Difference between revisions of "Code"

From No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
code (code)           
 +
Lacan borrows the term 'code' from Roman Jakobson's theory of communication. Jakobson presents his opposition 'code vs message' as an equivalent of Saussure's langue vs parole. However, Lacan draws an important distinction between the concepts of LANGUAGE and code (see E, 84). Codes are the province of animal communication, not of intersubjective communication. Whereas the elements of a language are SIGNIFIERs, the elements of a code are indices (see INDEX). The fundamental difference is that there is a fixed bi-univocal (one-to-one) relationship between an index and its referent, whereas there is no such relationship between a signifier and a referent or between a signifier and a signified. Because of the bi-univocal relation of indices and referents, codes lack what Lacan regards as the fundamental feature of human languages: the potential for ambiguity and equivocation (see Lacan, 1973b).
  
code (code)            Lacan borrows the term 'code' from Roman Jakobson's
+
Lacan is not always consistent in maintaining this opposition between code and language. In the seminar of 1958-9, for example, when presenting the elementary cell of the graph of desire, he designates one point as the code, which he also designates as the place of the Other and the battery of signifiers.
  
theory of communication. Jakobson presents his opposition 'code          vs mes-
+
In this case, it is clear that the term 'code' is being used in the same sense as the term 'language', namely, to designate the set of signifiers available to the subject.
 
 
sage' as an equivalent of Saussure's langue vs parole. However, Lacan draws
 
 
 
an important distinction between the concepts of LANGUAGE and code (see E,
 
 
 
84). Codes are the province of animal communication, not of intersubjective
 
 
 
communication. Whereas the elements of a language are SIGNIFIERs, the ele-
 
 
 
ments of a code are indices (see INDEX). The fundamental difference is that
 
 
 
there is a fixed bi-univocal (one-to-one) relationship between an index and its
 
 
 
referent, whereas there is      no such relationship between      a signifier and    a
 
 
 
referent or between a signifier and a signified. Because of the bi-univocal
 
 
 
relation of indices and referents, codes lack what Lacan regards                  as the
 
 
 
fundamental feature of human languages: the potential for ambiguity and
 
 
 
equivocation (see Lacan, 1973b).
 
 
 
    Lacan is not always consistent in maintaining this opposition between code
 
 
 
and language. In the seminar of 1958-9, for example, when presenting the
 
 
 
elementary cell of the graph of desire, he designates one point as the code,
 
 
 
which he also designates as the place of the Other and the battery of signifiers.
 
 
 
In this case, it is clear that the term 'code' is being used in the same sense as
 
 
 
the term 'language', namely, to designate the set of signifiers available to the
 
 
 
subject.
 

Revision as of 16:56, 2 May 2006

code (code) Lacan borrows the term 'code' from Roman Jakobson's theory of communication. Jakobson presents his opposition 'code vs message' as an equivalent of Saussure's langue vs parole. However, Lacan draws an important distinction between the concepts of LANGUAGE and code (see E, 84). Codes are the province of animal communication, not of intersubjective communication. Whereas the elements of a language are SIGNIFIERs, the elements of a code are indices (see INDEX). The fundamental difference is that there is a fixed bi-univocal (one-to-one) relationship between an index and its referent, whereas there is no such relationship between a signifier and a referent or between a signifier and a signified. Because of the bi-univocal relation of indices and referents, codes lack what Lacan regards as the fundamental feature of human languages: the potential for ambiguity and equivocation (see Lacan, 1973b).

Lacan is not always consistent in maintaining this opposition between code and language. In the seminar of 1958-9, for example, when presenting the elementary cell of the graph of desire, he designates one point as the code, which he also designates as the place of the Other and the battery of signifiers.

In this case, it is clear that the term 'code' is being used in the same sense as the term 'language', namely, to designate the set of signifiers available to the subject.