Changes
The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (<a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles">https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles</a>).
* [http://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/bulkip.cgi?/lutecium-group/cgi-bin/execmp3.cgi?radiophonie-4.v2.0.mp3 Partie 4]
* [http://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/bulkip.cgi?/lutecium-group/cgi-bin/execmp3.cgi?radiophonie-5.v2.0.mp3 Partie 5]
1970 (45 pp.)-RADIOPHONIE-1970
This is an interview with [[Lacan]] conducted by Georgin, with seven questions and answers. The first four were broadcast in Belgium, and then in [[France]]. [[Scilicet]] (2/3) published the entire interview, including the passages that shed light on the four [[discourses]] (73, 76) and, most importantly, the note that gives
The Works of [[Jacques Lacan]] m
the [[complete]] [[algebraic]] schemas (p. 99). However, the aim of the interview was wider: it was to assess the [[Freudian]] and [[Lacanian]] contributions, the no�tion of [[structure]], the [[place]] of [[psychoanalysis]] in the humanities, its conse�quences "on the level of [[science]], [[philosophy]] and more particularly [[Marxism]], indeed [[communism]]," in [[order]] to conclude finally with the question, "To what extent are [[knowledge]] and [[truth]] incompatible?" If "to govern, to educate, and to psychoanalyse are [[three]] wagers [[impossible]] to t~e up," how "do you re�solve the [[contradiction]]" between "the perpetual contesting of all [[discourse]]," even of "[[analytic]] knowledge," and the [[necessity]] to "hang on to it"? Is it through the "status of the impossible," because "the impossible is the [[real]]"? This was a standard interview in the [[media]]-with a lot of general and abstract problems-and it was characteristic of the 60s and 70s.
The point was to allow a broader audience to [[know]] what Lacan's theses had been since 1953. Let us merely point out what was new.
First, there is the following [[statement]]: if "[[language]] is the condition of the [[unconscious]]" (a [[thesis]] that had been reaffirmed, 75), "the unconscious is the condition of [[linguistics]]." [[Freud]] anticipated the researches of [[Saussure]] and the Prague circle by sticking to the [[letter]] of the [[patient]]'s [[word]], to [[jokes]], to "slips" of the tongue, and by bringing to light the fundamental importance of [[condensation]] and [[displacement]] in the production of [[dreams]]. The uncon�scious is simply the fact "that the [[subject]] is not the one who [[knows]] what he says." "Whoever articulates it [the unconscious], in Lacan's [[name]], must say that it is either that or [[nothing]]." "And why would Saussure have realized { ... ] better than Freud himself, what he anticipated, notably the Lacanian [[metaphor]] and [[metonymy]], the very places where Saussure engendered Jakob�son?" Besides, metaphor and metonymy do not have the same functions in the two disciplines.
No, the [[notion]] of "structure" does not allow us to create a "common field" uniting linguistics, ethnology, and psychoanalysis. Linguistics has "no hold over the unconscious," because "it leaves as a blank that which produces effects in the unconscious, the [[objet]] a, " the very focus of the [[psychoanalytic]] act-and of any act. Such is the "[[linguist]]'s shortcoming" (an allusion to Benveniste). The two discourses also differ in the [[position]] of the subject:
"Only the discourse that defines itself in the [[terms]] given by psychoanalysis manifests the subject as [[other]], that is, gives him the key to his division�whereas science, by making the subject a [[master]], conceals him, to the extent that the [[desire]] that gives way to him bars him for me, as for [[Socrates]], without remedy." As opposed to ethnology, psychoanalysis "does not have to make an inventory of the [[myths]] that have conditioned a subject. " There is only one [[myth]] in Lacan's discourse, the Freudian [[Oedipus]] [[complex]]. Moreover, for Levi-[[Strauss]], "myth denies everything I promoted in L'/nslance de la lelITe dans l'[[inconscient]] (35). It performs neither metaphor nor metonymy. It does not condense, it explains. It does not displace, it accommodates, even if it
226 DOSS I ER
has to [[change]] the order of the tents." "It only functions by combining its heavy units, and it is the complement alone that, because it insures the pres�ence of the couple, allows a background to emerge, which is precisely what its structure rejects." On the other hand, "in psychoanalysis (as well as in the unconscious), man knows nothing of [[woman]], and woman nothing of man. The [[phallus]] epitomizes the point in myth where the [[sexual]] becomes the pas�sion of the [[signifier]]."
For Lacan, the structure is the [[body]] of the [[symbolic]]. The Stoics "were abled, with the term' incorporeal,' to mark how [[the symbolic]] relates to the body." "The function that at once makes the [[reality]] of [[mathematics]], the use of [[topology]] whose ,effect is similar, and [[analysis]] in a broader [[sense]] for logics, is incorporeal." Lacan added, "It is as incorporeal that structure creates the [[affect]] [ ... ], thereby revealing that it [the affect] is second to the body, be it [[dead]] or alive." Moreover, the structure in analysis entails" a rift-and a [[structural]] one"! "There is 110 sexual relation-implying no sexual relation that can be formulated ill the structure," a statement that La Logique du fall1asme (65) had already presaged and that would be further developed in the [[seminars]] to follow. There is no "appropriate signifier to give substance to a [[formula]] of sexual relation." Thus, Lacan brought into play the "undecid�able," which belongs to the order of a real that makes a [[hole]] in the structure. Ultimately, [[Marx]], with the "[[surplus]]-[[value]]," made a discovery that Lacan's plus-de-[[jouir]] surpasses because it exposes the operative [[mechanism]] of the surplus-value: "When one acknowledges the kind of [[plus-de-jouir]] that leads one to say 'this is truly somebody,' one will be on the [[right]] track towards a [[dialectical]] [[material]] that may be more [[active]] than the party meat [/a [[chair]] d Parti], used as the babysitter of [[history]]. Psychoanalysis can shed light on this track with its [[passe]]" (66,76). In the end, it can be said without any [[hesitation]] that this carefully [[thought]] [[text]] establishes psychoanalysis both as fundamental and hegemonic.
This is indeed what the [[four discourses]] (Master, [[Hysteric]], [[University]], Ana�lyst) attempt to establish in the relations that tie [[them]] together and in the passages from one to the other. There is, however, no algebraic formula for the unconscious discourse: "The unconscious [ ... ] is only the [[metaphorical]] term designating the knowledge that only sustains itself by presenting itself as impossible, so that it can conform by [[being]] real (that is, real discourse)." Lacan was thus not calling knowledge [/a conllaissance] into question, he had nothing to do with it. "My ordeal [epreuve] only concerns being [I' erre] insofar as it gives [[birth]] to being from the rift produced by the existent [I' erant] by telling itself," he said.'
t. In Frcnch. thc scntcnce reads: "Mon eprcuve ne touche a l'etrc qu'a Ie faire naitre de la faille que produit l'etant dc se [[dire]]." In naim!. one also hears the [[negation]] of tire. i.e., II' erre. so that the emergence of being is already a [[disappearance]].
The Wortls of Jacques Lacan 227
