Changes

Lacan's [[work ]] in the 1950s placed emphasis on the [[role ]] of [[language ]] and [[the symbolic ]] [[order]].

The [[Oedipus complex]] is a major [[concept ]] of [[psychoanalysis]].

The [[Oedipus complex]] refers to the [[Greece|ancient Greek]] [[tragedy]] ([[myth]]) by [[Sophocles]], ''[[Oedipus Rex]'', in which Oedipus unwittingly kills his [[father]] and [[marries ]] his [[mother]].

[[Freud]] remarks that [[Sophocles]]'s ''[[Oedipus Rex]]'' has such "gripping [[power]]" because [[being ]] in [[love]] with one's [[mother]] and [[jealousy|jealous]] of one's [[father]] is "a [[universal ]] [[event ]] in early [[childhood]]."

For Freud, the childhood desire to [[sleep ]] with the mother and to kill the father.

Freud describes the source of this [[complex ]] in his Introductory Lectures (Twenty-First Lecture): "You all [[know ]] the Greek legend of King [[Oedipus]], who was destined by fate to kill his father and take his mother to wife, who did everything possible to escape the oracle's decree and punished himself by blinding when he learned that he had none the less unwittingly committed both these crimes" (16.330).

According to Freud, Sophocles' play, Oedipus Rex, illustrates a formative [[stage ]] in each [[individual]]'s [[psychosexual ]] development, when the young child transfers his love object from the [[breast ]] (the [[oral ]] [[phase]]) to the mother.

At this time, the child desires the mother and resents (even secretly desires the [[murder]]) of the father.

(The Oedipus complex is closely connected to the [[castration complex]].)

Such [[primal ]] desires are, of course, quickly [[repressed ]] but, even among the mentally sane, they will arise again in [[dreams ]] or in [[literature]].

Among those individuals who do not [[progress ]] properly into the [[genital ]] phase, the [[Oedipus Complex]], according to Freud, can still be playing out its psychdrama in various [[displaced]], abnormal, and/or exaggerated ways.

The complex manifests itself as the [[desire]] for the [[death]] of the [[rivalry|rival]], the parent of the same sex, and, as the [[sexual ]] [[desire]] for the parent of the opposite sex.

It initially refers to the boy's [[perception ]] of his [[mother]] as a sexual [[object]] and of his [[father]] as a [[rivalry|rival]].

The [[Oedipus complex]] (''[[complexe ]] d'Oedipe'') was defined by [[Freud]] as an [[unconscious]] set of loving and hostile [[desire]]s which the [[subject]] experiences in relation to its [[parents]]; the subject desires one parent, and thus enters into [[rivalry ]] with the [[other ]] parent.

In the 'positive' [[form ]] of the [[Oedipus complex]], the desired parent is the parent of the opposite sex to the subject, and the parent of the same sex is the rival.

The Oedipus complex emerges in the [[third ]] year of [[life ]] and then declines in the fifth year, when the child renounces sexual desire for its parents and [[identifies ]] with the rival.

[[Jacques Lacan]] developed his own distinctive '[[structural]]' [[model ]] of the [[Oedipus complex]].

The [[Oedipus complex]] is the [[symbolic]] [[structure]] that organizes our [[social]]-symbolic and [[unconscious]] relations (of social [[meanings]]).

The [[Oedipus complex]] represents a [[triangular ]] [[structure]], which breaks the binary [[relationship ]] between the [[mother]] and [[child]] in the [[imaginary]].

The [[Oedipus complex]] is central to [[Freud]]'s [[theory ]] of [[human]] [[development]].

The [[Oedipus complex]] is intended to explain the [[ambivalence|ambivalent]] [[feelings ]] ([[love]] and [[hate]]) that the [[child]] holds towards its parents.

(For [[Freud]], this [[process ]] (of the [[resolution ]] of the [[Oedipus complex]]) occurs between the ages of [[three ]] and five years.)

The [[child]] is characterized by its absolute [[dependence ]] upon the [[mother]] who fulfils its [[need]]s (feeding, caring, nurturing).

The [[infant ]] soon confronts the enigma of the desire of the mother.

The [[Name-of-the-Father]] does not have to be the [[real]] [[father]], or even a [[male ]] [[figure]].

The [[Name-of-the-Father]] is a [[symbolic]] [[position ]] that the [[child]] perceives to be the location of the [[object]] of the [[mother]]'s [[desire]].

The [[Name-of-the-Father]] intervenes as a third term (breaks apart the [[dual ]] relation, imaginary unity, between the [[mother]] and the [[child]].

The ([[intervention ]] of the) [[Name-of-the-Father]] (as a third term) introduces a [[space ]] within which the [[child]] can begin to [[identification|identify]] itself as a [[separate ]] being from the [[mother]].

The [[Name-of-the-Father]] is a position of authority and the [[symbolic law ]] that intervenes to [[prohibit ]] the child's desire.

For Lacan, the key signifier that this [[whole ]] process turns upon is the phallus.

According to [[Freud]], the [[Oedipus complex]] is contemporaneous with the '[[Phallic ]] Phase' of [[infantile ]] sexuality.

Prior to this phase Freud [[thought ]] of all [[children ]] as essentially bisexual beings who attained sexual [[satisfaction ]] through auto-[[eroticism]].

is no [[sexual object ]] as such, but they achieve satisfaction through the manipulation of [[erotogenic ]] zones. An erotogenic zone is any area or [[organ ]] of the [[body ]] that is assigned sexual [[significance ]] by the infant, such as the oral and [[anal ]] orifices as well as the sexual organs. For example, thumb-sucking is an auto-[[erotic ]] [[activity ]] in the [[sense ]] that it involves the stimulation of a [[particular ]] area of the body and the infant derives [[pleasure ]] from it. What changes through the [[phallic phase ]] is that the genitals become the focus of sexual stimulation. There is a crucial [[difference]], however, between [[adult ]] and [[infantile sexuality ]] in that during infancy, for both [[sexes]], 'only one genital, namely the male one, comes into account. What is [[present]], therefore, is not the primacy of the genitals, but the primacy of the phallus' (Freud 1991e [1923]: 308). It is the [[sight ]] of the [[presence ]] or [[absence ]] of the [[penis ]] that forces the child to recognise that boys and girls are different. To begin with, Freud postulated that both sexes [[disavow ]] the absence of the [[woman]]'s penis and believe they have seen it, even if it is not there. Eventually, however, they are [[forced ]] to admit its absence and they account for this absence through the [[idea ]] of castration. The boy sees the woman as a [[castrated ]] man and the [[girl ]] has to accept that she has not got and never will have a penis. Freud did not distinguish between the penis as an actual [[bodily ]] organ and the 'phallus' as a signifier of [[sexual difference]].

For Lacan, the importance of Freud's insight into infantile sexuality was not whether or not girls have a penis and boys [[fear ]] that theirs will be cut off, but the function of the phallus as a signifier of lack and sexual difference. The phallus in [[Lacanian ]] theory should not be confused with the male genital organ, although it clearly carries these connotations. The phallus is first and foremost a signifier and in Lacan's [[system ]] a particularly privileged signifier. The phallus operates in all three of Lacan's [[registers ]] - [[the imaginary]], the symbolic and the real - and as his system develops it becomes the one single indivisible signifier that anchors the [[chain ]] of [[signification]].

In this chapter we will focus on the imaginary and symbolic aspects of the phallus and how these relate through the paternal [[metaphor ]] to the [[Name]]-of-the-Father. We will [[return ]] to the question of the phallus, [[jouissance ]] and the real in subsequent chapters.

The [[Oedipus complex]] has the structure of an [[imaginary]] [[triangle]]]]

In [[The Seminar, Book V]], Lacan [[analyses ]] this passage from the imaginary to the symbolic by [[identifying ]] three '[[time]]s' of the Oedipus complex, the sequence being one of [[logical ]] rather than [[chronological ]] priority.<ref>Lacan, 1957-8: [[seminar ]] of 22 January 1958</ref>

The [[child]] (in the [[first time ]] of the Oedipus complex) realizes that both he or she and the [[mother]] are marked by a [[lack]].

The [[subject]] is also marked by a lack, since he does not completely [[satisfy ]] the mother's desire.

The [[lacking ]] element in both cases is the imaginary [[phallus]].

The mother desires the phallus she [[lacks]], and (in conformity with [[Hegel]]'s theory of [[desire]]) the subject seeks to become the object of her desire; he seeks to be the phallus for the mother and fill out her lack.

Although this omnipotence may be seen as threatening from the very beginning, the sense of [[threat ]] is intensified when the child's own sexual [[drive]]s begin to [[manifest ]] themselves (for example in infantile [[masturbation]]).

The child is now confronted with the realisation that he cannot simply [[fool ]] the mother's desire with the imaginary [[semblance ]] of a phallus - he must present something in the real.

This sense of inadequacy and [[impotence ]] in the face of an omnipotent [[maternal ]] desire that cannot be placated gives rise to [[anxiety]].

Only the intervention of the [[father]] in the subsequent [[times ]] of the Oedipus complex can provide a real solution to this anxiety.

The [[child]] comes to realize that it is not the sole object of the mother's [[desire, ]] as her desire is directed elsewhere.

The child will attempt to become the object of her desire and return to the initial [[state ]] of blissful union.

The child attempts to [[seduce ]] the mother by becoming that [[object of desire]].

The imaginary phallus is what the child assumes someone must have in order for [[them ]] to be the object of the mother's desire and, as her desire is usually directed towards the father, it is assumed that he possesses the phallus.

The phallus is imaginary in the sense that it is associated in the child's [[mind ]] with an actual object that has been lost and can be recovered. The Oedipus complex, for Lacan, involves the process of giving up the identification with this imaginary phallus, and recognizing that it is a signifier and as such was never there in the first [[place]]. What Freud called castration, therefore, is a symbolic process that involves the infant's [[recognition ]] of themselves as 'lacking' something - the phallus. For Lacan, castration involves the process whereby boys accept that they can [[symbolically ]] 'have' the phallus only by accepting that they can never actually have it 'in [[reality]]' and girls can accept 'not-having' the phallus once they give up on their 'phallic' identification with their mothers (we will discuss this very complicated idea in more detail in the chapter on sexual difference).

The Name-of-the-Father is a symbolic function that intrudes itno the [[illusory ]] [[world ]] of the child and breaks the imaginary dyad of the mother and child.

The child assumes that the father is one that [[satisfies ]] the mother’s desire and possesses the [[phallus]].In this sense, argues Lacan, the [[Oedipus complex]] involves an element of [[substitution]], that is to say, the subtitution of one signifier, the desire of the mother, for [[another]], the Name-of-the-Father.It is thoruhg this initial act of substitution that the process of signification begins and child enters the [[symbolic order ]] as a subject of lack.It is also for this [[reason ]] that Lacan describes the process of [[symbolization ]] itself as ‘phallic’.

The phallus is the ‘original’ [[lost object]], but only insofar as no one possessed it in the first place.The phallus, therefore, is not like any other signifier, it is the signifier of absence and does not ‘exist’ in its own [[right ]] as a [[thing]], an object or a bodily organ.

Lacan equates the process of giving up the [[imaginary phallus]] with Freud’s account of [[castration anxiety]], but he argues that the process of castration in Freud is more complicated than [[people ]] generally [[think]].Castration involves not just an [[anxiety]] [[about ]] losing one’s penis but simultaneously the recognition of ‘’lack’’ or ‘’absence’’.

Castration is not the fear that one has already lost, in the [[case ]] of girls, or will lose, in the case of boys, one’s penis but rather the symbolic process of giving upo the idea that one can be the phallus for the mother.

The problem for Lacan is how does one symbolically [[represent ]] ‘lack’ – something that by definition is not there?

The presence of the [[veil ]] suggests that there is an object behind it, which the veils covers over, although this is only a presumption on the part of the subject.In this way the veil enables the perpetuation of the idea that the object [[exists]].

It is desire that [[drives ]] the process of symbolization.The phallus is the ultimate object of desire that we have lost and alwayss [[search ]] for but never had in the first place.

To summarize, the phallus stands for that [[moment ]] of rupture wen the child is forced to recognize the desire of the other; of the mother.

The phallus, therefore, always belongs somewhere else; it breaks the mother/child dyad and initiates the order of symbolic [[exchange]].

It is imaginary in that it represents the object presumed to satisfy the mother’s desire; at the same time, it is symbolic in that it stands for the recognition that desire cannot be [[satisfied]].By breaking the imaginary couple “the phallus represents a moment of [[division ]] which re-enacts the fundamental [[splitting ]] of the subject itself.As a presence in absence, a ‘seeming’ [[value]], ‘’the phallus is a fraud’’.

The phallus, therefore, is not like any other signifier, it is the signifier of absence and does not '[[exist]]' in its own right as a thing, an object or a bodily organ.

It is through the intervention of the father that the child is precipitated out of the imaginary world of infantile plenitude into the symbolic [[universe ]] of lack.

The symbolic order and the process of signification, according to Lacan, is ‘phalluc’ and governed by the [[paternal metaphor ]] and the imposition of paternal law.The father is seen to embody the socio-symbolic law and the fucntion of the paternal metaphor is to [[substitute ]] the desire for the mother with the [[law of the father]].

The [[internalization ]] of the paternal metaphor also creates something else, though, that Freud designates as the ‘’superego’’.Lacan has developed the [[notion ]] of the superego in a very specfic and important way.

The superego emerges through the transition from nature to culture via the internalization of the incest [[taboo ]] and is often associated with the development of [[moral ]] [[conscience]].Lacan retains this [[association ]] between the superego and the law and poitns to an inherent [[paradox ]] that Freud did not himself develop.In ‘’Totem ‘’[[Totem]] and Taboo’’ Freud argued that the prohibition against incest provided the foundation for all subsequent social laws.In other [[words]], the most fundmanetal desire of all human [[subjects ]] is the desire for incest and its prohibition represents the governing [[principle ]] of all societies.

As with the law, the prohibition operates only iwhtin the realm of culture and its [[purpose ]] is always to exclude incest:

“Freud designates the prohibition of incest as the underlying principle of the pimordial law, the law of which all other [[cultural ]] developments are no more than consequences and ramifications. And at the same time he identifies incest as the fundmental desire.<ref>Lacan 1986, 67</ref>

The law, in other words, is founded upon that which it seeks to exlcude, or, to put it another way, the desire to break and [[transgress ]] the law is the very precondition for the [[existence ]] of the law itself.On the one hnad, the superego is a symbolic structure that regulates the subject’s desire, and, on the other, there is this [[senseless]], blind imperativeness to it.As Lacan says in [[seminar XX]], [[nothing ]] forces anyone to [[enjoy ]] except the superego: “The superego is the imperative of ‘’jouissance’’ – Enjoy!”<ref>1975, 3</ref>The superego, therefore, is at once the law and its own [[destruction ]] or that which undermines the law.The superego emerges at the point where the law – the [[public ]] or social law – fails and, at this very point of failure, the law is compelled, as [[Zizek ]] puts it, “to search for support in an ‘’ilegal’’ [[enjoyment]].”<ref>1994, 54</ref>The superego is, in a sense, the [[dialectical ]] contrary of the pbulic law; it is what Zizek calls its [[obscene ]] ‘nightly’ law – that dark underside that always necessarily accompanies the public law.

Indeed, for psychoanalysis, we are not simply [[guilty ]] if we break th elaw and commit icnest, but rather we are always –already guuilty of the ‘’desire’’ to commit incest.

The superego emerges through the transition from nature to culture via the internalization of the [[incest taboo ]] and is often associated with the development of moral conscience.

On the one hand, the superego is a symbolic structure that regulates the [[subject's desire]], and, on the other, there is this senseless, blind imperativeness to it.

According to psychoanalysis, there is simply no way a subject can avoid this tension between the law and the desire to transgress it and this manifests itself as '[[guilt]]'.

We will see how these [[ideas ]] work in [[practice ]] later, but first we need to clarify one final ambiguity regarding the superego.

Freud argued that all [[psychopathology|psychopathological]] [[structure]]s could be traced to a malfunction in the [[Oedipus complex]], which was thus dubbed 'the nuclear complex of the [[neuroses]]'.

(Following the resolution of the [[Oedipus complex]], [[sexuality]] begins a [[latency period]] until it reappears during [[puberty]].)

<blockquote>[T]he Oedipus complex is the nuclear complex of neuroses, and constitutes the essential part of their [[content]]. It represents the peak of infantile sexuality, which, through its after-effects, exercises a decisive influence on the sexuality of [[adults]]. Every new arrival on this planet is faced by the task of mastering the Oedipus complex; anyone who fails to do so falls a [[victim ]] to [[neurosis]].<

It is through the identification with the [[Oedipal ]] father that the incest prohibition is internalized and Oedipal desire abandoned and it is this process, for Freud, that constitues the superego.

Second, there is the primal father of ‘’Totem and Taboo’’, who is perceived to be [[outside ]] the law.

What distinguishes this tyrannical figure from the Oedipal father is that he is not himself subordinated to the law – the law that prohibits his son’s access to the omwn of the [[horde]].

He is simultnaeously the agency of authority and a figure outside the law who actively transgresses the law that he imposes upon [[others]].

At a [[psychic ]] level, an overly punishing superego and subordiantion to the symbolic law is one way in which the subject comes to resolve this unbearable [[situation]].

This [[vicious cycle ]] of transgressiona nd [[punishment ]] operates in the social [[domain ]] through Zizek’s anlaysis of [[racism ]] and [[anti-semitism]].

In [[Freud]]'s [[myth of origins]] the primal father is a figure of absolute power; the father who aggregates to himself the [[women ]] and wealth of the [[primal horde ]] by expelling his sons and rivals.

Let us now see how this vicious cycle of [[transgression ]] and punishment operates in the social domain through Žižek's [[analysis ]] of racism and [[anti-Semitism]].

Lacan often refers to this intervention as the '[[castration]]' of the mother, even though he states that, properly [[speaking]], the operation is not one of castration but of [[privation]].

By showing that he has the phallus, and neither exchanges it nor gives it,<ref>S3, 319</ref> the real father castrates the child, in the sense of making it [[impossible ]] for the child to persist in trying to be the phallus for the mother; it is no use competing with the real father, because he always wins.<

This allows the subject to [[identify ]] with the father.

In this secondary (symbolic) identification the subject transcends the [[aggressivity ]] inherent in primary (imaginary) identification.

Since the symbolic is the realm of the [[law]], and since the Oedipus complex is the conquest of the symbolic order, it has a [[normative ]] and normalising function: "the Oedipus complex is essential for the human being to be able to accede to a humanized structure of the real."

This normative function is to be [[understood ]] in reference to both [[clinical ]] [[structures ]] and the question of sexuality.

The unconscious, psychic, aspects of these [[processes ]] are exemplary of superegoic structures.

Both racism and anti-Semitism are inherently contradictory [[ideologies]].

In the United state, for example, we constantly hear and read in the [[media ]] that immigrants are 'flooding' the country in order to feeload on the [[welfare ]] of the state. At the same time, these very same immigrants are attacked for stealing our jobs and therefore putting ordinary citizens out of work. There is clearly a [[contradiction ]] here - if immigrants are [[living ]] a life of luxury on state benefits then they are not [[working]]; if on the other hand, they are working hard and taking out jobs, then they are clearly not living off the state but contributing to it.

What psychoanalysis adds to our [[understanding ]] of this process is how subjects manage to sustain thee contradictory beliefs.

Whereas classicla racism propounds an [[ideology ]] of national superiority, whereby so-called 'inferior' races were enslaved, anti-Semitism involves the systematic and organized annihiliation of the [[Jewish ]] people.Moreoer, [[Nazi ]] propaganda linked the need for genoicde to another fundamental element of its ideology.It was not just that the [[Jews ]] had to be killed because they represented a threat to the state, but more importantly that the socio-symbolic order itself - the new Aryan state - could not be fully realized without that process taking place; and it is here that the notion of the superego comes into play.

The 'Jew', or the Jewish [[race]], is presented within fascinst propaganda as a figure who transgresses and undermiens the law and as such must be first punished and eventually eradicated so that a new [[harmonious ]] Aryan [[society ]] can emerge.

For authoritarian [[regime ]] to exist, however totalitarian it may be, the [[active ]] [[participation ]] and support of a population is required, toerwise the regime will very quickly collapse.

When a subject identifies with a [[leader]]/father figur,e he or she identifies witha position of Oedipal power and authority.

Accoridng to Zizek, this is the [[logic ]] that is at work in anti-Semitism.The efficacy of the figure of the 'Jew' relies on the assumption of a certain [[surplus ]] - that Jews possess somthing that we do not and therefore they ahve access to pleasures that we are denied.

Paradoixcally, argues Zizek, what 'holds together' a given [[community ]] is "not so much identification with the public or symbolic Law that regulates the communty's 'normal' everyday life, but rather ''identification with a specific form of transgression of the Law, of the Law's suspension'' (in [[psychoanalytic ]] [[terms]], with a specific form of ''enjoyment'').<ref>1994:55</ref>

More specifically, what holds communitites together is the [[attribution ]] of ''excessive'' enjoyment to other or [[alien ]] groups; for [[instance]], the sterotypical [[fantasy ]] of seuxal potency associated with blakc men.

If the threat is not actually, empirically, there then it will have to be invented, just as Nazi ideology had to [[construct ]] the '[[conceptual ]] Jew' in order to justify its own repressive regime.The poitn is that the Jews is not hte [[cause ]] of that ideology, but rather something that is constitued in its effects, that it to say, the Jew is posited retrosepctively as the condition of possibility for the fascist regime.The notion of the 'conceptual Jew' is what gives the [[irrationality ]] of fascist ideology its [[coherence ]] nad consistency.Within racism and anti-Semitism, enjoyment, and aspecifically an '[[excess]]' of enjoyment, is always imputed to the other: "the other may be lazy but they still have more fun than us; they live off our hard work, etc."

The enjoyment of the other must also be seen as depriving us of our own enjoyment: "we work hard to build a community we cna be proud of and be happy within, but this [[goal ]] is denied us by lazy scrounging foreginers. We can therefor not enjoy our community because they have stolen away from ust aht which would most fully realize our enjoyment."

Furthermore, the [[Nazis ]] claimed that, because there were so many Jewish people who occupied positions of wealth and power, then the state mus tbe strong and authoritative to counteract them.

On the one hand, therefore, we find in fascinst propaganda the portrayal of Jewish people as less than human -as insects and rodents - o that it is easier to rationally justify their extermination and, on the [[other, the ]] attribution to them of excessive power and influence.

According to psychoanalysis, there is always a [[good ]] and a bade side to fantasy. There is the blissful [[dream ]] state beyond the mundane aspects of our lives and the horrors of modern civilization, but this is always acompanied by a darker side that involves [[envy]], irritation and malice.[[Totalitarianism ]] povides a perfect illustration of this dual structure.FIrs,t there is the [[utopian ]] side - the fantasy of the perfect state as a [[unified ]] harmonious community of organically, [[naturally]], linked people.This [[utopianism ]] however, is always accompanied by its opposite - those [[fantasies ]] of plots, conspiracies and [[threats ]] that stop the realization of this utopia.THus, argues Zizek, insoar as a community expeirences its reality as regulated and harmoniously [[structured]], it has to [[repress ]] the inehrent conflcit at its veyr heart.In other words, for a utopian fantasy to work, it presupposes the [[disavowal ]] and repression of part of itself, and its effectiveness depends on how wwell it does this.

Interestingly, aruges Zizek, Nazi ideology was often most virulent in those areas of [[Germany ]] that had the fewest Jews.PAradoxically, then the smaller the threat and the actual [[number ]] of Jews present, the greater their power was perceived to be.

This is the vicious, [[self]]-punishing, cycle of the superego.

Thus, for Lacan, the threat of castration does not involve an actual bodily threat but a symbolic process, as the infant assumes a position in the symbolic order as a [[desiring ]] subject.

The phallus is the original object-[[cause of desire ]] and the central organizing signifier of the unconscious.

the question of desire and the [[subject of the unconscious]].