Difference between revisions of "Dual relation"
(The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (<a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles">https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles</a>).) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{Top}}relation duelle{{Bottom}} | + | {{Top}}relation [[duelle]]{{Bottom}} |
==Imaginary Order== | ==Imaginary Order== | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Dyads== | ==Dyads== | ||
| − | 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 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]]. |
==Symmetry== | ==Symmetry== | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
==Triads== | ==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 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. |
==Non-Symmetry== | ==Non-Symmetry== | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
=="Imaginary Triad"== | =="Imaginary Triad"== | ||
| − | 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 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 theorize 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]]. | + | The [[imaginary]] [[triad]] is [[Lacan]]'s attempt to theorize 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]]). | 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}} p.319</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> |
==Psychoanalytic Treatment== | ==Psychoanalytic Treatment== | ||
| − | 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]]. | + | 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." | + | 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." |
==Other== | ==Other== | ||
| − | 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. | + | 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> | + | <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. | + | 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. |
==Jacques Lacan== | ==Jacques Lacan== | ||
| − | [[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. | + | [[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. |
| − | <blockquote>"All two-sided relationships are always stamped with the style of the imaginary."<ref>{{L}} "[[Works of Jacques Lacan|Fetishism: The Symbolic, the Imaginary and the Real]]" (with W. Granoff), in M. Balint (ed.), ''Perversions: Psychodynamics and Therapy'', New York: Random House, London: Tavistock, 1956b. p. 274</ref></blockquote> | + | <blockquote>"All two-sided relationships are always stamped with the style of [[the imaginary]]."<ref>{{L}} "[[Works of Jacques Lacan|Fetishism: The Symbolic, the Imaginary and the Real]]" (with W. Granoff), in M. [[Balint]] (ed.), ''Perversions: [[Psychodynamics]] and [[Therapy]]'', New York: Random House, [[London]]: Tavistock, 1956b. p. 274</ref></blockquote> |
===More Triads=== | ===More Triads=== | ||
| − | 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 [[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. | 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. | ||
Latest revision as of 21:00, 23 May 2019
| French: [[relation duelle]] |
Imaginary Order
Duality and dual relations are essential characteristics of the imaginary order.
Dyads
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.
Symmetry
The dual relation is always characterized by illusions of similarity, symmetry and reciprocity.
Symbolic Order
In contrast to the duality of the imaginary order, the symbolic order is characterised by triads.
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.
Non-Symmetry
The illusion of reciprocity in the imaginary dual relationship contrasts with the symbolic, which is the realm of "absolute non-reciprocity."[1]
Oedipus Complex
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.
Structure
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]
"Imaginary Triad"
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 theorize 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]
Psychoanalytic Treatment
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."
Other
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.
Jacques Lacan
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]
More Triads
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.
Quaternary
However, as if to counteract this trend, Lacan also emphasised the importance of schemes involving four elements (see quaternary).
See Also
References
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p. 774
- ↑ 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
- ↑ 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
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p.319
- ↑ 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
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. "Fetishism: The Symbolic, the Imaginary and the Real" (with W. Granoff), in M. Balint (ed.), Perversions: Psychodynamics and Therapy, New York: Random House, London: Tavistock, 1956b. p. 274
