In the Mirror Stage as Formative, Lacan believes that during our infant stage. We shape our own images based on a mirror and how we perceive ourselves as. What Lacan dives into is a belief I strongly believe. Staring myself in a mirror can shape my mood for the day. When I see myself looking fine and fresh, my personality is more expressive and courageous.

Even when I was a child, watching powerful heroes in movies, if I look in the mirror, I can picture myself wanting to be that person. Lacan mentions “The fact is that the total form of the body by which the subject anticipates in a mirage the maturation of his power is given to him only as Gestalt, that is to say, in an exteriority in which this form is certain more constituent than constituted”(1165).

My interpretation is that we illude ourselves into being that person or wanting to be that person. A perfect example is a child wanting to believe that he/she has absolute power and can demand their parents for their desires. Many infants when they begin to realize their surroundings, begin to experience many things that satisfy their wants/needs. As they begin to take in, they want more and more. Candy, toys, and other wants. They begin to shape this dominant attitude/personality and begin to believe that their world revolves around them.

Lacan perfectly describes this, “The mirror stage is a drama whose internal thrust is precipitated from insufficiency to anticipation – and which manufactures for the subject, caught up in the lure of spatial identification”(1166). Our self-images are formed based on what we’re lacking and we end up forming these attitudes based on our ego.

Our ego plays a major role in our self-made images. We get defensive about things that manage to break through our ego and we begin to act more cautious. Especially when children feel insulted at such a young age, they begin to become more distant and lean away from their parents, siblings, and friends. As I’ve witnessed an “ex-friend”, when a harmless joke was made (even though it had nothing to do with him) he would act quietly and not say much. This is a normal reaction as if everyone knew what he was hiding even though we didn’t. It’s as if he was preparing to attack when an intruder has breached through his defenses.

Lacan presents us with, “Similarly, on the mental plane, we find realized the structures of fortified works, the metaphor of which arises spontaneously, as if issuing from the symptoms themselves, to designate the mechanism of obsessional neurosis – inversion, isolation, reduplication, cancellation and displacement” (1167).

Lacan’s belief regarding the self-made images we based on in a mirror has impacted the way we see and begin to see ourselves. I’ve realized how we became what we are today and where did it all originate. Or at least one of the reasons that could’ve influenced us to become what we are and why do we behave in certain ways.

In “The Interpretation of Dreams” Sigmund Freud proposed a new way of studying dreams. He believes they hold more significance than most people believed. In the beginning, he explains the Oedipus complex to support his theory. The Oedipus complex believes that naturally, humans project their first sexual desires upon their mother and their first feelings of hatred and murderous instincts onto their father. Oedipus tries to run from his fate but ends up doing exactly what he tried so hard not to unintentionally. Many people praise the work for its themes that “supreme will of the gods and the vain attempts of mankind to escape the evil that threatens them.” but Freud proposed that it is the myths’ relatable content and its ability to recognize our own inner minds and see the fulfillment of our childhood wishes that draws so many to the myth over those that have similar themes of fate v. humanity.

Freud believes that the story has such great ability to resonate with the true nature of many people because it centers on two “typical dreams” at its core. Freud believes art / this story “ sprang from some primeval dream-material which had as its content the distressing disturbance of a child’s relation to his parents owing to the first stirrings of sexuality.”

In the section “ The Work of Condensation” he explains the difference in the “length” of dream-content and dream-thoughts if they were both being written down. He believes the actual content of the dream may be “quick” or have little the describe, but has a lot of significant meaning to draw out of it nonetheless.

In to me the most interesting part of the piece, “The Means of Representation in Dreams” Freud talks about the concept that “For the most part dreams disregard all these conjunctions, and it is only the substantive content of the dream-thoughts that they take over and manipulate.” He proposes that sometimes dreams are unable to represent logical relations but instead use a combination of pictures to illustrate a dream-wish. These are not always very clear to us or logical but they represent and “form a group in the conceptual sense.” He also helps us frame clarity under confusing and contradicting aspects of dreams. For example, he talks about how the use of the word “or” when describing a dream is inaccurate and is most likely an “and”. He says “In such cases, the rule for interpretation is: treat the two apparent alternatives as of equal validity and link them together with an ‘and’.”

Oftentimes, one believes the idea of not being awake or aware of your surroundings is to be unconscious. But how would one know what exactly being unconscious is like if it is to be unaware of whatever is going on? Francoise Meltzer looks into this question in their essay “Unconscious” while looking into psychoanalysts Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan’s own definitions of unconsciousness. After reading Meltzer one can conclude that the term “unconscious” will always be up for debate on its meaning. In the end, unconsciousness is never something humans can really know or define, as it is part of the unknown.

One of the ideas of unconsciousness that is brought up is by Freud and Lacan. Freud, who is said to have really begun the conversation on unconsciousness, defines it as feelings or thoughts that we are unaware of, yet continue to influence the way we live life. Freud believed that although we are not fully aware of these unconscious thoughts, they influence us from behind. In other words, the unconscious is just as important as the conscious. For instance, Meltzer expands on how Freud believed the unconscious worked, and it would leak into our conscious. Meltzer states:

The major activity that characterizes the dynamic model is repression: the unconscious “contains” wishes and even information of which the Subject is unaware and which his “censor” (like the sentry at the door of the sitting room) strains to keep from the Subject’s consciousness) Occasionally (like water exerting pressure against a weak wall) some of this unconscious energy will leak through the “repression barrier” and thrust its way into consciousness. But unsconscious thoughts will always manifest themselves obliquely in consciousness…(Meltzer 151).

For Freud, in order for there to be conscious, there had to be the unconscious. Sometimes we will be unaware of what we are feeling or thinking and will just act impulsively. Many may wonder and think back to a time when this may have happened, but it will be quite impossible to remember. Again, unconsciousness is something we are meant to be unaware of, so how exactly would we be able to know this. A possible example of it may be when someone is jealous in a certain situation. Although they may realize after, at that moment they may act out of jealousy but be unaware of it until after time passes. These feelings of unconsciousness are “repressed” according to Freud because of how little we know of them. The less we know, the less present they seem to be.

Lacan takes part of Freud’s unconscious ideas and part of Saussure’s linguistics theory in order to combine them and form his own unconscious definition. Lacan believed that unconscious thoughts went hand in hand with those in consciousness. For Lacan everything seemed to be a sign of some sort, as Saussure thought. Yet Lacan argued that unconsciousness what the superior state, rather than consciousness. As Meltzer explains:

In the situation just described, the term “consciousness” can easily replace that of “master”; and that of “unconscious” can stanf in for “slave”. Consciousness in other words, appears to be the master of the psyche: it is that which is recognized and which seems to determine psychic activity. … The unconscious, further, will produce the materials which allow for the very existence and shape of consciousness…Without the material “goods” supplied to consciousness by the unconscious, the first has nothing by which–or with which — to function (Meltzer 158).

Lacan seemed to analyze the unconscious the way Saussure identified the signifier and signified. Both went together, and without one of them, the other would hold no purpose. While the unconscious is repressed and “not thought of” it is what produces our feelings in the background. The unconscious creates the feelings we often wish to repress or hide yet eventually come out through our consciousness.

Regardless, the real definition and theory of unconsciousness will never be able to be found. From what we know, the unconscious is an idea, something we accept. It is a made-up concept that humans have accepted and not questioned its existence but rather questioned the meaning.

In Freud’s piece “From The Interpretation of Dreams” he talks about how important dreams are to understanding humans and how they are formed. He mentions how these dreams are often just a representation of something that is happened to us in our life. It’s just that even though these dreams speak to a deeper part of our psyche they cannot be taken at face value most of the time. The reason for this being that most of  these dreams that we have are often metaphors for something else. This is why some dreams that we have can seem absolutely nonsensical and incredibly strange when looked at when awake. Why are our dreams so weird and confusing? Well, Freud says it’s because our minds have the Ego which would be our conscious and the Id which would be our subconscious. Most of our dreams are primarily focused on exploring the feelings that are felt through our Id but our Ego often can’t handle the truths which are revealed through the Id and so our brain encodes them. This is the reason dreams can be so particularly so nonsensical and confusing. Freud calls the hidden meaning behind these dreams the latent aspect of them while the dreams themselves are the manifest aspect. He also talks about how we need conjunctions in order to be able to prescribe a meaning to our dreams since without these conjunctions he says “our answer must be that dreams have no means at their disposal for representing these logical relations between the dream-thoughts”(Freud, pg.821). Meaning that without conjunctions or the proper interpretation of dreams, the dreams in of themselves become absolutely meaningless. Now this brings me to an interesting question which I would like to pose about Freud’s argument. Would Lucid Dreaming still be an exploration of the Id, since people now have influence over the dream or would it be our Ego taking control over our dreams?

Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility” discusses the way work has been reproduced all throughout time. In modern day society, we see the advancements of technology that allow this process to be easier. This has been seen in lithography then photography, both allowing pictures to be captured seamlessly. However, Benjamin talks about an important aspect that is missing in both these functions: its unique existence in a particular place (1053). Connected to this idea is authenticity. He says that a work that is authentic has authority that reproduced works lack. The “aura” Benjamin comes up with is the concept of a piece being unique and present. He writes that it is defined as “the unique apparition of a distance, however near it may be.” (1055). This is what makes us want to reproduce it, because we are so captivated by it. Tied to the uniqueness is the traditional path of the work. Benjamin is saying that by reproducing these works, the aura diminishes. A work that is reproduced cannot be neither unique or present. He is arguing against technological reproduction because it does not live up to the original. For example, masterpieces of art are now accessible to the public through different means. This takes away the value from the original piece because it can be found anywhere by by viewing it on a poster, a phone, or a computer, making the aura that Benjamin talks about, non-existent. Another example is classic works of literature. While before it would have been hard to get to read a novel, mass printing has allowed the art of literature to reach everyone. That said, while the contents inside are the same, the story does not change, and neither does the author, it does not have the authenticity or the value of the first work. It is not as imperfect or present. Reproductions are screenshots of time multiplied over and over. This idea of “aura” is less prevalent in modernity because of all the advancements continually happening. Benjamin talks about film and how shooting a scene now involves an entire crew, lighting, music, and several takes. He calls it “superficial” (1063). The theatre does not allow for mistakes. They do not get to capture the perfect shot or have an editor put together the perfect sequence. Theatre is live and as authentic as it could possibly be. The aura is alive with it. The show is happening in a unique time that will never reoccur. This explains a lot about modern day society. Most things are reproductions. Movies are filtered to perfection, books are printed over and over, and the devices we use to view things are inauthentically capturing them. They do not do the originals justice. Both social and cultural contexts lead the dissolution of Benjamin’s “aura”. 

In his essay, “From Work to Text”, Roland Barthes explains that a text is not a book or the way ideas are shown to us. He says that they are the ideas themselves. Therefore, we should not view it as “an object that can be computed” (1327).  This is why we do not care much about the way these ideas are presented because they do not end at the physical copies of them. This means that the text cannot be fixed into different categories with limitation either. Barthes proceeds to refer to the text as a “methodological field” (1327).  He says that if a text is challenging to classify, it is because it is always paradoxical. It is also plural, as in several meanings, and plural in its signifiers. It is infinite. A work is compact as a commodity. A classic novel is a work (it’s contained as a discreet experience) you are expecting something from it. You paid for elevated good language, characters who infuse daily life with adventure, heroism, etc. Unlike the text, a work can be contained because of the meanings hidden between the lines and the metaphors the author chooses to use. Barthes suggests that all works are in a process of filiation where one work is related to another in some way while arguing the text is separate from everything else (1329). The text has no owner while the work is labeled as “imaginary tale of the text” (1327). The work allows for a connection between the person writing it and the piece itself. Since texts are thought of as authors borrowing from each other, it’s a node in an infinitely textured web. Even Shakespeare, for example, is a node in a much broader context. For Barthes, reading a text is more democratic because each reading of the it provides something new. This is why the difference between the two is significant. Barthes finally explains that that the text is connected to pleasure. One can reread their favorite works countless times but they cannot rewrite what has already been written. This relates to his idea that a text cannot be confined. Language continued to circulate, as he says, because of language relations (1331). It is endless like the shelves at a library. When it comes to meaning, the work has both the literal meaning and the subtler one for the reader to discover. Additionally, Barthes calls a work “an object of consumption” and that the quality is what sets it apart from other works. To sum it it all up, a text is essentially a small smart part of the whole that is the complete work. The text brings jouisssance (pleasure) and the work is a full, definite and concrete piece. 

Saussure’s “Course in General Linguistics” touches on the characteristics of language and the workings of it. He defines it as the “heterogenous mass of speech facts”. What we hear allows us to create an image in ours heads for what we see and it exists because we all (members of society) agreed to it (850). It can be studied thoroughly and we can create spaces in our brain to put the signs in. Saussure calls it a “a system if signs” that we then use to create those ideas, symbols, and signals. Concepts do not stand alone and mean something without us deciding it. He chooses to compare language to a sheet of paper as an analogy. Thought and sound are linked together like the front and back piece of a paper. By cutting one side, both parts end up torn. He says that language works in a smilier fashion. A sound of the word gets us to think about the ideas behind it, and vice versa. However, thought without sounds and sound without thought could not exist on its own (857). Saussure comes up with the signifier and the signified concept. The signifier is the direct object while the signified is the idea of it. For example, a tree has no natural meaning to it but when we as a society decide it will mean a plant with a trunk and branches. Thus, “tree” is the signifier and the large plant made of wood and branches is the signified. He mentions that sometimes, the value of the object tends to be confused with the signification. Once more, he uses the analogy of the two sheets of paper. If it is cut into two, there is clear difference than if it were cut into several pieces with the relation between the front and back pieces (858). He says that to resolve the issue of value, there must be a dissimilar thing- something than can be exchanged for what the value is and a similar thing that can be compared with that the thing the value is being determined (858). The value is not something that is permanent or set in stone because of it exchangeability. The biggest point he is making in this essay is that language evolves through the changes we as a society make. He describes words as being arbitrary with no fixed order. He states, “it is by purely arbitrary act that the grammarian groups them in one way than in another.” (866). 

The central point in Nietzsche’s argument is that words themselves do not carry meaning outside of the ones we have assigned it. Language is arbitrary, it is letters put together creating, sound. Nietzsche describes it as, “the copy of a nervous stimulation in sounds.” (766). In the same way we created language, we create truths and lies. We decide whether something is honest and whether it it deceptive. He explains that truth comes from metaphors and this comes from illusions. Both of which have become overused to the point where it it is no longer as valuable. He uses this to say our language, concepts, morals are subjective and exist because we created them. We see an object, pick a name for it, and put it in a mental category with others that are similar to it. The ones that do not fit the box we have created are deceptive. They are only considered as such because that is what we have decided. It is all subjective. He says that people have “a divided firmament of concepts above them”, making us architectural geniuses (769). We as humans are creating from something we must make ourselves. It is a man-made society. Nietzche uses the the example of a camel to showcase this idea of creating. If he makes up a definition for the word mammal and decides that a camel is a mammal, then that is a truth. The definition he has chosen works in accordance with the name he assigned. However, the name is not concrete or existing outside of the world he gave it. The animal he named a camel is such because he decided it. Otherwise, it remains nameless. We create images for sounds called words. If we think of a rock, for example, Nietzsche might argue that the name is subjective. We come up with a definition of what a rock is an upon seeing the object, we name it as such. We give it meaning. Thus, in our heads, we have this concepts or a rock being a solid mineral, as something rough, big or small. Then, the word “rock” sounds like what it is. It’s rough and the letters put together create the sound of what we named it. We link the concept to the word. The actual rock, in and of itself is meaningless. It is not a truth or a lie, it is just there until we choose to acknowledge it.