In Lacan’s theory {{Topp}}loi{{Bottom}}==Jacques Lacan=====Social Relations===[[Lacan]]'s discussions of childhood development, the traumatic moment of entry into the symbolic is not simply "[[Law]]" (which [[Lacan]] often writes with a spontaneous act on [[capital]] "L") owe much to the part [[work]] of the infant[[Claude Lévi-Strauss]]. It is also As in the originary advent work of [[Lévi-Strauss]], the law as an effect of the father’s interdiction. In the infant’s experience of his mother’s body as [[Law]] in [[Lacan]]'s work refers not to a site [[particular]] piece of enjoyment (producing warmth, foodlegislation, comfort, etc.), he or she perceives this enjoyment as an integral part of the order of things as they are ambiguously organised through imaginary identifications. At some point, however, the infant becomes aware of the fact that the father has some degree of precedence over the infant’s right but to enjoy ''the motherfundamental principles which underlie all [[social]] relations''. Classically termed the Oedipus complex, this moment The [[law]] is part and parcel of the infant’s entry into the symbolic order, as this apprehension set of the father’s precedence is conveyed as an originary verbal prohibition of access to the mother’s body [[universal]] principles which forces the infant to devise a compensatory presencemake social [[existence]] possible, ''the symbol [[structure]]s that govern all forms of [[anthropology|social exchange]]'', whether [[anthropology|gift-giving]], [[anthropology|kinship relations]] or the absent mother (the "da!" [[formation]] of the Freudian fort/da binary)pacts. This inaugural paternal interdiction is thus essential to the symbolic order and makes of it the very fibre of the law itself:
=====Symbolic Order=====Since the most basic [[form]] of [[anthropology|exchange]] is [[communication]] itself, the [[law]] is fundamentally a [[linguistic]] entity -- it is the [[law]] of the [[signifier]]:<blockquote>This law, then, is revealed clearly enough as identical with an [[order ]] of [[language]]. For without kinship nominations, no [[power ]] is capable of instituting the order of preferences and taboos that [[bind ]] and weave the yarn of lineage through succeeding generations. And it <ref>{{E}} p. 66</ref></blockquote>This [[legal]]-[[linguistic]] [[structure]] is indeed the confusion of generations which, in the Bible as in all traditional laws, is accused as being the abomination of the Word (verbe) fact no more and no less than the desolation of the sinner[[symbolic order]] itself. (Ecrits 66)
"This legal===Human===Following [[Lévi-linguistic structure is in fact no more and no less than the symbolic order itself" (Evans 99). Clearly drawing on structural anthropology and, more obscurely, on speech act theoryStrauss]], [[Lacan positions ]] argues that the [[law in its broadest sense as "]] is essentially [[human]]; it is the set of universal principles [[law]] which make social existence possibleseparates [[man]] from the [[other]] [[nature|animal]]s, the structures by regulating [[sexual relationship|sexual relations]] that govern all forms of social exchangeare, whether gift-givingamong [[nature|animal]]s, kinship relations or unregulated: <blockquote>"([[Human]] [[law]] is) the formation of pactsprimordial Law... Since which in regulating [[marriage]] ties superimposes the most basic form kingdom of [[culture]] on that of exchange is communication itself, the law is fundamentally a linguistic entity – it is [[nature]] abandoned to the law of the signifier" (Evans 98)mating. Growing out The prohibition of the paternal interdiction that puts an end to the infant’s unproblematic imaginary identification with the mother and inaugurates the rivalry between infant and father that grounds the Oedipus complex, the law incest is coextensive with the symbolic order to such an extent that neither is conceivable without the othermerely its [[subjective]] pivot."<ref>{{E}} p.66</ref></blockquote>
Insofar as =====Oedipus Complex=====It is the [[father]] who imposes this [[law is essentially a process for regulating social relations, ]] on the [[subject]] in the [[Oedipus complex]]; the symbolic order must henceforth be conceived [[Name-of as a profoundly intersubjective structure. Just as there can be no need for, -the-Father|paternal agency]] (or effectiveness [[Name-of, -the law in the absence of something to regulate, so there can be -Father|paternal function]]) is no signification in more than the absence of someone to whom to signify[[name]] for this prohibitive and legislative [[role]]. That is, In the law actually invents that which it regulates, creating a lack by masking second [[time]] of the impossibility of [[Oedipus complex]] the imaginary relation behind [[father]] appears as the symbolic prohibition: omnipotent "father of the law creates desire in the first place by creating interdiction[[primal]] [[horde]]" of ''[[Totem and Taboo]]''.<ref>{{F}} ''[[Works of Sigmund Freud|Totem and Taboo]]'', 1912-13. [[SE]] XIII, 1-161. Desire </ref> This is essentially the desire to transgress, and for there to be transgression it lawgiver who is first necessary for there to be prohibition not included in his own [[…law] desire ] because he ''is born out of '' the process of regulation" (Evans 99). By the same process[[Law]], denying [[others]] access to the symbolic order actually invents the subject as an effect [[women]] of itself, generating the subject position of the speaking individual at the same moment as that individual seeks to signify the absence of someone or something to which it tribe while he himself has suddenly been barred access (or the impossibility of access to which he or she has suddenly been made aware)[[them]] all. In this regard, the entry into [[third]] time of the symbolic makes of all signification an intersubjective situation as [[Oedipus complex]] the speaking subject necessarily orients itself [[father]] is included in relation to that which it symbolises; to do sohis own [[law]], it must hold the [[law]] is revealed as a position within that symbolic network – it must in essence be a signifierpact rather than an imperative.
=====Regulation of Desire=====The infant’s entry into [[Oedipus complex]] represents the regulation of [[desire]] by the symbolic [[law]]. It is thus a traumatic event in which the original sense [[law]] of integritythe [[pleasure principle]], wholeness, presencewhich commands the [[subject]] to "[[Enjoy]] as little as possible!", and identification (associated with thus maintains the primary narcissism of [[subject]] at a safe distance from the imaginary order) is lost forever[[Thing]]. Even the imaginary compensations of ego formation now recede from consciousness as the irremediable gap The [[relationship]] between the individual [[law]] and that which it desires (the ideal-ego[[desire]] is, the mother’s bodyhowever, plenitude) comes to a [[dialectic]]al one; "desire is the fore as the organising principle reverse of the totalising force of the symbolic orderlaw."<ref>{{Ec}} p. The repetitive automatism of 787</ref> If, on the signifying chain one hand, [[law]] imposes limits on [[desire]], it is thus a compensatory gesture, an obsessive attempt by also [[true]] that the symbolic order (and [[law]] creates [[desire]] in the subjects who live in and first [[place]] by it) creating interdiction. [[Desire]] is essentially the [[desire]] to cover over the lack/absence which organises it. The signifying chain must always remain in motion[[transgress]], doubling back on itself and deferring any presence of meaning as content, in order for there to be [[transgression]] it is first necesary for there to forestall the terrifying confrontation with this originary and constitutive absencebe [[prohibition]].<ref>{{S7}} p. In effect, 83-4</ref> Thus it is not the symbolic order achieves [[case]] that there is a sustained deferral pregiven [[desire]] which the [[law]] then regulates, but that [[desire]] is [[born]] out of this confrontation, proffering alternative signifiers as provisional substitutive compensations for the irremediable lack created in its radical reorganisation [[process]] of regulation.<blockquote>"What we see here is the worldtight bond between desire and Law."<ref>{{S7}} p.177</ref></blockquote>
An analogous and consistent way <!-- =====[[Murder]] of conceiving this compensatory response to the trauma of entering Father===== --><!-- If the symbolic [[law]] is closely connected to consider the occurrence of repetition compulsion in victims of trauma. By repeating an action that [[father]], this is an effect of a traumatic episode, not only because the obsessive neurotic effectively symbolises [[father]] is one who imposes the traumatic kernel that organises his or her symptoms without ever approaching [[law]], but also because the truth [[law]] is born out of the motivating traumatic episode. The repetitive actions murder of the trauma victim are comparable to [[father]]. This is clearly illustrated in the repetition compulsion built into [[myth]] of the incessant play [[father]] of signifiers the [[primal horde]] which [[Freud]] recounts in the signifying chain''[[Totem and Taboo]]''. Just as In this [[myth]], the trauma victim’s actions constitute a series of symptoms that represent effects murder of the traumatic episode without symbolising it[[father]], so far from freeing the series of signifiers in sons from the signifying chain represent [[law]], only reinforces the traumatic loss or absence around [[law]] which [[prohibit]]s [[incest]]. --> ==See Also=={{See}}* [[Communication]]* [[Desire]]* [[Father]]||* [[Oedipus complex]]* [[Name-of-the symbolic order is organised without ever being able to signify it directly.-Father]]* [[Pleasure principle]]||* [[Primal horde]]* [[Signifier]]* [[Structure]]{{Also}} == References ==<div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small"><references/></div> [[Category:Psychoanalysis]][[Category:Jacques Lacan]][[Category:Linguistics]][[Category:Dictionary]][[Category:Language]][[Category:Symbolic]][[Category:Concepts]][[Category:Terms]][[Category:OK]] __NOTOC__
