Indeed, part of the reason this temporality is so fundamental to Lacan’s conception of the signifying chain is that it allows for the centrality of repetition in the process of signification and deferral. That is, each instance of signification, each manifest signifier, only repeats the action of deferral and flight that extends back to the infant’s first use of language to articulate the binary between presence and absence actualised in the coming and going of his or her mother (whether actual or as symbolised in the father’s inaugural interdiction). As a result of the felt need to articulate the alternating absence and presence of his or her mother, the infant breaks down his or her relation to her into two categories, making her absence a present feature of the symbolic world into which he or she has just stumbled. This ascription of a signifier to hold the place of an absent object by marking its real absence with a symbolic presence is profoundly formative, as it boomerangs back on the subject when he or she discovers that he or she has forgone the full effectiveness of his or her identification with his or her mother in the very process of naming her. By distinguishing between the mother’s presence and absence, the infant thus creates a binary of primal symbolisation that instantaneously removes the immediately experienced body and being of the mother (as an object in the world) to an irretrievable distance. Henceforth, even when the mother is present to the infant, she will always also be partly absent by virtue of her representation in the symbolic order. The infant undergoes the trauma of entering the symbolic order in the primal moment at which he or she (driven by the father’s prohibitory "No" – see below) names absence as something that can be given content and presence (however illusory). This revelation also introduces, however, the fact that presence is always haunted by absence, a feature which is perpetually highlighted through the symbolic order’s insistence on supplying a signifier that (however arbitrarily) marks the incompleteness of all presence –marks it, indeed, as merely a mask for absence. The endless deferral and ephemerality of all signification thus characterises the infant’s relation to not only the mother, but to all other objects in the world, naturalising alienation as an existential condition since all such relations are part of that perceptual apparatus that is always already organised by the process of symbolisation.
== def ==
signifying chain (chaÓne sigmfante, chaÓne du sigm˛ant)
The term 'chain' is used increasingly by Lacan from the mid-1950s on, always in
reference to the symbolic order. At first, in 1956, he speaks not of the signifying
chain but of the symbolic chain, by which he denotes a line of descendence into
which each subject is inscribed even before his birth and after his death, and
which influences his destiny unconsciously (Ec, 468). In the same year he speaks
of 'the chain of discourse' (S3, 261).
It is in 1957 that Lacan introduces the term 'signifying chain' to refer to a
series of SIGNIFIERs which are linked together. A signifying chain can never be
complete, since it is always possible to add another signifier to it, ad infinitum,
m a way which expresses the eternal nature of desire; for this reason, desire is
metonymic. The chain is also metonymic in the production of meaning;
signification is not present at any one point in the chain, but rather meaning
'insists' in the movement from one signifier to another (see E, 153).
At times Lacan speaks of the signifying chain in linear metaphors, and at
other times in circular metaphors;
e Linearity 'The linearity that Saussure holds to be constitutive of the
chain of discourse applies to the chain of discourse only in the direction in
which it is orientated in time' (E, 154).
ï Circularity The signifying chain is compared to 'rings of a necklace that
is a ring in another necklace made of rings' (E, 153).
On the one hand, the idea of linearity suggests that the signifying chain is the
stream of speech, in which signifiers are combined in accordance with the laws
of grammar (which Saussure calls 'syntagmatic' relationships, and Lacan,
following Jakobson, locates on the metonymic axis of language). On the other
hand, the idea of circularity suggests that the signifying chain is a series of
signifiers linked by free associations, just one path through the network of
signifiers which constitutes the symbolic world of the subject (which Saussure
designates 'associative' relationships, and which Lacan, following Jakobson,
locates on the metaphoric axis of language). In truth, the signifying chain is
both of these things. In its diachronic dimension it is linear, syntagmatic,
metonymic; in its synchronic dimension it is circular, associative, metapho-
ric. The two cross over: 'there is in effect no signifying chain [diachronic
chain] that does not have, as if attached to the punctuation of each of its units,
a whole articulation of relevant contexts [synchronic chains] suspended
"vertically", as it were, from that point' (E, 154). Lacan thus combines in
one concept the two types of relationship ('syntagmatic' and 'associative')
which Saussure argued existed between signs, though for Lacan, the relation-
ship is between signifiers, not signs.
