symbolic ({| align="[[right]]" style="line-height:2.0em;text-align:right;margin-left: 10px;background-color:#fcfcfc;border:1px solid #aaa" | [[French]]: ''[[symbolique) ]]''|}
The term 'symbolic' appears in adjectival form in Lacan's earliest psychoanalytic writings (e.g. Lacan, 1936). In these early works the term implies references to symbolic logic and to the equations used in mathematical physics (Ec, 79). In 1948 symptoms are said to have a 'symbolic meaning' (E, 10). By 1950, the term has acquired anthropological overtones, as when Lacan praises Marcel Mauss for having shown that 'the structures of society are symbolic' (Ec, 132).
These different nuances are combined into a single category in 1953 when Lacan begins to use the term 'symbolic' as a noun. 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' (E, 72). In speaking of 'the symbolic function', Lacan makes it clear that his concept of the symbolic order owes much to the anthropological work of Claude LÈvi-Strauss (from whom the phrase 'symbolic function' is taken; see LÈvi-Strauss, 1949a: 203). In particular, Lacan takes from LÈvi-Strauss the idea that the social world is structured by certain laws which regulate kinship relations and the exchange of gifts (see also Mauss, 1923). The concept of the gift, and that of a circuit of exchange, are thus fundamental to Lacan's concept of the symbolic (S4, 153-4, 182).
Since the most basic form of exchange is communication itself (the exchange of words, the gift of speech; S4, 189), 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.
HoweverIn [[Lacan]]ian [[psychoanalysis]], Lacan does not simply equate the "[[symbolic ]]" is one of [[three]] [[order with language.On the contrary, language involves imaginary and real dimensions in addition to its symbolic dimension. The symbolic dimension of language is ]]s that of the SIGNIFIER; a dimension in which elements have no positive [[structure]] [[human]] [[existence but which are constituted purely by virtue of their mutual differences.The symbolic is also the realm of radical alterity which Lacan refers to asthe OTHER. The UNCONSClOUs is the discourse of this Other]], and thus belongswholly to the symbolic order. The symbolic is the realm of the Law whichregulates desire in the Oedipus complex. It is the realm of culture as opposedto the imaginary order of nature. Whereas [[others]] [[being]] the [[imaginary is characterised bydual relations, the symbolic is characterised by triadic structures, because the intersubjective relationship is always 'mediated' by a third term, the big Other.The symbolic order is also the realm of DEATH, Of ABSENCE ]] and of LACK. Thesymbolic is both the PLEASURE PRINCIPLE which regulates the distance from theThing, and the DEATH DRIVE which goes 'beyond the pleasure principle' bymeans of repetition (S2, 210); in fact, 'the death drive is only the mask of thesymbolic order' (S2, 326)[[real]].
==History==The term "[[symbolic]]" appears in adjectival [[form]] in Lacan's earliest [[psychoanalytic]] writings. The adjectival "[[symbolic order ]]" is completely autonomous: it is not often used by [[Lacan]] in a superstructuredetermined by biology or genetics. It is completely contingent with respect fairly conventional [[sense]], but in the 1950s he begins touse the [[word]] as a substantive, and it rapidly becomes the realcornerstone of his [[theory]]: the [[subject]]'There s [[relationship]] with the [[symbolic]] is no biological reason, and in particular no genetic the heart of [[psychoanalysis]]. It now becomes one, toaccount for exogamy. In of the human order we are dealing with three [[orders]] that remain central throughout the completeemergence rest of a new function, encompassing the whole order in its entiretyLacan'(S2s [[work]]. Of these three orders, 29). Thus while the symbolic may seem to 'spring from is the real' as pre-given, this is an illusion, and 'most crucial one shouldnfor psychoanalysis; [[psychoanalysts]] are essentially 't think that symbols actually havecome from practitioners of the realsymbolic function' (S2, 238).<ref>{{E}} p. 72</ref>
The totalising, all==Structuralism==Lacan incorporates into [[psychoanalysis]] the [[linguistics]] of [[Saussure]] and the [[anthropology]] of [[Lévi-encompassing effect Strauss]]. [[Lacan]]'s [[concept]] of the [[symbolic|symbolic order leads Lacan ]] owes much tospeak the anthropological work of the symbolic as a universe[[Claude Lévi-Strauss]].<ref>[[Claude Lévi-Strauss|Lévi-Strauss, Claude]]. 1949a: '203</ref> In [[particular]], [[Lacan]] takes from [[Claude Lévi-Strauss|Lévi-Strauss]] the symbolic order [[idea]] that the totality [[social]] [[world]] is calleda universe[[structured]] by certain [[law]]s which regulate kinship relations and the [[exchange]] of gifts. The symbolic order from the first takes In his work on its universal character. Itisn't constituted bit by bit. As soon kinship [[Lévi-Strauss]] argues that any culture can be seen as the symbol arrives, there is a universe set ofsymbols' (S2[[symbolic]] [[structure]]s such as the rules governing kinship and alliance, 29)[[language]] and [[art]]. There is therefore no question He also demonstrates that in [[primitive]] societies the [[ritual]] exchange of a gradual continuoustransition from gifts has an important [[role]] in the imaginary to the symbolic; they are completely hetero-geneous domainscreation and perpetuation of social [[stability]]. Once the symbolic order has arisen, it creates The application of [[Saussure]]'s theory of the sense thatit has always been there, since 'we find it absolutely impossible [[sign]] allows these structures and exchanges to speculate onwhat preceded it other than by symbols' (S2, 5)be [[analyzed]] as exchanges of [[signifier]]s. For this reason it is strictlyspeaking impossible to conceive the origin The emergence of language, let alone what camebefore, which [[symbolic]] [[structure]]s is why questions an essential feature of development lie outside the field of psycho-analysishuman transition from [[nature]] to [[culture]].
Lacan criticises ==Culture==Adapting [[Lévi-Strauss]]'s study of how kinship rules and exogamy govern exchanges between human groups to the field of [[psychoanalysis of his day for forgetting ]], [[Lacan]] now describes the [[Oedipus complex]] as a [[process]] which imposes [[symbolicorder ]] [[structure]]s on [[sexuality]] and reducing everything allows the [[subject]] to the imaginaryemerge. This [[Pre-oedipal|Pre-oedipal sexuality]] is, for Lacan, nothing lessthan likened to a betrayal [[state]] of Freud's most basic insights[[nature]] and unbridled sexuality; 'Freud's discovery is that the role of thefield [[Name-of -the-Father]] is to disrupt the [[dual relation]]ship in which the [[child]] tries to fuse with the effects[[mother]] in an incestuous union, and to establish a legitimate line of descent ("son of...", in "daughter of..."). [[Culture]] and the [[symbolic]] are thuse imposed upon [[nature of man]]. The [[subject]] gains access to the [[symbolic]], produced by his relation to a [[name]] and a lineage, but does so at thecost of a [[symbolic|symbolic ordercastration]]. To ignore this Although the exchange of [[signifier]]s in [[speech]] is an obvious example of [[symbolic|symbolic exchange]], [[Lacan]]'s [[symbolic order ]] is condemn not simply synonymous with [[language]], and should be [[understood]] as comprising the discovery tooblivion' (E, 64)entire [[domain]] of [[culture]].
Lacan argues that it ==Language==Since the most basic form of exchange is only by working in [[communication]] itself (the exchange of [[words]], the symbolic order that [[gift]] of [[speech]]);<ref>{{S4}} p. 189</ref> and since the analystcan produce changes in [[concepts]] of [[law]] and of [[structure]] are unthinkable without [[language]], the subjective position [[symbolic]] is essentially a [[linguistic]] [[dimension]]. Any aspect of the analysand; these changeswill also produce imaginary effects, since psychoanalytic [[experience]] which has a [[linguistic]] [[structure]] thus pertains to the imaginary [[symbolic order]]. The [[symbolic]] dimension of [[language]] is structured by that of theSIGNIFIER[[signifier]]; a dimension in which elements have no positive [[existence ]] but whichare constituted purely by virtue of their mutual differences.
==Alterity==The [[symbolic ]] is also the realm of radical [[alterity ]] which [[Lacan ]] refers to asthe OTHER[[Other]]. The UNCONSClOUs [[unconscious]] is the [[discourse ]] of this [[Other]], and thus belongswholly to the [[symbolic order]]. The [[symbolic ]] is the realm of the [[Law ]] whichregulates [[desire ]] in the [[Oedipus complex]]. It is the realm of [[culture ]] as opposedto the [[imaginary ]] [[order ]] of [[nature]]. Whereas the [[imaginary ]] is characterised by[[dual relationsrelation]]s, the [[symbolic ]] is characterised by triadic [[triad]]ic [[structures]], because the[[intersubjective ]] relationship is always '"mediated' " by a [[third ]] term, the [[big Other.The symbolic order is also the realm of DEATH, Of ABSENCE and of LACK. Thesymbolic is both the PLEASURE PRINCIPLE which regulates the distance from theThing, and the DEATH DRIVE which goes 'beyond the pleasure principle' bymeans of repetition (S2, 210); in fact, 'the death drive is only the mask of thesymbolic order' (S2, 326)]].
==Death==The [[symbolic order ]] is completely autonomous: it is not a superstructure determined by biology or geneticsalso the realm of [[death]], of [[absence]] and of [[lack]]. It The [[symbolic]] is completely contingent with respect to both the [[pleasure principle]] which regulates the real: 'There is no biological reasondistance 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 particular no genetic onefact, to account for exogamy. In "the human order we are dealing with [[death drive]] is only the complete emergence mask of a new function, encompassing the whole [[symbolic order in its entirety' (S2, 29)]]. 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, 238)}} 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 ]]tothe [[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]].
speak ==Psychoanalysis==[[Lacan]] criticises the [[psychoanalysis]] of his day for [[forgetting]] the [[symbolic as order]] and reducing everything to the [[imaginary]]. This is, for [[Lacan]], [[nothing]] less than a universe: [[betrayal]] of [[Freud]]'In 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 totality discovery to oblivion."<ref>{{E}} p. 64</ref> [[Lacan]] argues that it is calledonly 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]].
a universe. The symbolic order from the first takes on its universal character. It
isn't constituted bit by bit. As soon as ==See Also=={{See}}* [[Communication]]* [[Death drive]]* [[Imaginary]]||* [[Language]]* [[Law]]* [[Linguistics]]||* [[Name-of-the symbol arrives, there is a universe of-Father]]* [[Oedipus complex]]* [[Other]]||* [[Order]]* [[Real]]* [[Signifier]]||* [[Structure]]* [[Unconscious]]{{Also}}
symbols' (S2, 29). There is therefore no question of a gradual continuous==References==<div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small"><references/></div>
transition from the imaginary to the symbolic; they are completely hetero-{{OK}}[[Category:Symbolic]]
geneous 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' (S2, 5). 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 psycho- analysis. 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 condemn the discovery to oblivion' (E, 64). 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 == def == The social world of linguistic communication, intersubjective relations, knowledge of ideological conventions, and the acceptance of the law (also called the "big Other"). Once a child enters into language and accepts the rules and dictates of society, it is able to deal with others. The acceptance of language's rules is aligned with the Oedipus complex, according to Lacan. The symbolic is made possible because of your acceptance of the Name-of-the-Father, those laws and restrictions that control both your desire and the rules of communication. Through recognition of the Name-of-the-Father, you are able to enter into a community of others. The symbolic, through language, is "the pact which links... subjects together in one action. The human action par excellence is originally founded on the existence of the world of the symbol, namely on laws and contracts" (Freud's Papers 230). The symbolic order works in tension with the imaginary order and the Real. It is closely bound up with the superego and the phallus. See the Lacan module on the structure of the psyche. == def ==In Jacques Lacan's theory of psychic structures, '''the Symbolic''' refers to the realm of language into which the child enters under the impetus of [[the Name of the Father]]. The child's world, which has already been transformed by [[the Imaginary]] spatial identifications of the [[Mirror Stage]], now becomes bound up in [[signifying chain]]s linked to a [[master signifier]]. Some leftover of [[the Real]] remains, however, unexpressed in language, and resists integration into the Symbolic. [[Category:Lacan]][[Category:Terms]][[Category:Concepts]][[Category:Psychoanalysis]]__NOTOC__
