Changes

From very early on in his [[Works of Jacques Lacan|work]], [[Lacan]] lays great importance on the [[role ]] of the [[father]] in [[psychic structure]]. In his 1938 [[article on the family]], he attributes the importance of the [[Oedipus complex]] to the fact that it combines in the [[figure ]] of the [[father]] two almost conflicting functions: the ''protective function'' and the ''prohibitive function''. He also points to the contemporary social decline in the [[paternal metaphor|paternal]] [[imago]] as the [[cause]] of current [[treatment|psychopathological]] peculiarities.<ref>{{1938}} p. 73</ref> The [[father]] continues to be a constant theme of [[Lacan]]'s [[work ]] thereafter.

[[Lacan]]'s emphasis on the importance 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 order 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 [[treatment|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]]."

The [[symbolic]] [[father]] is not a [[real]] [[being]] but a [[position]], a function, and hence is synonymous with the term "[[Name-of-the-Father|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|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 position 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. The [[symbolic]] [[father]] is also referred to as the [[Name-of-the-Father]]. By [[structuring ]] descendence into a series of generations, patrilineality introduces an [[order]] "whose 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. It is the [[absence]] of the [[symbolic]] [[father]] which characterizes the [[essence ]] of the [[psychotic]] [[structure]].

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</ref><ref>{{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}} pp. 275-6</ref> -->

==[[The Real ]] Father==

<!-- ===Biological Father=== Apart from this, [[Lacan]] gives few other clues [[about ]] what he means by the phrase. In 1960, he describes the [[father|real father]] as the one who 'effectively occupies' the [[mother]], the "Great Fucker",<ref>{{S7}} p.307</ref> and even goes on to say, in 1970, that the [[father|real father]] is the spermatozoon, though he immediately qualifies this [[statement ]] with the remark that nobody has ever [[thought ]] of himself as the son of a spermatozoon.<ref>{{S17}} p.148</ref> On the basis of these comments, it seems possible to argue that the [[father|real father]] is the [[biological]] [[father]] of the [[subject]]. However, since a degree of uncertainty always surrounds the question of who the [[biological]] [[father]] really is ('"pater semper incertus est", while the [[mother]] is "certissima"'; <ref>{{F}} 1909c. [[SE]] IX, 239<ref> it would be more precise to say that the [[subject|real father]] is the man who is said to be the [[subject]]'s [[biological]] [[father]]. The [[father|real father]] is thus an effect of [[language]], and it is in this [[sense ]] that the adjective [[real]] is to be [[understood ]] here: the [[real]] of [[language]], rather than the [[real]] of [[biology]].<ref>{{S17}} p.147-8</ref> -->

The [[father|real father]] plays a crucial role in the [[Oedipus complex]]; it is he who intervenes in the third '[[time]]' of the [[Oedipus complex]] as the one who [[castrate]]s the child (see [[castration complex]]). This [[intervention ]] saves the child from the preceding [[anxiety]]; without it, the child requires a [[phobia|phobic]] [[object]] as a [[symbolic]] [[substitute ]] for the [[absent]] [[father|real father]].

<!-- The intervention of the [[father|real father]] as agent of [[castration]] is not simply equivalent to his [[physical ]] presence in the [[family]]. As the [[case ]] of [[Little Hans]] indicates,<ref>{{F}} 1909c. [[SE]] IX, 239<ref> the [[father|real father]] may be physically [[present ]] and yet fail to intervene as agent of [[castration]].<ref>{{S4}} p. 212, 221</ref> Conversely, the intervention of the [[father|real father]] may well be felt by the [[child]] even when the [[father]] is physically [[absent]]. -->