Changes

{{Topp}}[[mastery]]|maître{{Bottom}}

In his [[Works of Jacques Lacan|work]] during the [[{{Y}}#1950|1950s]] [[Lacan]] often refers to "the [[dialectic]] of the [[master]] and the [[slave]]", which [[Hegel]] introduces in ''[[Phenomen­ology of Spirit]]''.<ref>1807</ref> As in all his other [[Hegel]]ian references, [[Lacan]] is indebted to [[Alexandre Kojève]]'s [[reading ]] of [[Hegel]], which [[Lacan]] encountered when attending [[Kojève]]'s lectures on [[Hegel]] in the [[{{Y}}#1930|1930s]].<ref>[[Alexandre Kojève|Kojève, Alexandre]]. ''Introduction to the Reading of Hegel'', 1947 [1933-39]. Trans. [[James]]. H. Nichols Jr., New York and [[London]]: Basic Books, 1969.</ref>

According to [[Kojève]], the [[dialectic]] of the [[master]] and the [[master|slave]] is the inevitable result of the fact that [[human]] [[desire]] is the [[desire]] for [[recognition]]. In [[order ]] to achieve [[recognition]], the [[subject]] must impose the [[idea ]] that he has of himself on an [[other]]. However, since this [[other]] also [[desire]]s [[recognition]], he also must do the same, and hence the [[subject]] is [[forced ]] to engage in combat with the [[other]].

This fight for [[recognition]], for "pure prestige"<ref>[[Alexandre Kojève|Kojève, Alexandre]]. ''Introduction to the Reading of Hegel'', 1947 [1933-39]. Trans. James. H. Nichols Jr., New York and London: Basic Books, 1969: 7; {{S1}} p. 223</ref> must be a "[[master|fight to the death]]", since it is only by risking his [[life]] for the sake of [[recognition]] that one can prove that he is [[truth|truly]] [[human]]. However, the combat must in fact stop short of the [[death]] of either combatant, since [[recognition]] can only be granted by a [[living]] [[being]]. Thus the [[struggle ]] ends when one of the two gives up his [[desire]] for [[recognition]] and surrenders to the [[other]]; the vanquished one recognizes the victor as his "[[master]]" and becomes his "[[slave]]". In fact, [[human]] [[society]] is only possible because some [[human]] [[being]]s accept being [[slaves]] instead of fighting to the [[death]]; a [[community ]] of [[master]]s would be [[impossible]].

After achieving victory, the [[master]] sets the [[master|slave]] to [[work ]] for him. The [[master|slave]] works by transforming [[nature]] in order that the [[master]] may consume it and [[enjoy]] it. However, the victory is not as absolute as it seems; the relation between the [[master]] and the [[slave]] is [[dialectic]]al because it leads to the [[negation]] of their respective positions. On the one hand, the [[recognition]] achieved by the [[master]] is unsatisfactory because it is not [[another ]] [[man]] who grants him this [[recognition]] but only a [[slave]], who is for the [[master]] a mere [[animal]] or [[thing]]; thus "the man who behaves as a Master will never be [[satisfied]]."<ref>[[Alexandre Kojève|Kojève, Alexandre]]. ''Introduction to the Reading of Hegel'', 1947 [1933-39]. Trans. James. H. Nichols Jr., New York and London: Basic Books, 1969: 20</ref> On the other hand, the [[master|slave]] is partly compensated for his defeat by the fact that, by [[working]], he raises himself above [[nature]] by making it other than it was.

In the [[process ]] of changing the [[world ]] the [[master|slave]] changes himself and becomes the [[author ]] of his own destiny, unlike the [[master]] who changes only through the mediation of the [[master|slave]]'s work. [[progress|Historical progress]] is now "the product of the working slave and not of the warlike Master."<ref>[[Alexandre Kojève|Kojève, Alexandre]]. ''Introduction to the Reading of Hegel'', 1947 [1933-39]. Trans. James. H. Nichols Jr., New York and London: Basic Books, 1969: 52</ref> The outcome of the [[dialectic]] is therefore paradoxical: the [[master]] ends up in a dissatisfying "existential [[impasse]]", while the [[master|slave]] retains the possibility of achieving [[true ]] [[satisfaction ]] by means of "[[dialectically ]] overcoming" his slavery.

[[Lacan]] draws on the [[dialectic]] of the [[master]] and the [[master|slave]] to illustrate a wide range of points. For example the struggle for pure prestige illustrates the [[intersubjectivity|intersubjective]] nature of [[desire]], in which the important thing is for [[desire]] to be recognised by an [[other]]. The [[master|fight to the death]] also illustrates the [[aggressivity]] inherent in the [[dual relation]]ship between the [[ego]] and the [[counterpart]].<ref>{{E}} p. 142</ref> Furthermore, the [[master|slave]] who resignedly "waits for the master's death"<ref>{{E}} p. 99</ref> offers a [[good ]] analogy of the [[obsessional neurotic]], who is characterized by [[hesitation ]] and procrastination.<ref>{{S1}} p. 286</ref>

[[Lacan]] also takes up the [[dialectic]] of the [[master]] and the [[master|slave]] in his theorization of the [[discourse]] of the [[master]]. In the formulation of this [[dis­course]], the [[master]] is the [[master signifier]] ('''[[S1]]''') who puts the [[master|slave]] ('''[[S2]]''') to work to produce a [[surplus]] (''[[a]]'') which he can appropriate for himself. The [[master signifier]] is that which represents a [[subject]] for all other [[signifier]]s; the [[discourse]] of the [[master]] is thus an attempt at totalization (which is why [[Lacan ]][[links ]] the [[discourse]] of the [[master]] with [[philosophy]] and [[philosophy|ontology]], playing on the homo­phony between ''maître'' and ''m'être''<ref>{{S20}} p. 33</ref>). However, this attempt always fails because the [[master signifier]] can never [[represent ]] the [[subject]] completely; there is always some [[surplus]] which escapes [[representation]].