Difference between revisions of "Symbolic"

From No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis
Jump to: navigation, search
(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>).)
(Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Top}}symbolique{{Bottom}}
+
{| align="[[right]]" style="line-height:2.0em;text-align:right;margin-left: 10px;background-color:#fcfcfc;border:1px solid #aaa"  
 
+
| [[French]]: ''[[symbolique]]''
 
+
|}
In [[Lacan]]ian [[psychoanalysis]], the "[[symbolic]]" is one of three [[order]]s that [[structure]] [[human]] [[existence]], the others being the [[imaginary]] and the [[real]].
 
 
 
The adjectival "[[symbolic]]" is often used by [[Lacan]] in a fairly conventional sense, but in the 1950s he begins to use the word as a substantive, and it rapidly becomes the cornerstone of his theory: the [[subject]]'s relationship with the [[symbolic]] is the heart of [[psychoanalysis]].
 
 
 
The change in usage reflects his incorporation into [[psychoanalysis]] of the [[linguistics]] of [[Saussure]] and the [[anthropology]] of [[Mauss]] and [[Lévi-Strauss]].
 
 
 
In his work on kinship [[Lévi-Strauss]] argues that any culture can be seen as a set of [[symbolic]] [[structure]]s such as the rules governing kinship and alliance, [[language]] and [[art]].
 
 
 
He also demonstrates that in primitive societies the ritual exchange of gifts has an important role in the creation and perpetuation of social stability.
 
 
 
The application of [[Saussure]]'s theory of the [[sign]] allows these structures and exchanges to be analyzed as exchanges of [[signifier]]s.
 
 
 
The emergence of [[symbolic]] [[structure]]s is an essential feature of the human transition from [[nature]] to [[culture]].
 
 
 
--
 
 
 
Adapting [[Lévi-Strauss]]'s study of how kinship rules and exogamy govern exchanges between human groups to the field of [[psychoanalysis]], [[Lacan]] now describes the [[Oedipus complex]] as a process which imposes [[symbolic]] [[structure]]s on [[sexuality]] and allows the [[subject]] to emerge.
 
 
 
[[Pre-oedipal|Pre-oedipal sexuality]] is likened to a state of [[nature]] and unbridled sexuality; the role of the [[Name-of-the-Father]] is to disrupt the [[dual relation]]ship in which the [[child]] tries to fuse with the [[mother]] in an incestuous union, and to establish a legitimate line  of descent ("son of...", "daughter of...").
 
 
 
[[Culture]] and the [[symbolic]] are thuse imposed upon [[nature]].
 
 
 
The [[subject]] gains access to the [[symbolic]], to a name and a lineage, but does so at the cost of a [[symbolic|symbolic castration]].
 
 
 
Although the exchange of [[signifier]]s in [[speech]] is an obvious example of [[symbolic|symbolic exchange]], [[Lacan]]'s [[symbolic]] is not simply synonymous with [[language]], and should be understood as comprising the entire domain of [[culture]].
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 +
In [[Lacan]]ian [[psychoanalysis]], the "[[symbolic]]" is one of [[three]] [[order]]s that [[structure]] [[human]] [[existence]], the [[others]] [[being]] the [[imaginary]] and the [[real]].
  
 +
==History==
 +
The term "[[symbolic]]" appears in adjectival [[form]] in Lacan's earliest [[psychoanalytic]] writings. The adjectival "[[symbolic]]" is often used by [[Lacan]] in a fairly conventional [[sense]], but in the 1950s he begins to use the [[word]] as a substantive, and it rapidly becomes the cornerstone of his [[theory]]: the [[subject]]'s [[relationship]] with the [[symbolic]] is the heart of [[psychoanalysis]]. It now becomes one of the three [[orders]] that remain central throughout the rest of Lacan's [[work]]. Of these three orders, the symbolic is the most crucial one for psychoanalysis; [[psychoanalysts]] are essentially 'practitioners of the symbolic function'.<ref>{{E}} p. 72</ref>
  
 +
==Structuralism==
 +
Lacan incorporates into [[psychoanalysis]] the [[linguistics]] of [[Saussure]] and the [[anthropology]] of [[Lévi-Strauss]]. [[Lacan]]'s [[concept]] of the [[symbolic|symbolic order]] owes much to the anthropological work of [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]].<ref>[[Claude Lévi-Strauss|Lévi-Strauss, Claude]]. 1949a: 203</ref> In [[particular]], [[Lacan]] takes from [[Claude Lévi-Strauss|Lévi-Strauss]] the [[idea]] that the [[social]] [[world]] is [[structured]] by certain [[law]]s which regulate kinship relations and the [[exchange]] of gifts.  In his work on kinship [[Lévi-Strauss]] argues that any culture can be seen as a set of [[symbolic]] [[structure]]s such as the rules governing kinship and alliance, [[language]] and [[art]]. He also demonstrates that in [[primitive]] societies the [[ritual]] exchange of gifts has an important [[role]] in the creation and perpetuation of social [[stability]]. The application of [[Saussure]]'s theory of the [[sign]] allows these structures and exchanges to be [[analyzed]] as exchanges of [[signifier]]s. The emergence of [[symbolic]] [[structure]]s is an essential feature of the human transition from [[nature]] to [[culture]].
  
 +
==Culture==
 +
Adapting [[Lévi-Strauss]]'s study of how kinship rules and exogamy govern exchanges between human groups to the field of [[psychoanalysis]], [[Lacan]] now describes the [[Oedipus complex]] as a [[process]] which imposes [[symbolic]] [[structure]]s on [[sexuality]] and allows the [[subject]] to emerge. [[Pre-oedipal|Pre-oedipal sexuality]] is likened to a [[state]] of [[nature]] and unbridled sexuality; the role of the [[Name-of-the-Father]] is to disrupt the [[dual relation]]ship in which the [[child]] tries to fuse with the [[mother]] in an incestuous union, and to establish a legitimate line  of descent ("son of...", "daughter of..."). [[Culture]] and the [[symbolic]] are thuse imposed upon [[nature]]. The [[subject]] gains access to the [[symbolic]], to a [[name]] and a lineage, but does so at the cost of a [[symbolic|symbolic castration]]. Although the exchange of [[signifier]]s in [[speech]] is an obvious example of [[symbolic|symbolic exchange]], [[Lacan]]'s [[symbolic]] is not simply synonymous with [[language]], and should be [[understood]] as comprising the entire [[domain]] of [[culture]].
  
 +
==Language==
 +
Since the most basic form of exchange is [[communication]] itself (the exchange of [[words]], the [[gift]] of [[speech]]);<ref>{{S4}} p. 189</ref> and since the [[concepts]] of [[law]] and of [[structure]] are unthinkable without [[language]], the [[symbolic]] is essentially a [[linguistic]] [[dimension]]. Any aspect of the psychoanalytic [[experience]] which has a [[linguistic]] [[structure]] thus pertains to the [[symbolic order]]. The [[symbolic]] dimension of [[language]] is that of the [[signifier]]; a dimension in which elements have no positive [[existence]] but which are constituted purely by virtue of their mutual differences.
  
 +
==Alterity==
 +
The [[symbolic]] is also the realm of radical [[alterity]] which [[Lacan]] refers to as the [[Other]]. The [[unconscious]] is the [[discourse]] of this [[Other]], and thus belongs wholly to the [[symbolic order]]. The [[symbolic]] is the realm of the [[Law]] which regulates [[desire]] in the [[Oedipus complex]]. It is the realm of [[culture]] as opposed to the [[imaginary]] [[order]] of [[nature]]. Whereas the [[imaginary]] is characterised by [[dual relation]]s, the [[symbolic]] is characterised by [[triad]]ic [[structures]], because the [[intersubjective]] relationship is always "mediated" by a [[third]] term, the [[big Other]].
  
 +
==Death==
 +
The [[symbolic order]] is also the realm of [[death]], of [[absence]] and of [[lack]].  The [[symbolic]] is both the [[pleasure principle]] which regulates the distance from the [[Thing]], and the [[death drive]] which goes "[[pleasure principle|beyond the pleasure principle]]" by means of [[repetition]];<ref>{{S2}} p. 210</ref> in fact, "the [[death drive]] is only the mask of the [[symbolic order]]."<ref>{{S2}} p. 326</ref>
  
 +
==Autonomy==
 +
The [[symbolic order]] is completely [[autonomous]]: it is not a superstructure determined by [[biology]] or [[biology|genetics]]. It is completely [[contingent]] with respect to the [[real]]: "There is no [[biological]] [[reason]], and in particular no genetic one, to account for exogamy. In the human order we are dealing with the [[complete]] emergence of a new function, encompassing the [[whole]] order in its entirety."<ref>{{S2}} p. 29</ref> Thus while the [[symbolic]] may seem to "spring from the real" as pre-given, this is an [[illusion]], and "one shouldn't [[think]] that [[symbols]] actually have come from the real."<ref>{{S2}} p. 238</ref> The totalising, all-encompassing effect of the [[symbolic order]] leads [[Lacan]] to [[speak]] of the [[symbolic]] as a [[universe]]: "In the symbolic order the [[totality]] is called a universe. The symbolic order from the first takes on its [[universal]] [[character]]. It isn't constituted bit by bit. As soon as the [[symbol]] arrives, there is a universe of symbols."<ref>{{S2}} p. 29</ref> There is therefore no question of a gradual continuous transition from the [[imaginary ]]to the [[symbolic]]; they are completely heterogeneous domains. Once the [[symbolic order]] has arisen, it creates the sense that it has always been there, since "we find it absolutely [[impossible]] to speculate on what preceded it other than by symbols."<ref>{{S2}} p. 5</ref> For this reason it is strictly [[speaking]] impossible to conceive the origin of [[language]], let alone what came before, which is why questions of [[development]] lie [[outside]] the field of [[psychoanalysis]].
  
 +
==Psychoanalysis==
 +
[[Lacan]] criticises the [[psychoanalysis]] of his day for [[forgetting]] the [[symbolic order]] and reducing everything to the [[imaginary]]. This is, for [[Lacan]], [[nothing]] less than a [[betrayal]] of [[Freud]]'s most basic insights; "Freud's discovery is that of the field of the effects, in the nature of man, produced by his relation to the symbolic order. To ignore this symbolic order is to condemn the discovery to oblivion."<ref>{{E}} p. 64</ref> [[Lacan]] argues that it is only by [[working]] in the [[symbolic order]] that the [[analyst]] can produce changes in the [[subjective]] [[position]] of the [[analysand]]; these changes will also produce [[imaginary]] effects, since the [[imaginary]] is [[structure]]d by the [[symbolic]].
  
  
 +
==See Also==
 +
{{See}}
 +
* [[Communication]]
 +
* [[Death drive]]
 +
* [[Imaginary]]
 +
||
 +
* [[Language]]
 +
* [[Law]]
 +
* [[Linguistics]]
 +
||
 +
* [[Name-of-the-Father]]
 +
* [[Oedipus complex]]
 +
* [[Other]]
 +
||
 +
* [[Order]]
 +
* [[Real]]
 +
* [[Signifier]]
 +
||
 +
* [[Structure]]
 +
* [[Unconscious]]
 +
{{Also}}
  
 +
==References==
 +
<div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small">
 +
<references/>
 +
</div>
  
 
{{OK}}
 
{{OK}}
 
[[Category:Symbolic]]
 
[[Category:Symbolic]]
 +
 +
__NOTOC__

Latest revision as of 20:13, 20 May 2019

French: symbolique


In Lacanian psychoanalysis, the "symbolic" is one of three orders that structure human existence, the others being the imaginary and the real.

History

The term "symbolic" appears in adjectival form in Lacan's earliest psychoanalytic writings. The adjectival "symbolic" is often used by Lacan in a fairly conventional sense, but in the 1950s he begins to use the word as a substantive, and it rapidly becomes the cornerstone of his theory: the subject's relationship with the symbolic is the heart of psychoanalysis. It now becomes one of the three orders that remain central throughout the rest of Lacan's work. Of these three orders, the symbolic is the most crucial one for psychoanalysis; psychoanalysts are essentially 'practitioners of the symbolic function'.[1]

Structuralism

Lacan incorporates into psychoanalysis the linguistics of Saussure and the anthropology of Lévi-Strauss. Lacan's concept of the symbolic order owes much to the anthropological work of Claude Lévi-Strauss.[2] In particular, Lacan takes from Lévi-Strauss the idea that the social world is structured by certain laws which regulate kinship relations and the exchange of gifts. In his work on kinship Lévi-Strauss argues that any culture can be seen as a set of symbolic structures such as the rules governing kinship and alliance, language and art. He also demonstrates that in primitive societies the ritual exchange of gifts has an important role in the creation and perpetuation of social stability. The application of Saussure's theory of the sign allows these structures and exchanges to be analyzed as exchanges of signifiers. The emergence of symbolic structures is an essential feature of the human transition from nature to culture.

Culture

Adapting Lévi-Strauss's study of how kinship rules and exogamy govern exchanges between human groups to the field of psychoanalysis, Lacan now describes the Oedipus complex as a process which imposes symbolic structures on sexuality and allows the subject to emerge. Pre-oedipal sexuality is likened to a state of nature and unbridled sexuality; the role of the Name-of-the-Father is to disrupt the dual relationship in which the child tries to fuse with the mother in an incestuous union, and to establish a legitimate line of descent ("son of...", "daughter of..."). Culture and the symbolic are thuse imposed upon nature. The subject gains access to the symbolic, to a name and a lineage, but does so at the cost of a symbolic castration. Although the exchange of signifiers in speech is an obvious example of symbolic exchange, Lacan's symbolic is not simply synonymous with language, and should be understood as comprising the entire domain of culture.

Language

Since the most basic form of exchange is communication itself (the exchange of words, the gift of speech);[3] and since the concepts of law and of structure are unthinkable without language, the symbolic is essentially a linguistic dimension. Any aspect of the psychoanalytic experience which has a linguistic structure thus pertains to the symbolic order. The symbolic dimension of language is that of the signifier; a dimension in which elements have no positive existence but which are constituted purely by virtue of their mutual differences.

Alterity

The symbolic is also the realm of radical alterity which Lacan refers to as the Other. The unconscious is the discourse of this Other, and thus belongs wholly to the symbolic order. The symbolic is the realm of the Law which regulates desire in the Oedipus complex. It is the realm of culture as opposed to the imaginary order of nature. Whereas the imaginary is characterised by dual relations, the symbolic is characterised by triadic structures, because the intersubjective relationship is always "mediated" by a third term, the big Other.

Death

The symbolic order is also the realm of death, of absence and of lack. The symbolic is both the pleasure principle which regulates the distance from the Thing, and the death drive which goes "beyond the pleasure principle" by means of repetition;[4] in fact, "the death drive is only the mask of the symbolic order."[5]

Autonomy

The symbolic order is completely autonomous: it is not a superstructure determined by biology or genetics. It is completely contingent with respect to the real: "There is no biological reason, and in particular no genetic one, to account for exogamy. In the human order we are dealing with the complete emergence of a new function, encompassing the whole order in its entirety."[6] Thus while the symbolic may seem to "spring from the real" as pre-given, this is an illusion, and "one shouldn't think that symbols actually have come from the real."[7] The totalising, all-encompassing effect of the symbolic order leads Lacan to speak of the symbolic as a universe: "In the symbolic order the totality is called a universe. The symbolic order from the first takes on its universal character. It isn't constituted bit by bit. As soon as the symbol arrives, there is a universe of symbols."[8] There is therefore no question of a gradual continuous transition from the imaginary to the symbolic; they are completely heterogeneous domains. Once the symbolic order has arisen, it creates the sense that it has always been there, since "we find it absolutely impossible to speculate on what preceded it other than by symbols."[9] For this reason it is strictly speaking impossible to conceive the origin of language, let alone what came before, which is why questions of development lie outside the field of psychoanalysis.

Psychoanalysis

Lacan criticises the psychoanalysis of his day for forgetting the symbolic order and reducing everything to the imaginary. This is, for Lacan, nothing less than a betrayal of Freud's most basic insights; "Freud's discovery is that of the field of the effects, in the nature of man, produced by his relation to the symbolic order. To ignore this symbolic order is to condemn the discovery to oblivion."[10] Lacan argues that it is only by working in the symbolic order that the analyst can produce changes in the subjective position of the analysand; these changes will also produce imaginary effects, since the imaginary is structured by the symbolic.


See Also

References

  1. Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 72
  2. Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1949a: 203
  3. Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 189
  4. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-55. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1988. p. 210
  5. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-55. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1988. p. 326
  6. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-55. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1988. p. 29
  7. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-55. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1988. p. 238
  8. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-55. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1988. p. 29
  9. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-55. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1988. p. 5
  10. Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 64