Zižek is concerned to show the secret transgression that underpins{{Topp}}loi{{Bottom}}==Jacques Lacan=====Social Relations=== and makes possible [[Lacan]]'s discussions of the symbolic law: '"At [[Law]]" (which [[Lacan]] often writes with a [[capital]] "L") owe much to the [[work]] of [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]]. As in the beginning" work of law, there is a transgression[[Lévi-Strauss]], the [[Law]] in [[Lacan]]'s work refers not to a certain reality [[particular]] piece of violencelegislation, but to ''the fundamental principles which coincides with underlie all [[social]] relations''. The [[law]] is the very act set of [[universal]] principles which make social [[existence]] possible, ''the establishment [[structure]]s that govern all forms of law[[anthropology|social exchange]]'' (p. 129). Or, as he will say about whether [[anthropology|gift-giving]], [[anthropology|kinship relations]] or the seemingly illicit rituals that appear to overturn the law: They are a satire on legal institutions[[formation]] of pacts. an inversion of public Power, yet
=====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.<ref>{{E}} p. 66</ref></blockquote>
This [[legal]]-[[linguistic]] [[structure]] is in fact no more and no less than the [[symbolic order]] itself.
they are a transgression that consolidates what it transgresses" (p. 264).===Human=== But, beyond thisFollowing [[Lévi-Strauss]], [[Lacan]] argues that the [[law itself possesses a certain obscene, unap-peasable, superegoic dimension: "On the one hand, there ]] is Law quasymbolic Ego-Ideal. that essentially [[human]]; it is, Law in its pacifying function ... qua theintermediary Third that dissolves the impasse of imaginary aggressiv-ity. On [[law]] which separates [[man]] from the [[other hand]] [[nature|animal]]s, there is law in its superego dimensionby regulating [[sexual relationship|sexual relations]] that are, that isamong [[nature|animal]]s,unregulated: <blockquote>"([[Human]] [[law qua "irrational" pressure, ]] is) the force of culpability, totally incom- mensurable with our actual responsibility' (pprimordial Law. 157). In other words, law itself is its own transgression, and it is just this circularity that Žižek seeks to dissolve or overcome. As he says, repeating at once theproblem and the solution: 'The most appropriate form to indicate this curve of the point de capiton, of which in regulating [[marriage]] ties superimposes the "negation kingdom of negation," in ordinarylanguage is, paradoxically, [[culture]] on that of a [[nature]] abandoned to the tautology: "law of mating. The prohibition of incest is lawmerely its [[subjective]] pivot."' (<ref>{{E}} p. 127).66</ref></blockquote>
=====Oedipus Complex=====
It is the [[father]] who imposes this [[law]] on the [[subject]] in the [[Oedipus complex]]; the [[Name-of-the-Father|paternal agency]] (or [[Name-of-the-Father|paternal function]]) is no more than the [[name]] for this prohibitive and legislative [[role]]. In the second [[time]] of the [[Oedipus complex]] the [[father]] appears as the omnipotent "father of the [[primal]] [[horde]]" of ''[[Totem and Taboo]]''.<ref>{{F}} ''[[Works of Sigmund Freud|Totem and Taboo]]'', 1912-13. [[SE]] XIII, 1-161.</ref> This is the lawgiver who is not included in his own [[law]] because he ''is'' the [[Law]], denying [[others]] access to the [[women]] of the tribe while he himself has access to [[them]] all. In the [[third]] time of the [[Oedipus complex]] the [[father]] is included in his own [[law]], the [[law]] is revealed as a pact rather than an imperative.
==def===Regulation of Desire=====In Lacan’s theory of childhood development, The [[Oedipus complex]] represents the traumatic moment regulation of entry into [[desire]] by the symbolic is not simply a spontaneous act on the part of the infant[[law]]. It is also the originary advent of the [[law as an effect ]] of the father’s interdiction. In [[pleasure principle]], which commands the infant’s experience of his mother’s body [[subject]] to "[[Enjoy]] as little as possible!", and thus maintains the [[subject]] at a site of enjoyment (producing warmth, food, comfort, etcsafe distance from the [[Thing]].), he or she perceives this enjoyment as an integral part of The [[relationship]] between the order of things as they are ambiguously organised through imaginary identifications. At some point[[law]] and [[desire]] is, however, a [[dialectic]]al one; "desire is the infant becomes aware reverse of the fact law."<ref>{{Ec}} p. 787</ref> If, on the one hand, [[law]] imposes limits on [[desire]], it is also [[true]] that the father has some degree of precedence over [[law]] creates [[desire]] in the infant’s right to enjoy the motherfirst [[place]] by creating interdiction. Classically termed [[Desire]] is essentially the Oedipus complex[[desire]] to [[transgress]], this moment is part and parcel of the infant’s entry into the symbolic order, as this apprehension of the father’s precedence for there to be [[transgression]] it is conveyed as an originary verbal first necesary for there to be [[prohibition of access to ]].<ref>{{S7}} p.83-4</ref> Thus it is not the mother’s body [[case]] that there is a pregiven [[desire]] which forces the infant to devise a compensatory presence[[law]] then regulates, the symbol but that [[desire]] is [[born]] out of the absent mother (the "da!" [[process]] of the Freudian fort/da binary)regulation. This inaugural paternal interdiction <blockquote>"What we see here is thus essential to the symbolic order tight bond between desire and makes of it the very fibre of the law itself:Law."<ref>{{S7}} p. 177</ref></blockquote>
This <!-- =====[[Murder]] of the Father===== --><!-- If the [[law]] is closely connected to the [[father]], then, this is not only because the [[father]] is revealed clearly enough as identical with an order of language. For without kinship nominationsone who imposes the [[law]], no power but also because the [[law]] is capable born out of instituting the order murder of preferences and taboos that bind and weave the yarn of lineage through succeeding generations[[father]]. And it This is indeed clearly illustrated in the confusion [[myth]] of generations the [[father]] of the [[primal horde]] which, [[Freud]] recounts in the Bible as in all traditional laws''[[Totem and Taboo]]''. In this [[myth]], is accused as being the abomination murder of the Word (verbe) and [[father]], far from freeing the sons from the desolation of [[law]], only reinforces the sinner[[law]] which [[prohibit]]s [[incest]]. (Ecrits 66)-->
"This legal==See Also=={{See}}* [[Communication]]* [[Desire]]* [[Father]]||* [[Oedipus complex]]* [[Name-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 theory, Lacan positions the law in its broadest sense as "the set of universal principles which make social existence possible, -the structures that govern all forms of social exchange, whether gift-giving, kinship relations or the formation of pacts. Since the most basic form of exchange is communication itself, the law is fundamentally a linguistic entity – it is the law of the signifier" (Evans 98). Growing out 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 is coextensive with the symbolic order to such an extent that neither is conceivable without the other.Father]]* [[Pleasure principle]]||* [[Primal horde]]* [[Signifier]]* [[Structure]]{{Also}}
Insofar as the law is essentially a process for regulating social relations, the symbolic order must henceforth be conceived of as a profoundly intersubjective structure. Just as there can be no need for, or effectiveness of, the law in the absence of something to regulate, so there can be no signification in the absence of someone to whom to signify. That is, the law actually invents that which it regulates, creating a lack by masking the impossibility of the imaginary relation behind the symbolic prohibition== References ==<div style="font-size: 11px" class="the law creates desire in the first place by creating interdiction. Desire is essentially the desire to transgress, and for there to be transgression it is first necessary for there to be prohibition […] desire is born out of the process of regulationreferences-small" (Evans 99). By the same process, the symbolic order actually invents the subject as an effect 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 has suddenly been barred access (or the impossibility of access to which he or she has suddenly been made aware). In this regard, the entry into the symbolic makes of all signification an intersubjective situation as the speaking subject necessarily orients itself in relation to that which it symbolises; to do so, it must hold a position within that symbolic network – it must in essence be a signifier.><references/></div>
The infant’s entry into the symbolic is thus a traumatic event in which the original sense of integrity, wholeness, presence, and identification (associated with the primary narcissism of the imaginary order) is lost forever. Even the imaginary compensations of ego formation now recede from consciousness as the irremediable gap between the individual and that which it desires (the ideal-ego, the mother’s body, plenitude) comes to the fore as the organising principle of the totalising force of the symbolic order. The repetitive automatism of the signifying chain is thus a compensatory gesture, an obsessive attempt by the symbolic order (and the subjects who live in and by it) to cover over the lack/absence which organises it. The signifying chain must always remain in motion, doubling back on itself and deferring any presence of meaning as content, in order to forestall the terrifying confrontation with this originary and constitutive absence. In effect, the symbolic order achieves a sustained deferral of this confrontation, proffering alternative signifiers as provisional substitutive compensations for the irremediable lack created in its radical reorganisation of the world.
An analogous and consistent way of conceiving this compensatory response to the trauma of entering the symbolic is to consider the occurrence of repetition compulsion in victims of trauma. By repeating an action that is an effect of a traumatic episode, the obsessive neurotic effectively symbolises the traumatic kernel that organises his or her symptoms without ever approaching the truth of the motivating traumatic episode. The repetitive actions of the trauma victim are comparable to the repetition compulsion built into the incessant play of signifiers in the signifying chain. Just as the trauma victim’s actions constitute a series of symptoms that represent effects of the traumatic episode without symbolising it, so the series of signifiers in the signifying chain represent the traumatic loss or absence around which the symbolic order is organised without ever being able to signify it directly.[[Category:Psychoanalysis]][[Category:Jacques Lacan]][[Category:Linguistics]][[Category:Dictionary]][[Category:Language]][[Category:Symbolic]][[Category:Concepts]][[Category:Terms]][[Category:OK]]
==supplement==__NOTOC__
