Difference between revisions of "Discourse"
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==Jacques Lacan== | ==Jacques Lacan== | ||
| − | Whenever [[Lacan]] uses the term "[[discourse]]" (rather than, say, "[[speech]]") it is in order to stress the transindividual nature of [[language]], the fact that [[speech]] always implies another [[subject]], an interlocutor. | + | ===Speech=== |
| + | Whenever [[Lacan]] uses the term "[[discourse]]" (rather than, say, "[[speech]]") it is in order to stress the [[intersubjectivity|transindividual]] nature of [[language]], the fact that [[speech]] always implies another [[subject]], an interlocutor. | ||
| − | Thus the famous [[Lacan|Lacanian formula]], "the unconscious is the discourse of the Other" designates the [[unconscious]] as the effects on the [[subject]] of [[speech]] that is addressed to him from elsewhere; by another [[subject]] who has been forgotten, by another psychic locality (the other [[scene]]). | + | Thus the famous [[Lacan|Lacanian formula]], "the unconscious is the discourse of the Other" designates the [[unconscious]] as the effects on the [[subject]] of [[speech]] that is addressed to him from elsewhere; by another [[subject]] who has been forgotten, by another [[scene|psychic locality]] (the other [[scene]]). |
| − | === | + | ===Social Bond=== |
In 1969, [[Lacan]] begins to use the term "[[discourse]]" in a slightly different way, though one that still carries with it the stress on [[intersubjectivity]]. | In 1969, [[Lacan]] begins to use the term "[[discourse]]" in a slightly different way, though one that still carries with it the stress on [[intersubjectivity]]. | ||
| − | From this point on the term designates "a social bond, founded in language."<ref>{{S20}} p.21</ref> | + | From this point on the term designates "a social bond, founded in language."<ref>{{S20}} p. 21</ref> |
| − | [[Lacan]] identifies four possible types of social bond, four possible articulations of the [[symbolic order|symbolic network]] which regulates [[intersubjectivity|intersubjective relations]]. | + | [[Lacan]] identifies four possible types of [[discourse|social bond]], four possible articulations of the [[symbolic order|symbolic network]] which regulates [[intersubjectivity|intersubjective relations]]. |
| + | ==Four Discourses== | ||
These "[[four discourses]]" are the [[discourse|discourse of the master]], the [[discourse|discourse of the university]], the [[discourse|discourse of the hysteric]], and the [[discourse|discourse of the analyst]]. | These "[[four discourses]]" are the [[discourse|discourse of the master]], the [[discourse|discourse of the university]], the [[discourse|discourse of the hysteric]], and the [[discourse|discourse of the analyst]]. | ||
| − | [[Lacan]] represents each of the [[four discourses]] by an algorithm: each algorithm contains | + | [[Lacan]] represents each of the [[four discourses]] by an [[matheme|algorithm]]: each [[matheme|algorithm]] contains four [[algebraic]] [[symbol]]s. |
| − | [[Image:Lacan-fourdiscourseletters.jpg|right]] | + | [[Image:Lacan-fourdiscourseletters.jpg|thumb|250px|right|[[Algebra]]ic [[symbol]]s from the [[Four Discourses]]]] |
| − | What distinguishes the [[four discourses]] from one another is the positions of these four | + | ===Four Positions=== |
| + | What distinguishes the [[four discourses]] from one another is the positions of these four [[symbol]]s. | ||
| − | There are four positions in the | + | There are four positions in the [[matheme|algorithm]]s of the [[four discourses]], each of which is designated by a different name. |
| − | The names of the four positions are shown below; [[Lacan]] gives different names to these positions at different points in his work, and this figure is taken from the 1972-3 seminar.<ref>{{S20}} p.21</ref> | + | The names of the four positions are shown below; [[Lacan]] gives different names to these positions at different points in his work, and this figure is taken from the 1972-3 seminar.<ref>{{S20}} p. 21</ref> |
| − | [[Image:Lacan-structurefourdiscourses.jpg|thumb|right|The structure of the four discourses]] | + | [[Image:Lacan-structurefourdiscourses.jpg|thumb|250px|right|The structure of the four discourses]] |
Each [[discourse]] is defined by writing the four [[algebraic]] [[symbol]]s in a different position. | Each [[discourse]] is defined by writing the four [[algebraic]] [[symbol]]s in a different position. | ||
| Line 31: | Line 34: | ||
The [[symbol]]s always remain in the same order, so each [[discourse]] is simply the result of rotating the [[symbol]]s a quarter turn. | The [[symbol]]s always remain in the same order, so each [[discourse]] is simply the result of rotating the [[symbol]]s a quarter turn. | ||
| − | The top-left position ("the agent") is the dominant position which defines the [[discourse]]. | + | The top-left position ("[[discourse|the agent]]") is the dominant position which defines the [[discourse]]. |
| − | In addition to the four [[symbol]]s, each algorithm also contains an arrow going from the agent to the other. | + | In addition to the four [[symbol]]s, each [[matheme|algorithm]] also contains an arrow going from the [[discourse|agent]] to the [[discourse|other]]. |
| − | The [[four discourses]] are shown in the figure | + | The [[four discourses]] are shown in the figure to the right. |
| − | + | [[Image:Lacan-fourdiscourses.jpg|thumb|right|The four discourses]] | |
| − | In 1971, [[Lacan]] proposes that the position of the agent is also the position of the [[semblance]]. | + | ===Arrows=== |
| + | In 1971, [[Lacan]] proposes that the position of the [[discourse|agent]] is also the position of the [[semblance]]. | ||
| − | In 1972, [[Lacan]] inscribes two arrows in the | + | In 1972, [[Lacan]] inscribes two arrows in the [[matheme|formula]]s instead of one; one arrow (which [[Lacan]] labels "impossibility") goes from the [[discourse|agent]] to the [[discourse|other]], and the other arrow (which is labelled "powerlessness") goes from [[discourse|production]] to [[discourse|truth]].<ref>{{S20}} p.21</ref> |
| + | ==Discourse of the Master== | ||
| + | [[Image:MASTERDISCOURSE.jpg|thumb|right|[[Discourse]] of the [[Master]] | ||
| + | The [[discourse]] of the [[master]] is the basic [[discourse]] from which the other three [[discourse]]s are derived. | ||
| − | + | The dominant position is occupied by the [[master signifier]] ([[Image:SS1.gif]]), which represents the [[subject]] ('''S''') for another [[signifier]] or, more precisely, for all other [[signifiers]] ([[Image:SS2.gif]]); however, in this signifying operation there is always a [[surplus]], namely, ''[[objet petit a]]''. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | The dominant position is occupied by the master signifier ( | ||
The point is that all attempts at totalisation are doomed to failure. | The point is that all attempts at totalisation are doomed to failure. | ||
| − | The discourse of the master "masks the division of the subject."<ref>{{S17}} p.118</ref> | + | The [[discourse]] of the [[master]] "masks the division of the subject."<ref>{{S17}} p. 118</ref> |
| − | The discourse also illustrates clearly the structure of the dialectic of the master and the slave | + | The [[discourse]] also illustrates clearly the [[structure]] of the [[dialectic]] of the [[master]] and the [[slave]]. |
| − | [[Image: | + | The [[master]] ([[Image:SS1.gif]]) is the [[discourse|agent]] who puts the [[slave]] ([[Image:SS2.gif]]) to work; the result of this work is a [[surplus]] (''[[objet (petit) a|a'') that the [[master]] attempts to appropriate. |
===The Discourse of the University=== | ===The Discourse of the University=== | ||
| − | The discourse of the university is produced by a quarter turn of the discourse of the master (anticlockwise). | + | [[Image:UNIVERSITYDISCOURSE.jpg|thumb|right|[[Discourse]] of the [[University]]}} |
| + | The [[discourse]] of the [[university]] is produced by a quarter turn of the [[discourse]] of the [[master]] (anticlockwise). | ||
| − | The dominant position is occupied by knowledge (savoir). | + | The dominant position is occupied by [[knowledge]] (''[[savoir]]''). |
| − | This illustrates the fact that behind all attempts to impart an apparently | + | This illustrates the fact that behind all attempts to impart an apparently "neutral" [[knowledge]] to the [[other]] can always be located an attempt at [[master]]y ([[master]]y of [[knowledge]], and domination of the [[other]] to whom this [[knowledge]] is imparted). |
| − | The discourse of the university represents the hegemony of knowledge, particularly visible in modernity in the form of the hegemony of science. | + | The [[discourse]] of the [[university]] represents the hegemony of [[knowledge]], particularly visible in modernity in the form of the hegemony of [[science]]. |
===The Discourse of the Hysteric=== | ===The Discourse of the Hysteric=== | ||
| − | The discourse of the hysteric is also produced by a quarter turn of the discourse of the master, but in a clockwise direction. | + | [[Image:HYSTERICDISCOURSE.jpg|thumb|right|[[Discourse]] of the [[Hysteria|Hysteric]]}} |
| + | The [[discourse]] of the [[hysteric]] is also produced by a quarter turn of the [[discourse]] of the [[master]], but in a clockwise direction. | ||
| − | It is not simply | + | It is not simply "that which is uttered by a hysteric", but a certain kind of [[discourse|social bond]] in which any [[subject]] may be inscribed. |
| − | The dominant position is occupied by the divided subject, the symptom. | + | The dominant position is occupied by the [[split|divided]] [[subject]], the [[symptom]]. |
| − | This discourse is that which points the way towards knowledge.<ref>{{S17}} p.23</ref>. | + | This [[discourse]] is that which points the way towards [[knowledge]].<ref>{{S17}} p. 23</ref>. |
| − | Psychoanalytic treatment involves | + | [[Psychoanalytic treatment]] involves "the structural intro- duction of the discourse of the hysteric by means of artificial conditions"; in other words, the [[analyst]] "[[hysteria|hystericises]]" the [[patient]]'s [[discourse]].<ref>{{S17}} p. 35</ref> |
===The Discourse of the Analyst=== | ===The Discourse of the Analyst=== | ||
| − | The discourse of the analyst is produced by a quarter turn of the discourse of the hysteric (in the same way as Freud developed psychoanalysis by giving an interpretative turn to the discourse of his hysterical | + | [[Image:ANALYSTDISCOURSE.jpg|thumb|right|[[Discourse]] of the [[Analyst]]]] |
| − | + | The [[discourse]] of the [[analyst]] is produced by a quarter turn of the [[discourse]] of the [[hysteric]] (in the same way as [[Freud]] developed [[psychoanalysis]] by giving an [[interpretation|interpretative]] turn to the [[discourse]] of his [[hysterical]] [[patient]]s). | |
| − | |||
| − | The | + | The position of the [[discourse|agent]], which is the position occupied by the [[analyst]] in the [[treatment]], is occupied by ''[[objet (petit) a|objet petit a]]''; this illustrates the fact that the [[analyst]] must, in the course of the [[treatment]], become the [[cause]] of the [[analysand]]'s [[desire]].<ref>{{Sl7}} p. 41</ref> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | The fact that this [[discourse]] is the inverse of the [[discourse]] of the [[master]] emphasises that, for [[Lacan]], [[psychoanalysis]] is an essentially subversive practice which undermines all attempts at domination and [[master]]y.<ref> | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
| + | {{See}} | ||
| + | * [[Algebra]] | ||
| + | * [[Analyst]] | ||
| + | * [[Communication]] | ||
| + | || | ||
| + | * [[Hysteria]] | ||
| + | * [[Intersubjectivity]] | ||
| + | * [[Knowledge]] | ||
| + | || | ||
| + | * [[Language]] | ||
| + | * [[Master]] | ||
| + | * [[Matheme]] | ||
| + | || | ||
| + | * [[Science]] | ||
* [[Speech]] | * [[Speech]] | ||
| + | * [[Subject]] | ||
| + | || | ||
| + | * [[Symbol]] | ||
| + | * [[Symptom]] | ||
| + | * [[Unconscious]] | ||
| + | {{Also}} | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| + | |||
[[Category:Psychoanalysis]] | [[Category:Psychoanalysis]] | ||
[[Category:Jacques Lacan]] | [[Category:Jacques Lacan]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Language]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Symbolic]] | ||
[[Category:Linguistics]] | [[Category:Linguistics]] | ||
[[Category:Dictionary]] | [[Category:Dictionary]] | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
[[Category:Concepts]] | [[Category:Concepts]] | ||
[[Category:Terms]] | [[Category:Terms]] | ||
| + | {{OK}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | __NOTOC__</ref> | ||
Revision as of 12:29, 24 August 2006
| French: discours |
Contents
Jacques Lacan
Speech
Whenever Lacan uses the term "discourse" (rather than, say, "speech") it is in order to stress the transindividual nature of language, the fact that speech always implies another subject, an interlocutor.
Thus the famous Lacanian formula, "the unconscious is the discourse of the Other" designates the unconscious as the effects on the subject of speech that is addressed to him from elsewhere; by another subject who has been forgotten, by another psychic locality (the other scene).
Social Bond
In 1969, Lacan begins to use the term "discourse" in a slightly different way, though one that still carries with it the stress on intersubjectivity.
From this point on the term designates "a social bond, founded in language."[1]
Lacan identifies four possible types of social bond, four possible articulations of the symbolic network which regulates intersubjective relations.
Four Discourses
These "four discourses" are the discourse of the master, the discourse of the university, the discourse of the hysteric, and the discourse of the analyst.
Lacan represents each of the four discourses by an algorithm: each algorithm contains four algebraic symbols.
Four Positions
What distinguishes the four discourses from one another is the positions of these four symbols.
There are four positions in the algorithms of the four discourses, each of which is designated by a different name.
The names of the four positions are shown below; Lacan gives different names to these positions at different points in his work, and this figure is taken from the 1972-3 seminar.[2]
Each discourse is defined by writing the four algebraic symbols in a different position.
The symbols always remain in the same order, so each discourse is simply the result of rotating the symbols a quarter turn.
The top-left position ("the agent") is the dominant position which defines the discourse.
In addition to the four symbols, each algorithm also contains an arrow going from the agent to the other.
The four discourses are shown in the figure to the right.
Arrows
In 1971, Lacan proposes that the position of the agent is also the position of the semblance.
In 1972, Lacan inscribes two arrows in the formulas instead of one; one arrow (which Lacan labels "impossibility") goes from the agent to the other, and the other arrow (which is labelled "powerlessness") goes from production to truth.[3]
Discourse of the Master
[[Image:MASTERDISCOURSE.jpg|thumb|right|Discourse of the Master The discourse of the master is the basic discourse from which the other three discourses are derived.
The dominant position is occupied by the master signifier (
), which represents the subject (S) for another signifier or, more precisely, for all other signifiers (
); however, in this signifying operation there is always a surplus, namely, objet petit a.
The point is that all attempts at totalisation are doomed to failure.
The discourse of the master "masks the division of the subject."[4]
The discourse also illustrates clearly the structure of the dialectic of the master and the slave.
The master () is the agent who puts the slave () to work; the result of this work is a surplus ([[objet (petit) a|a) that the master attempts to appropriate.
The Discourse of the University
[[Image:UNIVERSITYDISCOURSE.jpg|thumb|right|Discourse of the University}} The discourse of the university is produced by a quarter turn of the discourse of the master (anticlockwise).
The dominant position is occupied by knowledge (savoir).
This illustrates the fact that behind all attempts to impart an apparently "neutral" knowledge to the other can always be located an attempt at mastery (mastery of knowledge, and domination of the other to whom this knowledge is imparted).
The discourse of the university represents the hegemony of knowledge, particularly visible in modernity in the form of the hegemony of science.
The Discourse of the Hysteric
[[Image:HYSTERICDISCOURSE.jpg|thumb|right|Discourse of the Hysteric}} The discourse of the hysteric is also produced by a quarter turn of the discourse of the master, but in a clockwise direction.
It is not simply "that which is uttered by a hysteric", but a certain kind of social bond in which any subject may be inscribed.
The dominant position is occupied by the divided subject, the symptom.
This discourse is that which points the way towards knowledge.[5].
Psychoanalytic treatment involves "the structural intro- duction of the discourse of the hysteric by means of artificial conditions"; in other words, the analyst "hystericises" the patient's discourse.[6]
The Discourse of the Analyst
The discourse of the analyst is produced by a quarter turn of the discourse of the hysteric (in the same way as Freud developed psychoanalysis by giving an interpretative turn to the discourse of his hysterical patients).
The position of the agent, which is the position occupied by the analyst in the treatment, is occupied by objet petit a; this illustrates the fact that the analyst must, in the course of the treatment, become the cause of the analysand's desire.[7]
The fact that this discourse is the inverse of the discourse of the master emphasises that, for Lacan, psychoanalysis is an essentially subversive practice which undermines all attempts at domination and mastery.[8]
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 21
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 21
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p.21
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XVII. L'envers de la psychanalyse, 19669-70. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 118
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XVII. L'envers de la psychanalyse, 19669-70. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 23
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XVII. L'envers de la psychanalyse, 19669-70. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 35
- ↑ Template:Sl7 p. 41
- ↑
See Also
References
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 21
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 21
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p.21
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XVII. L'envers de la psychanalyse, 19669-70. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 118
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XVII. L'envers de la psychanalyse, 19669-70. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 23
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XVII. L'envers de la psychanalyse, 19669-70. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 35
- ↑ Template:Sl7 p. 41
- ↑
See Also
References
<references/>
