To Jacques Lacan, the tenets of Freudian psychoanalysis are merely stepping stones for further analysis. Lacan took Freud’ psychoanalysis and looked at it through a different set of eyes. Using a Structuralist frame of mind, Lacan took the psychoanalytic theory to a new level of thought. We see the Structuralist thought through the idea that there is no signified, but only a signifier which, in turn, is defined by another signifier and another signifier, and so on and so forth. According to Lacan, our world, our truth, is restricted by language, meaning we only understand a word from its use and relation to another word, or words. He explains this through trace and simulacrum of a presence. Simulacrum, in simplistic terms, is a copy that has no original – a representation of a representation or an idea of an idea. A primary example of a simulacrum would be a dollar. The dollar holds a false representation of value though it imitates the “real” subject of value. In short, the dollar, as a signifier, becomes privileged by the signifier, value. Value is the signifier, being represented by a dollar, but is also a signifier of worth, which could be then signified by the dollar. This also explains and exemplifies metonymy, or the “word-to-word connection.” We place a value on the dollar and therefore categorize what something is worth in dollars. He further explains this through the use of the term spectre. A spectre, or ghost, is a representation, or copy, of something that no longer exists. The living form that it represents is gone and no trace of the origin can be found. Through this process of metonymy we are able to create the illusion of meaning.
The illusion of meaning is a broad simulacrum of anything that is “real.” An example of this is if we were to look in the mirror and see ourselves, we would gain a meaning of ourselves but what we see would be a distorted representation of what others might see when they look at us. There is no fixed meaning because it changes with each new perspective. In this case, there is no stable self and we are not truly able to form a coherent self, but we constantly seek to subjugate ourselves and create meaning for ourselves. This realm that we create and that creates us by doing so is the Symbolic. The Symbolic is, in a sense, a cage of language that we are born into and are unable to exit, except through death. Without it, we are nothing; the Symbolic sphere gives us “meaning” and “value.” By taking the Symbolic and combining it with the Imaginary – image or ideal image, how we see ourselves and others – as well as the Real – that which cannot be represented at all – we create ourselves, we require all three in order to define ourselves.
The illusion of meaning is a broad simulacrum of anything that is “real.” An example of this is if we were to look in the mirror and see ourselves, we would gain a meaning of ourselves but what we see would be a distorted representation of what others might see when they look at us. There is no fixed meaning because it changes with each new perspective. In this case, there is no stable self and we are not truly able to form a coherent self, but we constantly seek to subjugate ourselves and create meaning for ourselves. This realm that we create and that creates us by doing so is the Symbolic. The Symbolic is, in a sense, a cage of language that we are born into and are unable to exit, except through death. Without it, we are nothing; the Symbolic sphere gives us “meaning” and “value.” By taking the Symbolic and combining it with the Imaginary – image or ideal image, how we see ourselves and others – as well as the Real – that which cannot be represented at all – we create ourselves, we require all three in order to define ourselves.
We use the Symbolic to provide ourselves with the subject of “I” and create meaning for ourselves and produce ego. We use the Imaginary in order to create an ideal image and create the illusion of stability of the Symbolic by making a seeing/thinking connection. We require the Real in order to create something unattainable, something that cannot be understood or controlled because it exists outside of the Symbolic. This void creates a lack of oneness or completeness in our sense of being, so naturally we strive to fill this void, to find a center or origin. We do this through the act of desire. Though, this is unattainable because within the Symbolic everything is unstable and constantly shifting and changing; as a result, our desire constantly changes and shifts with it. This brings truth to the saying, “the grass is always greener on the other side,” meaning that once something is obtained, it is quickly tossed aside for the next thing. This can also be tied back to the signifier-to-signifier relationship where we move from one word to the other in order to find the root or origin of the word and fill the desire to complete the understanding of the word. In a sense, theory is created from desire.
We use theory to gain a better understanding of something – whether it is language, reality, or meaning – we use theory to fill the lack of knowledge and understanding. The problem is theory, like anything within the Symbolic, is on a constant circular track where questions are answered with more questions rather than answers. This means that theory is purely Symbolic. Theory is also part of the desire process by bringing us closer to understanding what we lack, that which is the Real. In understanding that we lack the Real, we come to the realization that “true” identity is not attainable. We then find another way to temporarily fill the void by distracting ourselves from the lack of identity. The process we use for this is called the “death drive.” In the death drive we do not literally kill ourselves, but figuratively kill ourselves; meaning that we release ourselves from the conscious struggle to fill the void. This occurs only during an orgasm, which Lacan calls jouissance. During jouissance, we experience the Real without actually being within the Real. For that moment we experience “blindness” and “nothingness” where thought, desire, and the Symbolic are lost for a moment. The Real exists outside of the Symbolic, and if the Symbolic is what creates meaning or an illusion of meaning for everything, then the Real, in essence, is nothing.
A wonderful analysis of the death drive is shown in a scene of David O’ Russell’s film I ♥ Huckabees. We can see in this scene that the “ball thing” or “pure being,” is exactly what the death drive is trying to achieve: an existence where nothing matters, just to exist outside the Symbolic, without language. “Its like I’m a rock, or a dish of mold. I’m whatever else is around, so I’m free to just exist.” In this scene, the process of “pure being” represents jouissance, or the orgasm; a state when we are able to experience nothingness. During this experience we are taken out of the Symbolic, something we are always trying to attain. However, the character Caterine Vauban, a French philosopher states, “You cannot stay in this state all day…It is inevitable that you are drawn back into human drama, desire and suffering; everything that exists in this imperfect world.” We will forever want what we do not have, exactly as Lacan states in his theory. “Existence is a cruel joke that entices in a form of desire.”
This leads us to the idea of sexual identity, which is impossible to obtain. You cannot identify through sexual acts or sex because they subdue the desire to fill the void by momentarily relieving the subject of the Symbolic and bringing the subject to a brief state of “nothingness” which is a glimpse of the Real. The identity of a subject is impossible to truly obtain because we are constantly “becoming” something but never are able to truly become something. The search for identity moves away from the idea of the “nothingness” state by striving to seek a logical answer to fill the void. This path then leads back to the death drive. This meaning that sexual identity, like anything else within the Symbolic, is another continuous cycle.
This leads us to the idea of sexual identity, which is impossible to obtain. You cannot identify through sexual acts or sex because they subdue the desire to fill the void by momentarily relieving the subject of the Symbolic and bringing the subject to a brief state of “nothingness” which is a glimpse of the Real. The identity of a subject is impossible to truly obtain because we are constantly “becoming” something but never are able to truly become something. The search for identity moves away from the idea of the “nothingness” state by striving to seek a logical answer to fill the void. This path then leads back to the death drive. This meaning that sexual identity, like anything else within the Symbolic, is another continuous cycle.
I really enjoyed reading your post and like your description of simulacrum using the dollar as an example. It helped better my understanding of the term by explaining that the dollar holds false representation though it imitates value. Similarly the spectre is another form of representation, and together the terms create an illusion of meaning. Both terms reminded me of the mimetic perspective, another form of copy that explains language as a transparent medium that represents reality. I also enjoyed your explanation of the Symbolic, especially in comparison with the Imaginary and the Real, and how all three components are factors in defining ourselves. Breaking down these three factors helped further clarify my understanding of the diagram we created in class and the differences between them. The connection between desire and the signifier relationship is a good way of demonstrating language as meaning and how theory created from desire. Furthermore, I liked how you explained sexual identity and the inability to define oneself through such acts. Relating sexual identity to the Symbolic in the sense that it is a constant cycle was a good way to conclude and make clear the impossible nature of identifying oneself.
ReplyDelete-Kerin