allow the reader to go back to those readers unversed the [[text]] and [[place]] the references in Freudcontext.

Given the wide range of readers at whom this dictionary is aimed one Another problem has been to decide concerns the level issue of complexity at which to pitch the entries[[translation]]. The solution attempted here has been Different translators have used different [[words]] to pitch different entries at different levels. There is thus a basic core of entries pitched at a low level of complexity, some of which present the most fundamental terms in render Lacan's discourse (e.gterminology into English. For example [[Alan Sheridan]] and John Forrester render Lacan'psychoanalysiss opposition between sens and [[signification]] as ', meaning'mirror stageand ', signification'language'), while others sketch the historical context in which these terms evolved (e.g. Freud (return to), whereas Stuart Schneiderman prefers 'International Psycho-Analytical Association[[sense]]', and 'schoolmeaning', respectively. Anthony Wilden renders [[parole]] as 'seminar[[word]]', whereas Sheridan prefers 'ego psychology[[speech]]'). These entries then refer the reader to more complex termsIn all cases, which are pitched at a higher level and which the beginner should not hope to grasp immediately. This will I hope allow the reader to find some kind of direction in navigating through the dictionary. Howeverhave followed Sheridan's usage, on the dictionary grounds that it is not an 'introduction to his translations of Lacan'; there s écritsand [[The Seminar]], Book XI, he four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis that are already plenty still the main [[texts]] for readers of introductory works on Lacan available in English (e.gIn order to avoid possible confusion, the French terms used by Lacan are also given along with the English translations. Benvenuto and Kennedy, 1986; Bowie, 1991; Grosz, 1990; Lemaire, 1970; Sarup, 1992), including some excellent ones I have also followed Sheridan's practice of leaving certain terms untranslated (e.g. 7-iYek, 1991; Leader, 1995[[jouissance]]). The dictionary is, rather, an introductory reference book, a guide which again on the reader may refer back to grounds that this has become established practice in order to answer a specific question or to follow up a particular line anglophone Lacanian discourse (although I personally agree with Forrester's criticisms of inquiry. It is not meant to be such a substitute for reading Lacanpractice; see Forrester, but a companion to such reading. For this reason copious page references have been provided throughout the dictionary, the intention being to allow the reader to go back to the text and place the references in context1990: 99-101).

Another problem concerns the The one issue of translation. Different translators have used different words on which I differ from Sheridan is my decision to render Lacan's terminology into Englishleave his [[algebraic]] [[symbols]] in their original [[form]]. For example Alan Sheridan exampie I have left the symbols A and John Forrester render Lacan's opposition between sens and signification a as 'meaning' and 'signification'they are, whereas Stuart Schneiderman prefers 'sense' rather than translating them as 0 and 'meaning' respectivelyo as Sheridan does. Anthony Wilden renders parole Not only is this common practice in translating Lacan into other languages (such as 'word'Spanish and Portuguese), whereas Sheridan prefers but Lacan himself preferred his 'speechlittle letters'to remain untranslated. In all casesFurthermore, as has become clear at the various international conferences of Lacanian psychoanalysis, I it is very useful for analysts with different [[mother]]-tongues to have followed Sheridansome basic symbols i common which can facilitate their discussions of Lacan.With respect to the English words used to translate Freud's usage[[German]] terms, on have generallly adopted those used by [[James]] Strachey in the [[Standard Edition]] with the grounds that it exception (now common practice) of rendering [[Trieb]] as '[[drive]]' rathe than '[[instinct]]'.Another, more fundamental problem is his translations the [[paradox]] involved in the very act of [[writing]] a dictionary of Lacanian terms. Dictionaries usually attempt to pin down the meanings of each term and eradicate ambiguity. The [[whole]] thrust of Lacan's écritsand The Seminardiscourse, Book XIhowever, he four Fundamental Concepts subverts any such attempt to halt the continual [[slippage]] of Psychoanalysis that are still the main texts [[signified]] bed under the [[signifier]]. His styie, notorious for readers of Lacan in Englishits difficulty and complexity, was, argues Derrida, deliberately constructed 's as to check almost permanently any access to an isolatable [[content]], to a unequivocal, determinable meaning beyond writing' (Derrida, 1975: 420). In order To attempt to avoid possible confusion, the French provide 'adequate definitions' for Lacan's terms used by would therefore bre completely at odds with Lacan are also given along with the English translations's work. as Alan Sheridan remarks in his translators [[notes]] in "[[Écrits]]". I have also followed In Sheridan's practice short [[glossary]] of leaving ' Lacanian terms, which appears in the same translators note, he popints out that Lacan himself preferred that certain terms untranslated (e.g. jouissance)be left without any comment at all, again 'on the grounds that this has become established practice in anglophone Lacanian discourse any comment would prejudice its effective operation (although I personally agree with ForresterSheridan, 1977: vn). In these cases, Lacan prefers to leave 's criticisms the reader to develop an appreciation of the concepts in the course of such a practice; see Forrester, 1990their use' (Sheridan 1977: 99-101xi).

The one issue on which I differ from Sheridan is my decision to leave his algebraic symbols in their original form. For exampie I have left the symbols A and a as they are, rather than translating them as 0 and o as Sheridan does. Not only is this common practice in translating Lacan into other languages (such as Spanish and Portuguese), but Lacan himself preferred his 'little letters' to remain untranslated. Furthermore, as has become clear at the various international conferences of Lacanian psychoanalysis, it is very useful for analysts with different mother-tongues to have some basic symbols i common which can facilitate their discussions of Lacan.With respect to the English words used to translate Freud's German terms, have generallly adopted those used by James Strachey in the Standard Edition with the exception (now common practice) of rendering Trieb as 'drive' rathe than 'instinct'.Another, more fundamental problem is the paradox involved in the very act of writing a dictionary of Lacanian terms. Dictionaries usually attempt to pin down the meanings of each term and eradicate ambiguity. The whole thrust of Lacan's discourse, however, subverts any such attempt to halt the continual slippage of the signified bed under the signifier. His styie, notorious for its difficulty and complexity, was, argues Derrida, deliberately constructed 's as to check almost permanently any access to an isolatable content, to a unequivocal, determinable meaning beyond writing' (Derrida, 1975: 420). To attempt to provide 'adequate definitions' for Lacan's terms would therefore bre completely at odds with Lacan's work. as Alan Sheridan remarks in his translators notes in "Écrits". In Sheridan's short glossary of' Lacanian terms, which appears in the same translators note, he popints out that Lacan himself preferred that certain terms be left without any comment at all, 'on the grounds that any comment would prejudice its effective operation (Sheridan, 1977: vn). In these cases, Lacan prefers to leave 'the reader to develop an appreciation of the concepts in the course of their use' (Sheridan 1977: xi). On the basis of these comments it would seem that, contrary to my initial statements [[about ]] a dictionary being an ideal way to explore Lacan's work [[nothing ]] could be further from the spirit of that work than to enclose it in a dictionary. Perhaps this is [[true]]. It is certainly true that no one ever learned language by reading a dictionary. However, l have not tried to provide adequate definitions' for each term, but simply to evoke some of the complexity, to show something of the way they shift during the course of Lacan's work, and to provide some indication of the overall architecture o Lacan's discourse. As the entries are arranged in alphabetical order, instead of being ordered according to a particular [[construction]], readers can start wherever they wish, and then refer back to Lacan's texts and/or follow the cross references to other terms in the dictionary. In this way, each reader will find their own way through the dictionary, as each one, as Lacan himself would have said, is led by their [[desire ]] to [[know]].