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 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 characterized by [[illusion]]s illusions of similarity, symmetry and reciprocity.
--
In contrast to the [[duality]] of the [[imaginary]] [[order]], the [[symbolic]] [[order]] is characterised by [[triad]]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, }} 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 [[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, {{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 It is for this reason that [[imaginaryLacan]] writes that in the [[dyadOedipus complex]]s and "it is not a question of a father-mother-child triangle, but of a triangle (father)-phallus-mother-child."<ref>{{S3}} p.319</ref> -- One of [[symbolicLacan]] 's most frequent criticisms of the [[triadpsychoanalytic theory]]s of his day is complicated by that it constantly fails to theorise the role of the [[Lacansymbolic]]'s discussion of , and thus reduces the '[[psychoanalytic]] encounter to an [[imaginary triad]] [[dual relation]]ship between [[analyst]] and [[analysand]].'<ref>E In particular, 197; S4, 29</ref>The it reduces [[imaginaryanalytic]] [[triadtreatment]] is to an [[Lacanego]]'s attempt -to theorise -[[ego]] encounter which, because of the [[preoedipal stageaggressivity]] inherent in terms other than those of a merely dual relationship, and refers to the moment preceding the all [[imaginary]] [[Oedipus complexdual relation]]s, when often degenerates into a third element (the "[[imaginary phallusfight to the death]]) circulates " between the [[motheranalyst]] and [[infantanalysand]], a power struggle in which they are "at daggers drawn. "When -- Against such a misconception, [[Lacan]] insists on the function of the [[fathersymbolic]] intervenes in the [[Oedipus complexanalytic]] process, which introduces the [[Other]] he can therefore be seen either as a the third element (between term in the [[motheranalytic]] and 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 [[childtreatment]]) or as a fourth element (power struggle in addition to which the [[analyst]] must overcome the [[patient]]'s [[motherresistance]], which is not [[childpsychoanalysis]] but [[suggestion]] and , the [[phallusanalyst]]).It is for this reason must realise that Lacan writes that in both he and the [[Oedipus complexpatient]] "it is not a question are equally subjected to the power of a father-mother-child triangle, but of a triangle (father)-phallus-mother-childthird term: [[language]] itself."<ref>S3, 319</ref>
--
One of [[Lacan]]'s most frequent criticisms of the psychoanalytic theory rejection of [[duality]] can also be seen in his day is that it constantly fails to theorise the role rejection of the symbolic, and thus reduces the psychoanalytic encounter to an imaginary dual relationship between all [[analystdual]] and istic schemes of thought in favour of [[analysandtriad]]ic schemes.
In particular, it reduces analytic [[treatment]] to an ego<blockquote>"All two-to-ego encounter which, because sided relationships are always stamped with the style 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]]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]].
Other such triadic [[triad]]ic schemes are the three clinical [[clinical structures]] of [[neurosis]], [[psychosis]] and [[perversion]]; the three formations [[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==<references/>However, as if to counteract this trend, [[Lacan]] also emphasised the importance of schemes involving four elements (see [[quaternary]]).
==See Also ==
* [[Infant]]
* [[Mother]]
==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Imaginary]]
