Difference between revisions of "Father"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | |||
| + | "[[father]]" ([[Fr]]. ''[[père]]'') | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | [[Lacan]]'s emphasis on the imporance of the [[father]] can be seen as a reaction against the tendency of [[Kleinian psychoanalysis]] and [[object-relations theory]] to place the [[mother]]-[[child]] [[dual relation|relation]] at the heart of [[psychoanalytic theory]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In opposition to this tendency, [[Lacan]] continually stresses the role of the [[father]] as a third term who, by mediating the [[imaginary]] [[dual relation]]] between the [[mother]] and the [[child]], saves the [[child]] from [[psychosis]] and makes possible an entry into social existence. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The [[father]] is thus more than a mere rival with whom the [[subject]] competes for for the [[mother]]'s [[love]]; he is the representative of the social ordeer as such, and only by identifying with the [[father]] in the [[Oedipus complex]] can the [[subject]] gain entry into this order. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The [[absence] of the [[father]] is therefore an important factor in the aetiology of all psychopathological [[structures]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | -- However, the [[father]] is not a simple concept but a complex one, one which begs the question of what exactly is meant by the term "father." | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Lacan]] argues that the question "What is a father?" forms the central theme which runs throughout [[Freud]]'s entire work.<ref>{{S4}} p.204-5</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | It is in order to answer this question that, from 1953 on, [[Lacan]] stresses the importance of distinguishing between the [[symbolic]] [[father]], the [[imaginary]] [[father]] and the [[real]] [[father]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | --- | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==The Symbolic Father== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The [[symbolic]] [[father]] is not a real [[being]] but a position, a funciton, and hence is synonymous with the term "paternal function." | ||
| + | |||
| + | This function is none other than that of imposing the [[law]] and regulating [[desire]] in the [[Oedipus complex]], of intervening in the [[imaginary]] [[dual relation]]ship between [[mother]] and [[child]] to introduce a necessary "symbolic distance" between them.<ref>{{S4}} p.161</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <blockquote>"The true function of the Father... is fundamentally to unite (and not to set in opposition) a desire and the Law."<ref>{{E}} p.321</ref></blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Although the [[symbolic]] [[father]] is not an actual [[subject]] but a osition in the [[symbolic order]], a [[subject]] may nevertheless come to occupy this position, by virtue of exercising the paternal function. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Nobody can ever occupy this position completely.<ref>{{S4}} p.205, 210, 219</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | However, the [[symbolic]] [[father]] does not usually intervene by virtue of someone incarnating this function, but in a veiled fashion, for example by being mediated by the discourse of the [[mother]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | --- | ||
| + | |||
| + | The [[symbolic]] [[father]] is the fundamental element in the [[structure]] of the [[symbolic order]]; what distinguishes the [[symbolic order]] of [[culture]] from the [[imaginary order]] of [[nature]] is the inscription of a line of male descendence. | ||
| + | |||
| + | By structuring descendence into a series of generations, patrilineality introduces an [[order]] "Who structure is different from the natural order."<ref>{{S3}} p.320</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | The [[symbolic]] [[father]] is also the [[dead]] [[father]], the [[father]] of the [[primal horde]] who has been murdered by his own sons. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The [[symbolic]] [[father]] is also referred to as the [[Name-of-the-Father]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | -- | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | The [[presence]] of the [[imaginary]] [[phallus]] as a third term in the [[preoedipal phase|preoedipal]] [imaginary|imaginary triangle]] indicates that the [[symbolic]] [[father]] is alreay functioning at the [[preoedipal phase|preoedipal stage; behind the [[symbolic]] [[mother]], there is always the [[symbolic]] [[faather]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The [[sychotic], however, doe snot even ge tthis far; indeed, it is the [[absence]] of the [[symbolic]] [[father]] which characteizes the essence of the [[psychotic]] [[structure]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==The Imaginary Father== | ||
| + | ==The imaginary father== | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | The [[imaginary]] [[father]] is an [[imago]], the composite of all the [[imaginary]] constructs that the [[subject]] builds up in [[fantasy]] around the figure of the [[father]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This [[imaginary]] construction often bears little relationship to the [[father]] as he is in [[reality]].<ref>{{S4}} p.220</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | The [[imaginary]] [[father]] can be construed as an ideal [[father]],<ref>{{S1}} p.156'{{E}} p.321</ref> or the opposite, as "the father who has fucked the kid up."<ref>{{S7}} p.308</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the former guise, the [[imaginary]] [[father]] is the prototype of [[God]]-figures in [[religion]]s, an all-powerful protector. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the latter role, the [[imaginary]] [[father]] is both the terrifying father of the [[primal horde]] who imposes the [[incest]] [[taboo]] on his sons,<ref>[[Freud]] 1912-3</ref> and the agent of [[privation]], the [[father]] whom the daughter blames for depriving her of the [[symbolic]] [[phallus]], or its equivalent, a [[child]].<ref>{{S4}} p.98</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | In both guises, though, whether as the [[ideal]] [[father]] or as the [[father|cruel]] [[father|agent]] of [[privation]], the [[imaginary father]] is seen as omnipotent.<ref>{{S4}} p.275-6</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Psychosis]] and [[perversion]] both involve, in different ways, a reduction of the [[symbolic]] [[father]] to the [[imaginary]] [[father]]. | ||
Revision as of 02:12, 31 July 2006
Lacan's emphasis on the imporance of the father can be seen as a reaction against the tendency of Kleinian psychoanalysis and object-relations theory to place the mother-child relation at the heart of psychoanalytic theory.
In opposition to this tendency, Lacan continually stresses the role of the father as a third term who, by mediating the imaginary dual relation] between the mother and the child, saves the child from psychosis and makes possible an entry into social existence.
The father is thus more than a mere rival with whom the subject competes for for the mother's love; he is the representative of the social ordeer as such, and only by identifying with the father in the Oedipus complex can the subject gain entry into this order.
The [[absence] of the father is therefore an important factor in the aetiology of all psychopathological structures.
-- However, the father is not a simple concept but a complex one, one which begs the question of what exactly is meant by the term "father."
Lacan argues that the question "What is a father?" forms the central theme which runs throughout Freud's entire work.[1]
It is in order to answer this question that, from 1953 on, Lacan stresses the importance of distinguishing between the symbolic father, the imaginary father and the real father.
---
The Symbolic Father
The symbolic father is not a real being but a position, a funciton, and hence is synonymous with the term "paternal function."
This function is none other than that of imposing the law and regulating desire in the Oedipus complex, of intervening in the imaginary dual relationship between mother and child to introduce a necessary "symbolic distance" between them.[2]
"The true function of the Father... is fundamentally to unite (and not to set in opposition) a desire and the Law."[3]
Although the symbolic father is not an actual subject but a osition in the symbolic order, a subject may nevertheless come to occupy this position, by virtue of exercising the paternal function.
Nobody can ever occupy this position completely.[4]
However, the symbolic father does not usually intervene by virtue of someone incarnating this function, but in a veiled fashion, for example by being mediated by the discourse of the mother.
---
The symbolic father is the fundamental element in the structure of the symbolic order; what distinguishes the symbolic order of culture from the imaginary order of nature is the inscription of a line of male descendence.
By structuring descendence into a series of generations, patrilineality introduces an order "Who structure is different from the natural order."[5]
The symbolic father is also the dead father, the father of the primal horde who has been murdered by his own sons.
The symbolic father is also referred to as the Name-of-the-Father.
--
The presence of the imaginary phallus as a third term in the preoedipal [imaginary|imaginary triangle]] indicates that the symbolic father is alreay functioning at the [[preoedipal phase|preoedipal stage; behind the symbolic mother, there is always the symbolic faather.
The [[sychotic], however, doe snot even ge tthis far; indeed, it is the absence of the symbolic father which characteizes the essence of the psychotic structure.
The Imaginary Father
The imaginary father
The imaginary father is an imago, the composite of all the imaginary constructs that the subject builds up in fantasy around the figure of the father.
This imaginary construction often bears little relationship to the father as he is in reality.[6]
The imaginary father can be construed as an ideal father,[7] or the opposite, as "the father who has fucked the kid up."[8]
In the former guise, the imaginary father is the prototype of God-figures in religions, an all-powerful protector.
In the latter role, the imaginary father is both the terrifying father of the primal horde who imposes the incest taboo on his sons,[9] and the agent of privation, the father whom the daughter blames for depriving her of the symbolic phallus, or its equivalent, a child.[10]
In both guises, though, whether as the ideal father or as the cruel agent of privation, the imaginary father is seen as omnipotent.[11]
Psychosis and perversion both involve, in different ways, a reduction of the symbolic father to the imaginary father.
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p.204-5
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p.161
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.321
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p.205, 210, 219
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p.320
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p.220
- ↑ 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.156'Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.321
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book VII. The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, 1959-60. Trans. Dennis Porter. London: Routledge, 1992. p.308
- ↑ Freud 1912-3
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p.98
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p.275-6
