Difference between revisions of "Imaginary"
m (→Psychology) |
|||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
===Psychology=== | ===Psychology=== | ||
| − | Although the [[imaginary]] is the dimension of the [[human]] [[subject]] which is most closely linked to [[ethology]] and [[animal]] [[psychology]] | + | Although the [[imaginary]] is the dimension of the [[human]] [[subject]] which is most closely linked to [[ethology]] and [[animal]] [[psychology]], it is nevertheless [[structure]]d by the [[symbolic]], and this means that "in man, the imaginary relation has deviated [from the realm of nature]."<ref>{{S3}} p. 253<BR>{{S2}} p. 210</ref> |
<!-- | <!-- | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
All attempts to explain [[human]] [[subjectivity]] in terms of [[animal]] [[psychology]] are thus limited to the [[imaginary]]. Although the [[imaginary]] represents the closest point of contact between [[human]] [[subjectivity]] and [[animal]] [[ethology]],<ref>{{S2}} p. 166</ref> it is not simply identical; the [[imaginary|imaginary order]] in [[human]] [[being]]s is [[structure]]d by the [[symbolic]], and this means that "in man, the imaginary relation has deviated [from the realm of nature]."<ref>{{S2}} p. 210</ref> | All attempts to explain [[human]] [[subjectivity]] in terms of [[animal]] [[psychology]] are thus limited to the [[imaginary]]. Although the [[imaginary]] represents the closest point of contact between [[human]] [[subjectivity]] and [[animal]] [[ethology]],<ref>{{S2}} p. 166</ref> it is not simply identical; the [[imaginary|imaginary order]] in [[human]] [[being]]s is [[structure]]d by the [[symbolic]], and this means that "in man, the imaginary relation has deviated [from the realm of nature]."<ref>{{S2}} p. 210</ref> | ||
--> | --> | ||
| + | |||
===Criticism=== | ===Criticism=== | ||
[[Lacan]] accused the major [[school|psychoanalytic schools]] of his day of reducing [[psychoanalysis]] to the [[imaginary|imaginary order]]: these psychoanalysts made [[identification]] with the [[analyst]] into the goal of [[treatment|analysis]], and reduced [[treatment|analysis]] to a [[dual relation]]ship.<ref>{{E}} p. 246-7</ref> [[Lacan]] sees this as a complete betrayal of [[psychoanalysis]], a deviation which can only eveer succeed in increasing the [[alienation]] of the [[subject]]. | [[Lacan]] accused the major [[school|psychoanalytic schools]] of his day of reducing [[psychoanalysis]] to the [[imaginary|imaginary order]]: these psychoanalysts made [[identification]] with the [[analyst]] into the goal of [[treatment|analysis]], and reduced [[treatment|analysis]] to a [[dual relation]]ship.<ref>{{E}} p. 246-7</ref> [[Lacan]] sees this as a complete betrayal of [[psychoanalysis]], a deviation which can only eveer succeed in increasing the [[alienation]] of the [[subject]]. | ||
Revision as of 14:13, 7 November 2006
| French: imaginaire |
| German: Imaginäre |
Contents
Jacques Lacan
History
Lacan's use of the term "imaginary" as a substantive dates back to 1936.[1] The term relates to the dual relation between the ego and the specular image. From 1953 on, the imaginary becomes one of the three orders which constitute the tripartite scheme at the center of Lacanian thought, being opposed to the symbolic and the real.
Ego
The imaginary order is based on the formation of the ego in the mirror stage by identification with the counterpart (or specular image). The dual relation between the ego and the counterpart is characterized by alienation and narcissism.
Image
The imaginary is the realm of image and imagination, deception and lure. The principal illusions of the imaginary are those of wholeness, synthesis, autonomy, duality and, above all, similarity.
Psychology
Although the imaginary is the dimension of the human subject which is most closely linked to ethology and animal psychology, it is nevertheless structured by the symbolic, and this means that "in man, the imaginary relation has deviated [from the realm of nature]."[2]
Criticism
Lacan accused the major psychoanalytic schools of his day of reducing psychoanalysis to the imaginary order: these psychoanalysts made identification with the analyst into the goal of analysis, and reduced analysis to a dual relationship.[3] Lacan sees this as a complete betrayal of psychoanalysis, a deviation which can only eveer succeed in increasing the alienation of the subject.
See Also
References
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p. 81
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p. 253
Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-55. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1988. p. 210 - ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 246-7
-->
