Changes

Lacan's use of the term '[[Real]]' (rÈel) as a substantive dates back to an early paper, published in 1936. The term was popular among certain philosphilosophers at the time, and is the focus of a work by Emile Meyerson.<ref> (which Lacan refers to in the 1936 paper; Ec, 86</ref> Meyerson defines the [[Real]] as 'an ontological absolute, a true being-in-itself'.<ref>Meyerson, 1925: 79; quoted in Roustang, 1986: 61</ref> In speaking of 'the [[Real]]', then, Lacan is following a common practice in one strand of early twentieth-century philosophy. However, while this may be Lacan's starting point, the term undergoes many shifts in meaning and usage throughout his work.

ophers at At first the time, and [[Real]] is simply opposed to the focus realm of a work by Emile Meyerson (the image, which seems to locate it in the realm of being, beyond appearances.<ref>Ec, 85</ref> However, the fact that even at this early point Lacandistinguishes between the [[Real]] and 'the true' indicates that the [[Real]] is already prey to a certain ambiguity.<ref>Ec, 75</ref>

refers to After appearing in 1936, the 1936 paper; term disappears from Lacan's work until the early 1950s, when Lacan invokes Hegel's view that 'everything which is [[Real]] is rational (and vice versa)' (Ec, 86226). Meyerson defines It is not until 1953 that Lacan elevates the [[Real]] to the status of a fundamental category of psychoanalytic theory; the [[Real]] is henceforth one of the three [[orders]] according to which all psychoanalytic phenomena may be described, the other two being the [[Symbolic]] order and and the [[Imaginary]] order. The [[Real]] is thus no longer simply opposed to the [[Imaginary]], but is also located beyond the [[Symbolic]]. Unlike the [[Symbolic]], which is constituted in terms of oppositions such as that between presence and absence, 'there is no absence in the [[Real]].'<ref>S2, 313</ref> Whereas the [[Symbolic]] opposition between presence and absence implies the permanent possibility that something may be missing from the [[Symbolic]] order, the [[Real]] 'anis always in its place: it carries it glued to its heel, ignorant of what might exile it from there.'<ref>Ec, 25; see Sll, 49</ref>

ontological absoluteWhereas the [[Symbolic]] is a set of differentiated, discrete elements called signifiers, the [[Real]] is, in itself, undifferentiated; 'the [[Real]] is absolutely without fissure.'<ref>S2, 97</ref> It is the [[Symbolic]] which introduces 'a true beingcut in the [[Real]]' in the process of signification: 'it is the world of words that creates the world of things -things originally confused in the hic et nunc of the all inthe process of coming-into-itselfbeing.' (Meyerson<ref>E, 1925: 79; quoted in65</ref>

RoustangIn these formulations of the period 1953-5, the [[Real]] emerges as that which is outside language and inassimilable to symbolisation. It is 'that which resists symbolization absolutely';<ref>Sl, 66</ref> or, 1986: 61)again, the [[Real]] is 'the domain of whatever subsists outside symbolisation. In speaking '<ref>Ec, 388</ref> This theme remains a constant throughout the rest of Lacan's work, and leads Lacan to link the [[Real]] with the concept of impossibility. The [[Real]]is 'the impossible'<ref>Sl l, 167</ref> because it is impossible to imagine, impossible to integrate into the [[Symbolic]] order, and impossible to attain in any way. It is this character of impossibility and of resistance to symbolisation which lends the [[Real]] its essentially traumatic quality. Thus in his reading of the case of Little Hans <ref>Freud, then1909b</ref> in the seminar of 1956-7, Lacan is following adistinguishes two [[Real]] elements which intrude and disrupt the child's [[Imaginary]] preoedipal harmony: the [[Real]] penis which begins to make itself felt in infantile masturbation, and the newly born sister.<ref>S4, 308-9</ref>

common practice The [[Real]] also has connotations of matter, implying a material substrate underlying the [[Imaginary]] and the [[Symbolic]] (see [[Materialism]]). The connotations of matter also link the concept of the [[Real]] to the realm of [[biology]] and to the body in one strand its brute physicality (as opposed to the [[Imaginary]] and [[Symbolic]] functions of the body). For example the [[Real]] father is the biological father, and the [[Real]] phallus is the physical penis as opposed to the [[Symbolic]] and [[Imaginary]] functions of early twentieth-century philosophythis organ. How-

everThroughout his work, while this may be Lacan's starting point, uses the concept of the term undergoes many shifts[[Real]] to elucidate a number of clinical phenomena:

[[Anxiety]] and trauma The [[Real]] is the object of anxiety; it lacks any possible mediation, and is thus 'the essential object which isn't an object any longer, but this something faced with which all words cease and all categories fail, the object of anxiety par excellence' (S2, 164). It is the missed encounter with this [[Real]] object which presents itself in meaning and usage throughout his workthe form of trauma (Sll, 55). It is the tyche which lies 'beyond the [[[symbolic]]] automaton.'<ref>S11, 53</ref> (see [[chance]]).

locate ==Hallucinations==When something cannot be integrated in the [[Symbolic]] order, as in [[psychosis]], it may return in the [[Real]]m in the form of beinga hallucination.<ref>S3, beyond appearances (Ec321</ref>The preceding comments trace out some of the main uses to which Lacan puts the category of the [[Real]], 85)but are far from covering all the complexities of this term. HoweverIn fact, Lacan takes pains to ensure that the [[Real]] remains the most elusive and mysterious of the factthree orders, by speaking of it less than of the other orders, and by making it the site of a radical indeterminacy. Thus it is never completely clear whether the [[Real]] is external or internal, or whether it is unknowable or amenable to reason.

==External / internal==On the one hand, the term 'the [[Real]]' seems to imply a simplistic notion of an objective, external reality, a material substrate which exists in itself, independently of any observer. On the other hand, such a 'naive' view of the [[Real]] is subverted by the fact that even at this early point Lacan distinguishes between the [[Real]] also includes such things as hallucinations and traumatic dreams. The [[Real]] is thus both inside and outside.<ref>S7, 118; see [[extimacy]]</ref> (extimitÈ). This ambiguity reflects the ambiguity inherent in Freud's own use of the true'two German terms for reality (Wirklichkeit and Realit‰t) and the distinction Freud draws between material reality and psychical reality.<ref>Freud, 1900a: SE V, 620</ref>

indicates that the [[Real]] is already prey to a certain ambiguity (Ec, 75).  After appearing in 1936, the term disappears from Lacan's work until the early 1950s, when Lacan invokes Hegel's view that 'everything which is [[Real]] is rational (and vice versa)' (Ec, 226). It is not until 1953 that Lacan elevates the [[Real]] to the status of a fundamental category of psychoanalytic theory; the [[Real]] is henceforth one of the three ORDERs according to which all psychoanalytic phenomena may be described, the other two being the [[Symbolic]] order and and the [[Imaginary]] order. The [[Real]] is thus no longer simply opposed to the [[Imaginary]], but is also located beyond the [[Symbolic]]. Unlike the [[Symbolic]], which is constituted in terms of oppositions such as that between presence and absence, 'there is no absence in the [[Real]]' (S2, 313). Whereas the [[Symbolic]] opposition between presence and absence implies the permanent possibility that something may be missing from the [[Symbolic]] order, the [[Real]] 'is always in its place: it carries it glued to its heel, ignorant of what might exile it from there' (Ec, 25; see Sll, 49).  Whereas the [[Symbolic]] is a set of differentiated, discrete elements called signifiers, the [[Real]] is, in itself, undifferentiated; 'the [[Real]] is absolutely without fissure' (S2, 97). It is the [[Symbolic]] which introduces 'a cut in the [[Real]]' in the process of signification: 'it is the world of words that creates the world of things - things originally confused in the hic et nunc of the all in the process of coming-into-being' (E, 65).  In these formulations of the period 1953-5, the [[Real]] emerges as that which is outside language and inassimilable to symbolisation. It is 'that which resists symbolization absolutely' (Sl, 66); or, again, the [[Real]] is 'the domain of whatever subsists outside symbolisation' (Ec, 388). This theme remains a     constant throughout the rest of Lacan's work, and leads Lacan to link the [[Real]] with the concept of impossibility. The [[Real]] is 'the impossible' (Sl l, 167) because it is impossible to imagine, impossible to integrate into the [[Symbolic]] order, and impossible to attain in any way. It is this character of impossibility and of resistance to symbolisation which lends the [[Real]] its essentially traumatic quality. Thus in his reading of the case of Little Hans (Freud, 1909b) in the seminar of 1956-7, Lacan distinguishes two [[Real]] elements which intrude and disrupt the child's [[Imaginary]] preoedipal harmony: the [[Real]] penis which begins to make itself felt in infantile masturbation, and the newly born sister (S4, 308-9).  The [[Real]] also has connotations of matter, implying a material substrate underlying the [[Imaginary]] and the [[Symbolic]] (see [[Materialism]]). The connota- tions of matter also link the concept of the [[Real]] to the [[Real]]m of BIOLOGY and to the body in its brute physicality (as opposed to the [[Imaginary]] and [[Symbolic]] functions of the body). For example the [[Real]] father is the biological father, and the [[Real]] phallus is the physical penis as opposed to the [[Symbolic]] and [[Imaginary]] functions of this organ.  Throughout his work, Lacan uses the concept of the [[Real]] to elucidate a number of clinical phenomena:   e [[Anxiety]] and trauma The [[Real]] is the object of anxiety; it lacks any possible mediation, and is thus 'the essential object which isn't an object any longer, but this something faced with which all words cease and all categories fail, the object of anxiety par excellence' (S2, 164). It is the missed encounter with this [[Real]] object which presents itself in the form of trauma (Sll, 55). It is the tyche which lies 'beyond the [[[Symbolic]]] automaton' (S11, 53) (see CHANCE).   e HALLUCINATIONS When something cannot be integrated in the [[Symbolic]] order, as in [[Psychosis]], it may return in the [[Real]] in the form of a hallucination (S3, 321).  The preceding comments trace out some of the main uses to which Lacan puts the category of the [[Real]], but are far from covering all the complexities of this term. In fact, Lacan takes pains to ensure that the [[Real]] remains the most elusive and mysterious of the three orders, by speaking of it less than of the other orders, and by making it the site of a radical indeterminacy. Thus it is never completely clear whether the [[Real]] is external or internal, or whether it is unknowable or amenable to reason.   e Externallinternal On the one hand, the term 'the [[Real]]' seems to imply a simplistic notion of an objective, external [[Real]]ity, a material substrate which exists in itself, independently of any observer. On the other hand, such a 'naive' view of the [[Real]] is subverted by the fact that the [[Real]] also includes such things as hallucinations and traumatic dreams. The [[Real]] is thus both inside and outside (S7, 118; see EXTIMACY) (extimitÈ). This ambiguity reflects the     ambiguity inherent in Freud's own use of the two German terms for [[Real]]ity (Wirklichkeit and [[Real]]it‰t) and the distinction Freud draws between material [[Real]]ity and psychical [[Real]]ity (Freud, 1900a: SE V, 620).    e ==Unknowable/rational ==On the one hand, the [[Real]] cannot be known, since it goes beyond both the [[Imaginary]] and the [[Symbolic]]; it is, like the Kantian thing-in-itself, an unknowable x. On the other hand, Lacan quotes Hegel to the effect that the [[Real]] is rational and the rational is [[Real]], thus implying that it is amenable to calculation and logic.  It is possible to discern in Lacan's work, from the early 1970s on, an attempt  to resolve this indeterminacy, by reference to a distinction between the [[Real]] and '[[Real]]ity' (such as when Lacan defines [[Real]]ity as 'the grimace of the [[Real]]' in Lacan, 1973a: 17; see also Sl7, 148). In this opposition, the [[Real]] is placed firmly on the side of the unknowable and unassimilable, while '[[Real]]ity' denotes subjective representations which are a product of [[Symbolic]] and [[Imaginary]] articulations (Freud's 'psychical [[Real]]ity'). However, after this opposition is introduced, Lacan does not maintain it in a consistent or systematic way, but oscillates between moments when the opposition is clearly maintained and moments when he reverts to his previous custom of using the terms '[[Real]]' and '[[Real]]ity' interchangeably.