Difference between revisions of "Dual relation"

From No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
  
 +
Duality and [[dual relations]] are essential characteristics of the [[imaginary order]].
  
 +
The paradigmatic [[dual relation]] is the relation between the [[ego]] and the [[specular image]] (''a'' ''a''') which [[Lacan]] analyzes in his concept of the [[mirror stage]].
  
The [[dual relation]] is ([[French]]:''relation duelle'') a basic feature of the [[imaginary]] [[order]].
+
The [[dual relation]] is always characterized by illusions of similarity, symmetry and reciprocity.
 
 
The [[dual relation]] is the relation between the [[ego]] and the [[specular image]] which [[Lacan]] analyzes in his concept of the [[mirror stage]].
 
 
 
The [[dual relation]] is always characterised by [[illusion]]s of similarity, symmetry and reciprocity.
 
  
 +
--
  
 
In contrast to the [[duality]] of the [[imaginary]] [[order]], the [[symbolic]] [[order]] is characterised by [[triad]]s.  
 
In contrast to the [[duality]] of the [[imaginary]] [[order]], the [[symbolic]] [[order]] is characterised by [[triad]]s.  
Line 13: Line 12:
 
In the [[symbolic]] [[order]] all relations involve not two but three terms; the third term is the [[big Other]], which mediates all [[imaginary]] [[dual relation]]s.  
 
In the [[symbolic]] [[order]] all relations involve not two but three terms; the third term is the [[big Other]], which mediates all [[imaginary]] [[dual relation]]s.  
  
The [[illusion]] of reciprocity in the [[imaginary]] [[dual relation]]ship contrasts with the [[symbolic]], which is the realm of 'absolute non-reciprocity.'<ref>Ec, 774</ref>
+
The [[illusion]] of reciprocity in the [[imaginary]] [[dual relation]]ship contrasts with the [[symbolic]], which is the realm of "absolute non-reciprocity."<ref>{{Ec}} p.774</ref>
  
 
The [[Oedipus complex]] is the paradigmatic triangular [[structure]], since the [[father]] is introduced into the [[dual relation]] between [[mother]] and [[child]] as a third term.  
 
The [[Oedipus complex]] is the paradigmatic triangular [[structure]], since the [[father]] is introduced into the [[dual relation]] between [[mother]] and [[child]] as a third term.  
  
The Oedipal passage from a [[dual relation]] to a triangular [[structure]] is none other than the passage from the [[imaginary]] to the [[symbolic]] [[order]].  
+
The [[Oedipal]] passage from a [[dual relation]] to a triangular [[structure]] is none other than the passage from the [[imaginary]] to the [[symbolic]] [[order]].  
  
Indeed, the very concept of [[structure]] itself involves a minimum of three terms; "there are always three terms in the structure."<ref>Sl, 218</ref>
+
Indeed, the very concept of [[structure]] itself involves a minimum of three terms; "there are always three terms in the structure."<ref>{{S1}} p.218</ref>
  
 +
--
  
 +
The opposition between [[imaginary]] [[dyad]]s and [[symbolic]] [[triad]]s is complicated by [[Lacan]]'s discussion of the '[[imaginary triad]].'<ref>{{E}} p.197; {{S4}} p.29</ref>
  
 +
The [[imaginary]] [[triad]] is [[Lacan]]'s attempt to theorise the [[preoedipal stage]] in terms other than those of a merely [[dual relation]]ship, and refers to the moment preceding the [[Oedipus complex]], when a third element (the [[imaginary phallus]]) circulates between the [[mother]] and [[infant]].
  
 +
When the [[father]] intervenes in the [[Oedipus complex]] he can therefore be seen either as a third element (between [[mother]] and [[child]]) or as a fourth element (in addition to [[mother]], [[child]] and [[phallus]]).
  
The opposition between [[imaginary]] [[dyad]]s and [[symbolic]] [[triad]]s is complicated by [[Lacan]]'s discussion of the '[[imaginary triad]].'<ref>E, 197; S4, 29</ref>
+
It is for this reason that [[Lacan]] writes that in the [[Oedipus complex]] "it is not a question of a father-mother-child triangle, but of a triangle (father)-phallus-mother-child."<ref>{{S3}} p.319</ref>
The [[imaginary]] [[triad]] is [[Lacan]]'s attempt to theorise the [[preoedipal stage]] in terms other than those of a merely dual relationship, and refers to the moment preceding the [[Oedipus complex]], when a third element (the [[imaginary phallus]]) circulates between the [[mother]] and [[infant]].  
+
 
When the [[father]] intervenes in the [[Oedipus complex]] he can therefore be seen either as a third element (between [[mother]] and [[child]]) or as a fourth element (in addition to [[mother]], [[child]] and [[phallus]]).
+
--
It is for this reason that Lacan writes that in the [[Oedipus complex]] "it is not a question of a father-mother-child triangle, but of a triangle (father)-phallus-mother-child."<ref>S3, 319</ref>
+
 
 +
One of [[Lacan]]'s most frequent criticisms of the [[psychoanalytic theory]] of his day is that it constantly fails to theorise the role of the [[symbolic]], and thus reduces the [[psychoanalytic]] encounter to an [[imaginary]] [[dual relation]]ship between [[analyst]] and [[analysand]].  
 +
 
 +
In particular, it reduces [[analytic]] [[treatment]] to an [[ego]]-to-[[ego]] encounter which, because of the [[aggressivity]] inherent in all [[imaginary]] [[dual relation]]s, often degenerates into a "[[fight to the death]]" between [[analyst]] and [[analysand]], a power struggle in which they are "at daggers drawn."
 +
 
 +
--
 +
 
 +
Against such a misconception, [[Lacan]] insists on the function of the [[symbolic]] in the [[analytic]] process, which introduces the [[Other]] as the third term in the [[analytic]] encounter.
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>"It is within a three- rather than two-term relation that we have to formulate the analytic experience."<ref>{{S1}} p.11</ref></blockquote>
 +
 
 +
Rather than seeing the [[treatment]] as a power struggle in which the [[analyst]] must overcome the [[patient]]'s [[resistance]], which is not [[psychoanalysis]] but [[suggestion]], the [[analyst]] must realise that both he and the [[patient]] are equally subjected to the power of a third term: [[language]] itself.
  
 +
--
  
One of Lacan's most frequent criticisms of the psychoanalytic theory of his day is that it constantly fails to theorise the role of the symbolic, and thus reduces the psychoanalytic encounter to an imaginary dual relationship between [[analyst]] and [[analysand]].  
+
[[Lacan]]'s rejection of [[duality]] can also be seen in his rejection of all [[dual]]istic schemes of thought in favour of [[triad]]ic schemes.
  
In particular, it reduces analytic [[treatment]] to an ego-to-ego encounter which, because of the [[aggressivity]] inherent in all [[imaginary]] [[dual relation]]s, often degenerates into a '[[fight to the death]]' between [[analyst]] and [[analysand]], a power struggle in which they are 'at daggers drawn.'<ref>see [[Master]]</ref>
+
<blockquote>"All two-sided relationships are always stamped with the style of the imaginary."<ref>Lacan, 1956b: 274</ref></blockquote>
  
Against such a misconception, Lacan insists on the function of the [[symbolic]] in the analytic process, which introduces the [[Other]] as the third term in the analytic encounter.
 
"It is within a three- rather than two-term relation that we have to formulate the analytic experience."<ref>Sl, ll</ref>
 
Rather than seeing the treatment as a power struggle in which the analyst must overcome the patient's [[resistance]], which is not psychoanalysis but [[suggestion]], the analyst must realise that both he and the patient are equally subjected to the power of a third term: [[language]] itself.
 
Lacan's rejection of duality can also be seen in his rejection of all dualistic schemes of thought in favour of triadic schemes; "all two-sided relationships are always stamped with the style of the imaginary."<ref>Lacan, 1956b: 274</ref>
 
 
For example instead of the traditional binary opposition between what is [[real]] and what is [[imaginary]], [[Lacan]] proposes a tripartite model of [[real]], [[imaginary]] and [[symbolic]].  
 
For example instead of the traditional binary opposition between what is [[real]] and what is [[imaginary]], [[Lacan]] proposes a tripartite model of [[real]], [[imaginary]] and [[symbolic]].  
  
Other such triadic schemes are the three clinical [[structures]] of [[neurosis]], [[psychosis]] and [[perversion]]; the three formations of the [[ego]] ([[ego-ideal]], [[ideal ego]] and [[superego]]); the triad [[nature]]-[[culture]]-[[society]]; etc.
+
Other such [[triad]]ic schemes are the three [[clinical structures]] of [[neurosis]], [[psychosis]] and [[perversion]]; the three [[formation]]s of the [[ego]] ([[ego-ideal]], [[ideal ego]] and [[superego]]); the [[triad]] [[nature]]-[[culture]]-[[society]]; etc.  
However, as if to counteract this trend, Lacan also emphasised the importance of schemes involving four elements (see [[quaternary]]).
 
  
==References==
+
However, as if to counteract this trend, [[Lacan]] also emphasised the importance of schemes involving four elements (see [[quaternary]]).
<references/>
 
  
 
==See Also ==
 
==See Also ==
Line 54: Line 63:
 
* [[Infant]]
 
* [[Infant]]
 
* [[Mother]]
 
* [[Mother]]
 +
 +
 +
==References==
 +
<references/>
  
 
[[Category:Imaginary]]
 
[[Category:Imaginary]]

Revision as of 21:47, 30 July 2006

Duality and dual relations are essential characteristics of the imaginary order.

The paradigmatic dual relation is the relation between the ego and the specular image (a a') which Lacan analyzes in his concept of the mirror stage.

The dual relation is always characterized by illusions of similarity, symmetry and reciprocity.

--

In contrast to the duality of the imaginary order, the symbolic order is characterised by triads.

In the symbolic order all relations involve not two but three terms; the third term is the big Other, which mediates all imaginary dual relations.

The illusion of reciprocity in the imaginary dual relationship contrasts with the symbolic, which is the realm of "absolute non-reciprocity."[1]

The Oedipus complex is the paradigmatic triangular structure, since the father is introduced into the dual relation between mother and child as a third term.

The Oedipal passage from a dual relation to a triangular structure is none other than the passage from the imaginary to the symbolic order.

Indeed, the very concept of structure itself involves a minimum of three terms; "there are always three terms in the structure."[2]

--

The opposition between imaginary dyads and symbolic triads is complicated by Lacan's discussion of the 'imaginary triad.'[3]

The imaginary triad is Lacan's attempt to theorise the preoedipal stage in terms other than those of a merely dual relationship, and refers to the moment preceding the Oedipus complex, when a third element (the imaginary phallus) circulates between the mother and infant.

When the father intervenes in the Oedipus complex he can therefore be seen either as a third element (between mother and child) or as a fourth element (in addition to mother, child and phallus).

It is for this reason that Lacan writes that in the Oedipus complex "it is not a question of a father-mother-child triangle, but of a triangle (father)-phallus-mother-child."[4]

--

One of Lacan's most frequent criticisms of the psychoanalytic theory of his day is that it constantly fails to theorise the role of the symbolic, and thus reduces the psychoanalytic encounter to an imaginary dual relationship between analyst and analysand.

In particular, it reduces analytic treatment to an ego-to-ego encounter which, because of the aggressivity inherent in all imaginary dual relations, often degenerates into a "fight to the death" between analyst and analysand, a power struggle in which they are "at daggers drawn."

--

Against such a misconception, Lacan insists on the function of the symbolic in the analytic process, which introduces the Other as the third term in the analytic encounter.

"It is within a three- rather than two-term relation that we have to formulate the analytic experience."[5]

Rather than seeing the treatment as a power struggle in which the analyst must overcome the patient's resistance, which is not psychoanalysis but suggestion, the analyst must realise that both he and the patient are equally subjected to the power of a third term: language itself.

--

Lacan's rejection of duality can also be seen in his rejection of all dualistic schemes of thought in favour of triadic schemes.

"All two-sided relationships are always stamped with the style of the imaginary."[6]

For example instead of the traditional binary opposition between what is real and what is imaginary, Lacan proposes a tripartite model of real, imaginary and symbolic.

Other such triadic schemes are the three clinical structures of neurosis, psychosis and perversion; the three formations of the ego (ego-ideal, ideal ego and superego); the triad nature-culture-society; etc.

However, as if to counteract this trend, Lacan also emphasised the importance of schemes involving four elements (see quaternary).

See Also


References

  1. Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p.774
  2. 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.218
  3. Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.197; Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p.29
  4. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p.319
  5. 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.11
  6. Lacan, 1956b: 274