Daily Archives

2 Articles

Uncategorized

Lacan’s “four orders”

Posted by Jeff Allred (he/him/his) on

To help us contextualize the “mirror stage” essay, which narrates the formation of the ego and the advent of the “imaginary” in psychological life, check out this diagram:

This “knot” helps us see a few important things at once:

  • there are three zones that constitute the subject:
    • the Real is roughly equivalent to the Freudian “id”: it is “unsayable” and not representable in any direct way; the infant is all “Real,” in what appears to fully-developed subjects as a chaotic space, one that Kristeva describes for us as the “chora” and which Williams James once described as a “booming, buzzing confusion”
    • the Imaginary is dominated by preverbal signs, images that are tightly bound to the figure of the mother and the desires that attach to her
    • the Symbolic is the familiar world of Saussurean “structure”: we enter the symbolic by acquiring language, and we acquire language because the “father” forbids untrammeled access to the mother to meet all our needs. For “father” we can substitute widely: God, ideology, language, morality, all the “centers” in Derrida’s sense that govern the structures we live in. We speak language with some agency, but we don’t choose the “langue”: to speak is to be a “subject” in Althusser’s sense of the linguistic order. A subject, in order to meet their desires/needs, must channel them through this structure, with all the limitations and frustrations and repressions this entails.
  • These zones are only separate in theory: we don’t leave the Imaginary and Real behind when we enter the Symbolic as we acquire language. Thus the overlapping areas, which I won’t get into in any detail. But when we identify with the protagonist in a movie or respond to the seductive voice of a singer or fly into a rage at a partner’s odd habits for reasons we don’t understand, these reactions stem from these overlapping spaces. So, a Freudian slip overlaps symbolic/Real; weeping in the movies overlaps the Imaginary/Symbolic; a “symptom” in which the body is “speaking” through us (let’s say a compulsion to count to seven every time we cross train tracks) represents the crossroads of all three zones “talking at once.”
Uncategorized

Psychoanalysis in the wild!!

Posted by Jeff Allred (he/him/his) on

Lest you think I’ve gone mad with all this talk of the penis/phallus, castration anxiety, fetishism, infantile development, and failed sight gags with piles of notecards, rest assured that psychoanalytic theory is alive and well and animates some of the most vivid cultural criticism in academic as well as semi- and nonacademic circles. This piece from Avidly, a fantastic blog hosted by the (also superb) LA Review of Books, notes the omnipresence of hypermasculine sexual bragging in the age of Trump and examines what author Brian Connolly calls the confusion of the penis with the phallus within that discourse. He reads this dynamic, not through Trump, but through the DJ Khaled-produced hiphop ensemble hit, “I’m the One,” and leverages this track into a much broader argument about masculine fascination with asserting one’s self as a unity (cf. Lacan on the mirror stage) that is impossible, and with the “melancholy” that creeps in as the quest to be self-present, perfectly potent, alone on the top, fails.

It’s a fantastic, fun riff that will teach you a lot about psychoanalysis, point in a lot of theoretical directions we won’t have time to explore together, and provide food for thought about the deep currents of our current political discourse, which often washes over us in a very forgettable and ungraspable way.

Skip to toolbar