Difference between revisions of "Drive"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Top}}pulsion]]''; [[German]]: ''[[Trieb{{Bottom}} | {{Top}}pulsion]]''; [[German]]: ''[[Trieb{{Bottom}} | ||
| − | + | ==Drive and Instinct== | |
| − | == | + | ===Sigmund Freud=== |
| − | === | ||
[[Freud]]'s concept of the [[drive]] is central to his theory of [[human]] [[sexuality]]; it lies at the heart of his theory of [[sexuality]]. | [[Freud]]'s concept of the [[drive]] is central to his theory of [[human]] [[sexuality]]; it lies at the heart of his theory of [[sexuality]]. | ||
| − | |||
For [[Freud]], the distinctive feature of [[human]] [[sexuality]] -- as opposed to the sexual life of other animals -- is that it is not regulated by any [[instinct]] -- a concept which implies a relatively fixed and innate relationship to an [[object]] -- but by the [[drive]]s -- which differ from [[instinct]]s in that they are extremely variable, and develop in ways which are contingent on the life history of the [[subject]]. | For [[Freud]], the distinctive feature of [[human]] [[sexuality]] -- as opposed to the sexual life of other animals -- is that it is not regulated by any [[instinct]] -- a concept which implies a relatively fixed and innate relationship to an [[object]] -- but by the [[drive]]s -- which differ from [[instinct]]s in that they are extremely variable, and develop in ways which are contingent on the life history of the [[subject]]. | ||
| − | ==Jacques Lacan | + | ===Jacques Lacan=== |
| − | |||
[[Lacan]] insists on maintaining the [[Freud]]ian distinction between [[drive]] and [[instinct]].<ref>{{E}} p.301</ref> | [[Lacan]] insists on maintaining the [[Freud]]ian distinction between [[drive]] and [[instinct]].<ref>{{E}} p.301</ref> | ||
Whereas [[instinct]] denotes a mythical [[linguistic|pre-linguistic]] [[need]], the [[drive]] is completely removed from the realm of [[biology]]. | Whereas [[instinct]] denotes a mythical [[linguistic|pre-linguistic]] [[need]], the [[drive]] is completely removed from the realm of [[biology]]. | ||
| − | === | + | ====Aim of the Drive==== |
The [[drive]]s differ from [[biological]] [[need]]s in that they can never be [[satisfied]], and do not aim at an [[object]] but rather circle perpetually round it. | The [[drive]]s differ from [[biological]] [[need]]s in that they can never be [[satisfied]], and do not aim at an [[object]] but rather circle perpetually round it. | ||
| Line 22: | Line 19: | ||
Thus the real purpose of the [[drive]] is not some mythical goal of full [[satisfaction]], but to return to its circular path, and the real source of [[enjoyment]] is the [[repetition|repetitive movement]] of this closed circuit. | Thus the real purpose of the [[drive]] is not some mythical goal of full [[satisfaction]], but to return to its circular path, and the real source of [[enjoyment]] is the [[repetition|repetitive movement]] of this closed circuit. | ||
| − | + | ====Drive as Cultural and Symbolic Construct==== | |
| − | ==Cultural and Symbolic Construct== | ||
[[Lacan]] reminds his readers that [[Freud]] defined the [[drive]] as a montage composed of four discontinuous elements: the pressure, the end, the object and the source. | [[Lacan]] reminds his readers that [[Freud]] defined the [[drive]] as a montage composed of four discontinuous elements: the pressure, the end, the object and the source. | ||
| Line 32: | Line 28: | ||
[[Lacan]] thus empties the concept of the [[drive]] of the lingering references in [[Freud]]'s work to energetics and hydraulics. | [[Lacan]] thus empties the concept of the [[drive]] of the lingering references in [[Freud]]'s work to energetics and hydraulics. | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ==The Circuit of the Drive== | |
| − | + | [[Lacan]] incorporates the four elements of the [[drive]] in his theory of the [[drive]]'s circuit. | |
| − | [[Lacan]] incorporates the four elements of the drive in his theory of the [[drive]]'s circuit. | ||
In this circut, the [[drive]] originates in an [[erogenous zone]]. | In this circut, the [[drive]] originates in an [[erogenous zone]]. | ||
| Line 47: | Line 42: | ||
# The passive voice (e.g. to be seen) | # The passive voice (e.g. to be seen) | ||
| − | === | + | ===Activity and Passivity=== |
| − | |||
The first of these two times (active and reflexive voices) are autoerotic; they lack a [[subject]]. | The first of these two times (active and reflexive voices) are autoerotic; they lack a [[subject]]. | ||
| Line 59: | Line 53: | ||
The circuit of the [[drive]] is the only way for the [[subject]] to transgress the [[pleasure principle]]. | The circuit of the [[drive]] is the only way for the [[subject]] to transgress the [[pleasure principle]]. | ||
| − | ==Partial Drives== | + | |
| + | ==The Partial Nature of the Drives== | ||
[[Freud]] argued that [[sexuality]] is composed of a number of [[drive|partial drives]] ([[Ger]]. ''[[drive|Partieltrieb]]'') such as the [[drive|oral drive]] and the [[drive|anal drive]], each specified by a different source (a different erotogenic zone). | [[Freud]] argued that [[sexuality]] is composed of a number of [[drive|partial drives]] ([[Ger]]. ''[[drive|Partieltrieb]]'') such as the [[drive|oral drive]] and the [[drive|anal drive]], each specified by a different source (a different erotogenic zone). | ||
| − | At first these component [[drive]]s function anarchically and independently (viz. the | + | At first these component [[drive]]s function anarchically and independently (viz. the "polymorphous perversity" of children), but in puberty they become organized and fused together under the priamcy of the genital organs.<ref>{{F}} p.1905d.</ref> |
===Differences between Freud and Lacan=== | ===Differences between Freud and Lacan=== | ||
| − | |||
[[Lacan]] emphasizes the partial nature of all [[drive]]s, but differs from [[Freud]] on two points: | [[Lacan]] emphasizes the partial nature of all [[drive]]s, but differs from [[Freud]] on two points: | ||
# [[Lacan]] rejects the idea that the partial drives can ever attain any complete organization or fusion, aruging that the priamcy of the genital zone, if achieved, is always a highly precarious affair. | # [[Lacan]] rejects the idea that the partial drives can ever attain any complete organization or fusion, aruging that the priamcy of the genital zone, if achieved, is always a highly precarious affair. | ||
| + | |||
: He thus challenges the notion, put forward by some psychoanalysts after [[Freud]], of a genital drive in which the partial drives are completely integrated in a harmonious relation. | : He thus challenges the notion, put forward by some psychoanalysts after [[Freud]], of a genital drive in which the partial drives are completely integrated in a harmonious relation. | ||
# [[Lacan]] argues that the [[drive]]s are partial, not in the sense that thy are parts of a whole (a 'genital drive'), but in the sense that they only represent sexuality partially; they do not represent the reproductive function of sexuality but only the dimension of enjoyment.<ref>{{S11}} p.204</ref> | # [[Lacan]] argues that the [[drive]]s are partial, not in the sense that thy are parts of a whole (a 'genital drive'), but in the sense that they only represent sexuality partially; they do not represent the reproductive function of sexuality but only the dimension of enjoyment.<ref>{{S11}} p.204</ref> | ||
| − | ===Four Partial Drives=== | + | ===The Four Partial Drives=== |
| − | [[Lacan]] identifies four partial drives: the oral drive, the anal drive, the scopic drive, and the invocatory drive. | + | [[Lacan]] identifies four partial drives: the [[drive|oral drive]], the [[drive|anal drive]], the [[drive|scopic drive]], and the [[drive|invocatory drive]]. |
| − | Each of these | + | Each of these [[drive]]s is specified by a different [[partial object]] and a different [[erogenous zone]]. |
| − | The first two | + | The first two [[drive]]s relate to [[demand]], whereas the second pair relate to [[desire]]. |
{| style="width:75%; height:200px" border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="center" | {| style="width:75%; height:200px" border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="center" | ||
| − | |+ [[:Image:Lacan-tablepartialdrives.jpg|Table of partial drives]]<BR> | + | |+ '''[[:Image:Lacan-tablepartialdrives.jpg|Table of partial drives]]'''<BR> |
! align="center" | !! align="center" | PARTIAL DRIVE !! align="center" | EROGENOUS ZONE !! align="center" | PARTIAL OBJECT !! align="center" | VERB | ! align="center" | !! align="center" | PARTIAL DRIVE !! align="center" | EROGENOUS ZONE !! align="center" | PARTIAL OBJECT !! align="center" | VERB | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 97: | Line 92: | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | ==Lacanian Matheme== | + | ==The Lacanian Matheme for the Drive== |
In 1957, in the context of the [[graph of desire]], [[Lacan]] proposes the formula ('''S <> D''') as the [[matheme]] for the [[drive]]. | In 1957, in the context of the [[graph of desire]], [[Lacan]] proposes the formula ('''S <> D''') as the [[matheme]] for the [[drive]]. | ||
This formula is to be read: the [[bar]]ed [[subject]] in relation to [[demand]], the fading of the [[subject]] before the insistence of a [[demand]] that persists without any [[conscious]] [[intention]] to sustain it. | This formula is to be read: the [[bar]]ed [[subject]] in relation to [[demand]], the fading of the [[subject]] before the insistence of a [[demand]] that persists without any [[conscious]] [[intention]] to sustain it. | ||
| − | ==Dualism of the | + | ==The Dualism of the Drives== |
| − | ===Sigmund Freud | + | ===Sigmund Freud: Life and Death=== |
| − | |||
Throughout the various reformulations of drive-theory in [[Freud]]'s work, one constant feature is a basic dualism. | Throughout the various reformulations of drive-theory in [[Freud]]'s work, one constant feature is a basic dualism. | ||
| Line 113: | Line 107: | ||
He was thus led to reconceptualize the dualism of the [[drive]]s in terms of an opposition between the [[drive|life drive]]s (''[[drive|Lebenstriebe]]'') and the [[death drive]]s (''[[death drive|Todostriebe]]''). | He was thus led to reconceptualize the dualism of the [[drive]]s in terms of an opposition between the [[drive|life drive]]s (''[[drive|Lebenstriebe]]'') and the [[death drive]]s (''[[death drive|Todostriebe]]''). | ||
| − | ===Jacques Lacan | + | ===Jacques Lacan: Symbolic and Imaginary=== |
| − | |||
| − | |||
[[Lacan]] argues that it is important to retain [[Freud]]'s dualism, and rejects the monism of [[Jung]], who argued that all psychic forces could be reduced to one single concept of psychic energy.<ref>{{S1}} p.118-20</ref> | [[Lacan]] argues that it is important to retain [[Freud]]'s dualism, and rejects the monism of [[Jung]], who argued that all psychic forces could be reduced to one single concept of psychic energy.<ref>{{S1}} p.118-20</ref> | ||
However, [[Lacan]] prefers to reconceptualize this dualism in terms of an opposition between the [[symbolic]] and the [[imaginary]], and not in terms of an oppositio between different kinds of [[drive]]s. | However, [[Lacan]] prefers to reconceptualize this dualism in terms of an opposition between the [[symbolic]] and the [[imaginary]], and not in terms of an oppositio between different kinds of [[drive]]s. | ||
| − | Thus, for [[Lacan]], all [[drive]]s are sexual | + | Thus, for [[Lacan]], all [[drive]]s are [[drive|sexual drive]]s, and every [[drive]] is a [[death drive]] since every [[drive]] is excessive, [[repetition|repetitive]], and ultimately destructive.<ref>{{Ec}} p.848</ref> |
==Drive and Desire== | ==Drive and Desire== | ||
| Line 130: | Line 122: | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
| + | {{See}} | ||
* [[Biology]] | * [[Biology]] | ||
* [[Death drive]] | * [[Death drive]] | ||
| + | * [[Demand]] | ||
| + | || | ||
* [[Desire]] | * [[Desire]] | ||
* [[Instinct]] | * [[Instinct]] | ||
| + | * [[Need]] | ||
| + | || | ||
* [[Pleasure principle]] | * [[Pleasure principle]] | ||
* [[Sexuality]] | * [[Sexuality]] | ||
* [[Subject]] | * [[Subject]] | ||
| + | {{Also}} | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| + | |||
[[Category:Psychoanalysis]] | [[Category:Psychoanalysis]] | ||
[[Category:Jacques Lacan]] | [[Category:Jacques Lacan]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Science]] | ||
| + | [[Category:Real]] | ||
[[Category:Dictionary]] | [[Category:Dictionary]] | ||
[[Category:Concepts]] | [[Category:Concepts]] | ||
[[Category:Terms]] | [[Category:Terms]] | ||
| − | |||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
Revision as of 10:29, 21 August 2006
| French: pulsion; German: Trieb |
Drive and Instinct
Sigmund Freud
Freud's concept of the drive is central to his theory of human sexuality; it lies at the heart of his theory of sexuality.
For Freud, the distinctive feature of human sexuality -- as opposed to the sexual life of other animals -- is that it is not regulated by any instinct -- a concept which implies a relatively fixed and innate relationship to an object -- but by the drives -- which differ from instincts in that they are extremely variable, and develop in ways which are contingent on the life history of the subject.
Jacques Lacan
Lacan insists on maintaining the Freudian distinction between drive and instinct.[1]
Whereas instinct denotes a mythical pre-linguistic need, the drive is completely removed from the realm of biology.
Aim of the Drive
The drives differ from biological needs in that they can never be satisfied, and do not aim at an object but rather circle perpetually round it.
Lacan argues that the purpose of the drive (Triebziel) is not to reach a goal (a final destination) but to follow its aim (the way itself), which is to circle round the object.[2]
Thus the real purpose of the drive is not some mythical goal of full satisfaction, but to return to its circular path, and the real source of enjoyment is the repetitive movement of this closed circuit.
Drive as Cultural and Symbolic Construct
Lacan reminds his readers that Freud defined the drive as a montage composed of four discontinuous elements: the pressure, the end, the object and the source.
The drive cannot therefore be conceived of as "some ultimate given, something archaic, primordial."[3]
It is a thoroughly cultural and symbolic construct.
Lacan thus empties the concept of the drive of the lingering references in Freud's work to energetics and hydraulics.
The Circuit of the Drive
Lacan incorporates the four elements of the drive in his theory of the drive's circuit.
In this circut, the drive originates in an erogenous zone.
This circuit is structured by the three grammatical voices.
- The active voice (e.g. to see)
- The reflexive voice (e.g. to see oneself)
- The passive voice (e.g. to be seen)
Activity and Passivity
The first of these two times (active and reflexive voices) are autoerotic; they lack a subject.
Only in the third time (the passive voice), when the drive completes its circuit, does "a new subject" appear (which is to say that before this time, there was no subject).
Although the third time is the passive voice, the drive is always essentially active, which is why Lacan writes that the third time not as "to be seen" but as "to make oneself be seen."
Even supposedly "passive" phases of the drive such as masochism involve activity.[4]
The circuit of the drive is the only way for the subject to transgress the pleasure principle.
The Partial Nature of the Drives
Freud argued that sexuality is composed of a number of partial drives (Ger. Partieltrieb) such as the oral drive and the anal drive, each specified by a different source (a different erotogenic zone).
At first these component drives function anarchically and independently (viz. the "polymorphous perversity" of children), but in puberty they become organized and fused together under the priamcy of the genital organs.[5]
Differences between Freud and Lacan
Lacan emphasizes the partial nature of all drives, but differs from Freud on two points:
- Lacan rejects the idea that the partial drives can ever attain any complete organization or fusion, aruging that the priamcy of the genital zone, if achieved, is always a highly precarious affair.
- He thus challenges the notion, put forward by some psychoanalysts after Freud, of a genital drive in which the partial drives are completely integrated in a harmonious relation.
- Lacan argues that the drives are partial, not in the sense that thy are parts of a whole (a 'genital drive'), but in the sense that they only represent sexuality partially; they do not represent the reproductive function of sexuality but only the dimension of enjoyment.[6]
The Four Partial Drives
Lacan identifies four partial drives: the oral drive, the anal drive, the scopic drive, and the invocatory drive.
Each of these drives is specified by a different partial object and a different erogenous zone.
The first two drives relate to demand, whereas the second pair relate to desire.
| PARTIAL DRIVE | EROGENOUS ZONE | PARTIAL OBJECT | VERB | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D | Oral drive | Lips | Breast | To suck |
| D | Anal drive | Anus | Faeces | To shit |
| d | Scopic drive | Eyes | Gaze | To see |
| d | Invocatory drive | Ears | Voice | To hear |
The Lacanian Matheme for the Drive
In 1957, in the context of the graph of desire, Lacan proposes the formula (S <> D) as the matheme for the drive.
This formula is to be read: the bared subject in relation to demand, the fading of the subject before the insistence of a demand that persists without any conscious intention to sustain it.
The Dualism of the Drives
Sigmund Freud: Life and Death
Throughout the various reformulations of drive-theory in Freud's work, one constant feature is a basic dualism.
At first this dualism was conceived in terms of an opposition between the sexual drives (Sexualtriebe) on the one hand, and the ego-drives (Ichtriebe) or drives of self-preservation (Selbsterhaltungstriebe) on the other.
This opposition was problematized by Freud's growing realization, in the period 1914-20, that the ego-drives are themselves sexual.
He was thus led to reconceptualize the dualism of the drives in terms of an opposition between the life drives (Lebenstriebe) and the death drives (Todostriebe).
Jacques Lacan: Symbolic and Imaginary
Lacan argues that it is important to retain Freud's dualism, and rejects the monism of Jung, who argued that all psychic forces could be reduced to one single concept of psychic energy.[7]
However, Lacan prefers to reconceptualize this dualism in terms of an opposition between the symbolic and the imaginary, and not in terms of an oppositio between different kinds of drives.
Thus, for Lacan, all drives are sexual drives, and every drive is a death drive since every drive is excessive, repetitive, and ultimately destructive.[8]
Drive and Desire
The drives are closely related to desire; both originate in the field of the subject, as opposed to the genital drive, which (if it exists) finds its form on the side of the Other.[9]
However, the drive is not merely another name for desire: they are the partial aspects in which [desire]] is realized.
Desire is one and undivided, whereas the drives are partial manifestations of desire.
See Also
References
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.301
- ↑ 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.168
- ↑ 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.162
- ↑ 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.200
- ↑ Freud, Sigmund. p.1905d.
- ↑ 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.204
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book I. Freud's Papers on Technique, 1953-54. Trans. John Forrester. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. p.118-20
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p.848
- ↑ 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.189
