introduction of the big other [excerpt]

7/29/2019 Introduction of the Big Other [Excerpt]

1/8

4

\

(4

54

2 34 The ego in Freud's theory and in the technique of psychoanalysissaying it, and entering into the order of the calculus ofprobabilities. Wit isonlywit because it is close enou gh to our existence to cancel it with laughter. Thephenomena of the dream, of the psychopathology ofeveryday life, of the jokeare to be found in this zone.

You must read Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious. Freud's rigour isstupefying, but he doesn't quite give the last word, namely that everythingrelating to wit takes place on the vacillating level ofspeech. If it weren't there,nothing would exist.Take the silliest story, the man in a bakery, whopretends he's got nothing topay for - he held out his hand and asked for a cake, he gives the cake back andasks for a glass ofliqueur, drinks it, he's asked to pay for the glass ofliqueur andhe replies - But / gave you th e cake inexchangefo r it. - But youhaven't paid for thecake either - But 1hadn't eaten it.10 There was an exchange. Rut how did theexchange begin? At some point, something must have entered the circle ofexchange. So the exchange must have already been set up. That is to say thaiwhen ail is said anddone, one is always left paying for the small glass of liqueurwith a cake one hasn't paid for.The absolutely sublime marriage-broker stories are also funny for the samereason. 'The on e you introduced me toha s anunbearable mother.' - 'Listen, you'remarrying he daughter, not the. mother.'~ 'But she isn't exactly pretty, nora springchicken.' - 'Shellbe all he more faithful for it.' - 'But she hasn't got much money .'-'You can't expect everything.'1'1 And so on. The conjoiner. the marriage-broker,conjoins on a completely different plane than that of reality, since the planeofan engagement, of love, has nothing to do with reality. By definition, themarriage-broker, paid to deceive, can never fall into crass realities.Desire always becomes manifest at the joint of speech, where it makes itsappearance, its sudden emergence, itssurge forwards. Desire emerges just as itbecomes embodied in speech, it emerges with symbolism.To be sure, symbolism links up a certain number of these natural signs,ofthese loci, which captivate the human being. There is even the beginningsofsymbolism in the instinctual capture of one animal by another. But that isn'twhat constitutes symbolism, it's the symbolising Merken which make whatdoesn't exist exist. You mark the six sides of a die. you roll the die - from thisrolling die emerges desire. 1 am not saying human desire, for, after ail. the manwho plays with the die is captive to the desire thus put into play. Hedoesn'tknow the origin of his desire, as it rolls with the symhol written on its six sides.Why is it only man who plays dice? Why don't the planets speak?Questions I'll leave open for today.

18 May 2 955111 1 1 9 0 5 c ) GW VI 63 ; Stud IV 59: SE VIII 60 .11 Ibid. GVV VI 64: S tu d IV 60; SE VIII 61 .

XIXIntroduct ion of the big Other

WHY THE PLANETS-DO NOT SPEAKP OS T-ANALYTIC P ARANOIA

THE Z-SHAPED SCHEMATHE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL OP LANGUAGEIM AGINARY R E-M EM BER N G AND SYMBOLIC RECOGNITION

WHY ONE TRAINS ANALYSTS

Last time, I left you with a somewhat strange question, but one which camedirectly out of what I was saying to you - why don't the planets speak?

We aren't at all like planets, that's som ething we can have a sense of wheneverwe want, but that doesn't prevent us from forgetting it. We always have atendency to reason about men as if they were moons, calculating their masses,their grav itation.

That isn't an illusion peculiar to us, us scientists [sawfflts] - it is quiteespecially tempting for politicians.I am thinking of a work which has been forgotten, though it wasn' t thatunreadable, because itprobably wasn't written by the author whosigned i t-i thad the title Mein Kampf. Well, in this work by the said Hitier, which has lost agreat deal of its topicality, relations between men are spoken of as being likerelations between moons. And there's always the temptation to construct apsychology and a psychoanalysis ofmoons, whereas all you need do to see thedifference is refer directly to experience.For instance, [ am rarely altogether happy. Last time, Iwasn' t at ail happy,no doubt because I tried to tly too high - I wouldn't have engaged in all thatflapping of wings if everything had been well prepared. However, several kindpeople, those who accompany me to the door, told me that everybody washappy. Rather an exaggeration of the position. I imagine. No matter, that'swhat I was told. Moreover, at the time I wasn't convinced. Hut why not! So Isaid to myself- if the others arehappy, that's themain thing. That's where I amdifferent from a planet.

1 'remembremem', which does not have connotations ofmemory InFrench, and, in fact, is oftentranslated as ' regrouping': thepassage in the Seminar being referred todiscusses the reaggregationif the limbs |cf. 'dismembering'!.

2 3 5


2/8

236 ! ' i e e8 >n Freud's theory and in the technique of psychoanalysisIt i.sn't simply that I said that to myself, but tha t it is true - if you're happy,tha t's the m ost importa nt thing. 1 would even say - given tha t I've beenreassured that you w ere happy, well then, good Lord. I become happy as well.But, even so, with a little ma rgin. Not exactly happy-happy. There w as a spacebetween the two. During the time it took me to realise that the main thing i sthat the other be happy, I persisted in my non-happiness.So when am f really me then? When I'm not happy, or when I'm happybecause the others a re happy? This relation of the subject's satisfaction with the

satisfaction of the ot he r- to be understood, please, in its most radical f orm -isalways at issue where man is concerned.1 would very mu ch apprec iate it if the fact that on this occasion I was dealingwith my fellow beings doesn't fool you. I used this example, because I hadpromised myself to use the first example that came up after the question I leftyou with last tim e. But I hope that today I will get you to see that it would bewrong of you to think that it's the same other at issue here as that other Isometimes talk about to you. th at other which is the ego, or more precisely itsimage. Here there 's a radical difference between my non-satisfaction and thesupposed satisfaction of the other. There is no image of identity, of reflexivity,but a relation of fundamental alterity.We must distinguish two others,at least two-an other with a capital 0, andan other with a smali o, which is the ego. In the function of speech, w e areconcerned with the Other,Wh at I am saying is worth demon strating. As always, I can only do so interms of our experience. To those who w ould like to have some practice at somemental juggling which is bound to render their articulations more supple, Ican 't recomm end too highly, for wha tever use you may wish to put it, readingParmenides, where the question of the one and the other w as addressed in themost vigorous and single-minded way. That is no doubt why it is one of themost m isunderstood of all works. When, after all. all it takes are the middlingabilities - w hich sh ould n ot be belittled - of a solver of crossw ord puzzles. Don't

forget that in one of my written pieces, I formally recommended you to docrossword puzzles. The only th ing which is essential is to hold you r attentionright to the end in developing the nine hypotheses. That's all that matters -paying attention. It is the most difficult thing in the world to get the averagereader to do. as a result of the conditions under which the sport of reading iscarried o ut. Those of my students who could devote themselves to apsychoanalytic commentary on the Parmenides would be doing somethinguseful, and would allow the co mm unity to find its bearings in relation to a goodmany problems.Let us come back to our planets. Why don't they speak? Who wants toarticulate something?All the sam e there are lots of things to say. Wh at is odd is not th at you don't

Introduction of the big Other 23 7say any of them, but rather that you don't make it apparent that you realisethat there's loads to say. If only you would dare to think it. It isn't veryimportant to know wh at is the clinching reason. But w hat is certain, is that ifone tries to enumerate them - I had no preconceived idea about the way theymight be set out when I asked you it - the reasons which come to mind arestructured like those we have already enco untered on several occasions at playin Freud's work, namely those he comes up with in the dream of Irma'sinjection apropos of the kettle with a hole in it. The pla nets d on't speak - firstly,because they have nothing to say - secondly, because they d on't have the time- thirdly, because they have been silenced.

Each of these three things is true, and might permit us to make importantstatements with respect to what is called a planet, th at is to say what I've takenas my term of reference in showing what we aren't.I put the question to an eminent philosopher, one of our lecturers this year.He has been much preoccupied w ith the history of science and has m ade themost apt comments, the most profound there are, about Newtonianism. Youalways come away disappointed when you ask people who seem to bespecialists, but you are going to see that, in actual fact, I was n't disappointed.The question d idn 't seem to him to present an y difficulties. He answere d -

Because they don't have mouths.At first blush, I was a bit disappointed. When one is disappointed, one isalways wrong. You should never be disappointed with the answ ers you receive,because if you are, that's wonderful, it proves that it was a real answer, that is tosay exactly what you weren't expecting.This point has considerable bearing on the question of the other. We have toogreat a tendency to be hypnotised by the so-called system of moons, and tomodel our idea of the answer on what we imagine when we talk aboutstimulus-response. If we receive the answ er w e were expecting, is it really ananswer? That's another problem, and I won't get involved in that littlediversion right now,In the end, the philosopher's answ er didn't disappoint me. No one is obligedto enter into the labyrinth of the question along the path mapped out by anyone of the three reasons I mentioned, althou gh we will encou nter them again,for they are the true ones. One can enter into it just as well with a ny old answ er,and the one I was given is extremely illuminating, on condition that one knowshow to hear it. And I was in a very good position to listen to it. since I am apsychiatrist.I don't have a mouth, we hear this when we're sta rting ou r careers, on the firstpsychiatric w ards we, like lost souls, arrive on. At the heart of this m iraculousworld, we encoun ter very old ladies, very old spinsters, and the first thing theytell us is - / don't have a mouth. They inform us that they don't have a stomacheither, and w hat is more th at the y will never die. In short , they h ave a very close


3/8

2 36 The ego in Freud's theory and in the technique of psychoanalysisIt isn't simply tha t I said tha t to myself, but that it is true - if you're happy,that's the most important thing. I would even say - given that I've beenreassured tha t you we re happy, well then, good Lord, I become happ y as well.But. even so, w ith a little margin. Not exactly happy-happy. There was a spacebetween the two. During the time it took me to realise that the main thing i sthat the other be happy, I persisted in my non-happiness.So when am I really me then? When I'm not happy, or when I'm happybecause the others are happy ? This relation of the subject's satisfaction with the

satisfaction of the other - to be understood, please, in its most radical form - isalways at issue where man is concerned.1 would very m uch appreciate it if the fact that on this occasion I was dealingwith my fellow beings doesn't fool you. I used this example, because I hadpromised myself to use the first example that came up after the question I leftyou with last time. But I hope tha t today I will get you to see that it would bewrong of you to think that it's the same other at issue here as that other (sometimes talk ab out to you, that other w hich is the ego, or more precisely itsimage. Here there 's a radical difference between my non-satisfaction and thesupposed satisfaction of the other. There is no image of identity, of reflexivity,but a relation of fundamental alterity.We must distinguish two others,at least two - an other with a capital 0, andan other with a small o, which is the ego. In the function of speech, we areconcerned with the Other.Wh at I am saying is worth demo nstrating. As always . I can only do so interms of our expe rience. To those who would like to have some practice at somemen tal juggling which is bound to render their articulations m ore supple, 1can 't recommen d too highly, for whatever use you may wish to put it. readingParmenides, where the question of the one and the o ther wa s addressed in themost vigorous and single-minded way. That is no doubt why it is one of themost misunderstood of all works. When, after all, all it takes are the middlingabilities - which shou ld n ot be belittled - of a solver of crossword puzzles. Don't

forget that in one of my written pieces, I formally recommended you to docrossword puzzles. The only thing which is essential is to hold your attentionright to the end in developing the nine hypotheses. That's all that matters -paying attention. It is the most difficult thing in the world to get the averagereader to do, as a result of the conditions under which the sport of reading iscarried out. Those of my students who couid devote themselves to apsychoanalytic commentary on the Purmenides would be doing somethinguseful, and would allow the comm unity to find its bearings in relation to a goodmany problems.Let us come back to our planets. Why don't they speak? Who wants toarticulate something?All the same there are lots of things to say. What is odd is not that you don't

Introduction of the big Other 23 7say any of them, but rather that you don't make it apparent that you realisethat there's loads to say. If only you would dare to think it. It isn't veryimportant to know wh at is the clinching reason. But wh at is certain, is that ifone tries to enumerate them -1 had no preconceived idea about the way theymight be set out when I asked you it - the reasons which come to mind arestructured like those we have already en countered on several occasions at playin Freud's work, namely those he comes up with in the dream of Irma'sinjection apropo s of the kettle with a hole in it. The pla nets d on' t speak - firstly,because they have nothin g to say - secondly, because they d on't hav e the time- thirdly, because they have been silenced.

Each of these three things is true, and might permit us to make importantstatements with respect to what is called a p lanet, tha t is to say what I've takenas my term of reference in showing what we aren't.I put the question to an eminent philosopher, one of our lecturers this year.He has been mu ch preoccupied w ith the history of science and h as made themost apt comments, the most profound there are. about Newtonianism. Youalways come away disappointed when you ask people who seem to bespecialists, but you are going to see that, in actual fact, I wa sn't disappointed.The question did n't seem to him to present any difficulties. He answered -Because they don't have mouths.At first blush, I was a bit disappointed. When one is disappointed, one isalways wrong. You should never be disappointed w ith the a nswers you receive,because if you are, that's wonderful, it proves that it was a real ans wer, that is tosay exactly what you weren't expecting.

This point has considerable bearing on the question of the other. We hav e toogreat a tendency to be hypnotised by the so-called system of moons, and tomodel our idea of the answer on what we imagine when we talk aboutstimulus-response. If we receive the answ er w e we re expecting, is it really ananswer? That's another problem, and I won't get involved in that littlediversion right now.In the end, the philosopher's ans wer d idn't disappoint me. No one is obligedto enter into the labyrinth of the question along th e pa th mapped out by anyone of the three reasons I mentioned, altho ugh we will encoun ter them again,for they are the true o nes. One can enter into it just as well with a ny old ans wer,and the one I was given is extremely illuminating, on condition that one knowshow to hear it. And I was in a very good position to listen to it. since I am apsychiatrist.I don't have a mouth, we hear this when ive're startin g ou r careers, on the firstpsychiatric wards we, like lost souls, arrive on . At the heart of this miracu lousworld, we encou nter very old ladies, very old spinsters, and the first thing theytell us is - / don't have a mouth. They inform us that they don't have a stomach

either, and wh at is more that they will never die. fn s hort, they have a very close


4/8

238 The ego in Freud's theory and in the technique of psychoanalysisrelationship to the lunar world. The only difference is that for these old ladies,victims of the so-called Cotard synd rome, or negation delirium, in the end that'strue. What they have identified with is an image where every gap, everyaspiration, every emptiness of desire is lacking, namely whatever it is that reallyconstitutes the property of the buccal orifice. To the extent that the being'sidentification wifh its pure an d simple imag e takes effect, the re isn't any roomfor chang e either, tha t is to say death. T hat in fact is what their theme is - theyare both dead an d incapable of dying, im mo rtal - like desire. To the extent thatthe subject here symbolically identifies himselfWith the imag inary, he in someway satisfies [realise] desire.The fact that the stars also happen not to have mouths and to be immortalpertains to ano ther order - one can 't say th at it is true - it's real. There is noquestion of the stars having m outh s. And. at least for us, the word immortal hasover time become purely metaphorical. It is Incontestable real that a stardoesn 't have a m outh, bu t no one would think of that, in the true sense of theword to think, if there weren't beings endowed with an apparatus for givingutterance to the symbolic, namely men, so as to make one notice it.Stars are real, integrally real, in principle, there is absolutely no thing aboutthem pertaining to an alterity w ith respect to themselves, they are pu rely andsimply w hat they are. The fact that w e always find them in the same place is oneof the reasons why they don't speak.You've noticed th at from time to time I oscillate between planets and stars. Itisn't by accident. For it wasn't the planets which manifested the always in (hesame placefirst,but the sta rs. The perfectly regu lar mo vem ent of the sidereal dayis clearly wha t gave men their first opportunity of sensing the stability of thechang ing world surround ing them, and of starting to found the dialectic of thesymbolic and the real, in which the symbolic apparently springs out from thereal, which naturally isn't any more well-founded th an thinking tha t the so-called fixed stars really revolve a roun d the Earth. Similarly, one sho uldn't thinkthat symbols actually have come from the real. But it is nonetheless strikingseeing how captivating these singular forms have been , whose g rouping, afterall, is not founded on a nything . Why did hum an beings see the Great Bear thatway? Why are the Pleiades so obvious? Why is Orion seen this way? I couldn'itell you if I tried. 1 am n ot a ware tha t the se po ints of light hav e even beengrouped any differently - I'm asking you. In the dawn of humanity, which,incidentally, we cannot make out very clearly, this fact played quite a role.These signs have been tenaciously preserved to the present day. offering arather bizarre example of the way in wh ich the symbolic gets hitched u p. Thefamous properties of form do not seem to provide an absolutely convincingexplanation of the way in which we have grouped the constellations.That said, we might have spared ourselves the trouble, since there is nofoundation for this apparent stability of the stars we always find in the sameplace. Clearly we made genuine progress w hen we realised tha t there were, on

Introduction of the big Other 23 9the other hand, things which really were in the same place, which were firstperceived as wandering planets, and when we realised that it was n't just as afunction of our ow n rota tion, but really, that some of the stars w hich fill the skymove and are always to be found in the same place.

This reality is a first reason why the plan ets do not speak mu ch. Nevertheless,one would be wrong to suppose that they are as dum b as all that. They are so farremoved from that that for a long time they were confused with naturalsymbols. We made them talk, and it would be wrong n ot to ask ourselves thequestion as to how that happened. For a very long time, and until ratherrecently, they retained a sort of subjective existence. Copernicus, who hadnonetheless taken a decisive step in specifying the perfect regularity of themovement of the stars, still thoug ht that an earthly body on the moon wouldmake every effort to return home, that is to say to Earth, and that conversely alunar body would not rest until it had flown back to its maternal home. Thatgives you an idea of how long these notions have persisted, and how difficult itis not to make beings out of realities.At last Newton arrived. That had been in the making for .some time -th er e is nobetter example than the history of science for showing you the extent to w hichhuman discourse is universal. Newton ended up stating the definitive formulawhich the world had been on the edge of for a century. Newton did definitivelysucceed in getting them to shut up. The eternal silence of infinite spaces, whichpetrified Pascal, is taken for granted after Newton - the stars do not speak,planets are dum b, and that's because they are silenced, which is the only realreason, for in the end you ne ver really know w hat can happen with a reality.Why don 't planets speak? That is a real question. You only know w hat canhappen to a reality once you have definitively reduced it to being inscribed in alanguage. We only became absolutely certain that the planets do not speakonce they'd been shu t up. that is to say once Newtonian theory had producedthe theory of the unified field, in a form which has since been com pleted, a formwhich was already entirely satisfactory to every thinker. The theory of the

unified field is summed up in the law of gravitation, which consists essentiallyin the fact that there's a formula which holds all this together, in an ultra-simple language consisting of three letters.At the time, think ers cam e up with all kinds of objections - this grav itation isunthinkable, we've never seen the like of this action at a distance, across a void,every kind of action is by definition an action of things in contact with oneanother. If you knew how hard Newtonian motion is to get hold of whenexamined up close! You would realise that operating with contradictorynotions isn't the exclusive privilege of psychoanalysis. Newtonian motionmakes use of time, but no one worries about the time of physics, because itdoesn't in the slightest touch on realities - it's a question of proper language,and the unified field cannot be considered as an ything more tha n a w ell-madelanguage, than a syntax.


5/8

240 The ego in Freud's theory and in the technique of psychoanalysisThere's no cause to worry from that quarter - everything which enters intothe unified field will never speak a gain, because these are realities which havebeen totally reduced to language. Here I think you can clearly see theopposition between speech and language.Don't get the idea that our posture with respect to all the realities hasattained a point of definite reduction, which is nonetheless rather satisfying - ifplanets and other things of the same order spoke, it would mak e a funny kind ofdiscussion, and Pascal's fright might well be transformed into terror.In fact, each time we deal with a residue of action, of truly authentic action,with this something new which emerges from the subject - this doesn 't requirethat the subject be animated - we are confronted by some thing of which onlyour unconscious is not afraid. For at the level on which physics is currentlymoving, it would be wrong to imagine that it's all wrapped up, and that theatom and the electron ha ve been silenced. Not at all. And it is obvious that wearen't here to go along with the musings about freedom to which people arewont to abandon themselves.That is not at all what is at issue. It is clear that it's in relation to languagethat something funny happens. That is what Heisenberg's principle comesdown to, When one is in a position to determine one of the properties of the

system, one cannot formulate the others. When one speaks of the location ofelectrons, when one tells them to stay put somewh ere, to remain always in thesame place, one loses all sense of what is commonly called their velocity.Conversely, if one tells them - well then, alright, you must always move in the samewa y - one no longer has any idea where they are. 1 am not saying that we willalways be in this eminently ludicrous position. But until things ch ang e, we cansay that the elements don't answer where one asks them. More precisely, if oneasks them somewhere, it is impossible to grasp them as a whole.The question of knowing whether they speak isn't settled solely by their notanswering. That's unsettling - one day, something may take us unawares. Letus not slide into mysticism - I'm not about to tell you that atoms and electronsspeak. But why not? Everything ha ppens as if. In any case, the m atter would besettled the m ome nt they started to lie to us. If atom s lied to us. tried to outwit us,we would be convinced, and quite rightly. There you'v e got your finger on thenub of the matter - the others as su ch, and not only in so far as they reflect our apriori categories and the more or less transcendental forms of our intuition,These are things which we would prefer not to think abou t - if one day theystarted to get at us . you'd .see where we'd end u p. We wouldn 't know where wewere, quite literally, and tha t is indeed wh at Einstein th oug ht all along and henever ceased to m arvel at it. He always reminded people that the A lmighty is acrafty one. but certainly not dishonest. Moreover, because it is a question hereof a non-physical Almighty, that's the only thing w hich allows one to doscience, that is to say. in the end reduce the Almighty to silence.

Introduction of the big Other

VVhen it comes to this h um an science par excellence called psychoanalysis, is ouraim to arrive at a unified field, and to turn men into moons? Do we get them tospeak so much only so as to shut them up?Besides, the mo st correct inter pretatio n of the end of history invoked by Hegelis that it is the m omen t wh en all that men will have left to do is to close it. Is thisa return to animal life? Are men who have reached the point of no longer

needing language animals? An im portant question which seems to me to havereceived no meaningful answer. Whatever the case may be, the question ofknowing what is the end of our practice is at the heart of analytic tech nique.Some disgraceful mistakes have been committed in this respect.For the first time, I've read a very congenial article on what is called the

typical cur e. The necessity of maintaining the ego's capacity for observation intact, Isee this written in bold letters. There's talk of a mirror, the a na ly st -th at' s notbad, but the autho r wa nts this mirror alive. A live mirror. I wonder w hat th at is.poor fellow, he talks abou t a living mirro r beca use he clearly sen ses tha t the re issomething not q uite right in this story. What's the essential thing in analysis?Does analysis consist in the imaginary realisation of the subject? The ego getsconfused with the subject, and the ego is turned into a reality, somethingwhich, as they say, integrates, that is, which holds the planet together.

If this planet doesn't speak, it is not only because it is real, but because itdoesn't have the time, in the literal sense - it doesn't have this dimension. Why?Because it is round. That's wha t integration is - whatever a circular form does,it is always equ al to itself. Wha t is advanced a s being the aim of analysis is tomake it well-rounded, this ego. to give it the sphericai shape in which it willhave definitively integrated ail its disjointed fragmentary states, its scatteredlimbs, its pregenital phases, its partial drives, the pandemonium of its egos,countless and broken up as they are. A race to the triumphant ego - as manyobjects as egos.It's not at all the case that everyone mea ns the sam e thing by the term objectrelation, but by approach ing things by way of the object relation and the partialdrives, instead of locating it where it belongs, on the p lane of the imag inary, theauthor I'm talking about, who for a time seemed to have got off to a good start,ends up with nothing less than the following perversion, which consists inlocating the entire development of analysis in the imaginary relation of thesubject to its most primitive diversity. Thank Cod, the experiment is neverpushed to the limit, one do esn't do w hat one says on e is doing, one stays wellthis side of one's goals. Thank God. his*ures fail, and that is why the subjectsurvives it.Following the line the autho r I've just spoken of espoused, one can give an

entirely rigorous demonstration of the fact that his way of conceiving of the


6/8

242 The ego in Freud's theory and in the technique of psychoanalysiscure of obsessional neurosis will have no other result tha n that of making thesubject paranoid. W hat seems to him the abyss one constantly skirts around inthe cu re of obsessional neurosis is the appearance of psychosis. In o ther words,according to the author in question, the obsessional neurotic is in fact amadman.

Let us dot the i's and cross the t's - w hat is this madma n? H e's a mad man whokeeps his distance from his madness, that is to say from the greatest imaginaryperturbation there can be. He's a paranoid mad man . To say that m adness is thegreatest imaginary perturbation as such doesn' t define every kind of madness -I'm referring to states of delirium and paranoia. According to the author I'mreading, everything the obsessional says has got nothing to do with hisexperience. It is through verbal conformity, social languag e, tha t he maintainshis precarious eq uilibrium - which is nonetheles s very stable, for wha t could beharder than to catch out an obsessional? And if the obsessional does indeedresist and digs his heels in so vigorously, that's because, according to wh at theauthor I'm referring to has to say, psychosis, the imaginary disintegration ofthe ego, is behind all this. Unfortunately for his argument, the au thor cannotshow us an obsessional whom he has truly sent round the bend. There's nopossibility of doing that - and there are very good reasons why. But in wantingto guard the subject from his so-called menacing madnesses, he would succeedin ending up not that far from there.

Post-analytical paranoia is a long way from being a mythical problem. Youdon 't ha ve to hav e pushed the treatm ent very far for it to give rise to a perfectlyconsistent paranoia. I've actually seen that on this ward. This is the wardwhere you can see it most clearly, because there's a tendency to shift themgradually on to open wards, from which they often return, and integratethemselves into a closed ward. It happens. You don't need a very goodpsyc hoan alyst to get this to come a bout, it's sufficient to believe very ferventlyin psychoanalysis. I have seen paranoias one can call post-analyticul, andwhich can be said to be spontaneous. In an adequate environment, wherethere's a very strong preoccupation with psychological facts, a subject cansucceed, on condition nonetheless of having some inclination for it, in girdlinghimself with problems which without any doubt are fictive. but to which hegives substance, within a ready-made language - that of psychoanalysis,which everyone talks about. It generally takes a very long time for a chronicdelirium to get built up. the subject m ust pu t a lot into it - gene rally, h e invests athird of his life in it. I must say that, to some extent, the analytic literatureconstitutes a ready-made2 delirium, an d it isn't rare to see subjects dressed up init. ready-to-wea r. The style, if I may put it like this, of those silent de votees of theineffable mystery of the an alytic ex perience, is an atte nua ted form of it, but itsfoundation is homogeneous with what for now I am calling paranoia.

' English in the original.

Introduction of the big Other 24 5

Today I would like to suggest a little schema to you, to illustrate the problemsraised by the ego and the other, language and speech.This schema would not be a schema if it yielded a solution, K isn't even amodel. It's just a way of fixing our ideas, called for by an infirmity in ourdiscursive capacity.Because 1 think that you are already quite familiar with it. 1 hav en't goneover what distinguishes the imaginary from the symbolic once again.What do we know about the ego? Is the ego real, is it a moon, or is it animaginary construction? We start With the idea, with which I've serenaded youfor a long time, that there is no way of grasping any thing whatsoever of theanalytic dialectic if we do not assume th at the ego is an ima ginary construction,j'hefact. that it is imaginary doesn't take anything away from it, the poor eg o- Iwould even go so far as to say that that's what's good about it. If it weren'timaginary, we wouldn't be men, we would be moons . Which doesn't mean thatall it takes to be men is to have this imaginary ego. We could still be that in-between thing called a ma dman . A madman is precisely someone who a dheresto the imaginary, purely and simply.

This is what I'm talking about.( E B ) S

lego) @

i)' other

Other$ is the letter S, but it's also the subject, the analytic subject, that is to say not

the subject in its totality. People spend their time plaguin g us abo ut tak ing it inits totality. Why should it be a whole? We haven't the faintest idea. Have youever encountered whole beings? Perhaps it's an ideal. I've never seen any. Vwnot whole. Ne ither are you. If we were wh ole, we would each be in our c orners,whole, we wouldn 't be here, together, tryin g to get ourselves into shape , as theysay. It is the subject, not in its totality, but in its openin g u p. As usual, he does n'tknow what he's saying. If he knew w hat he was saying, he w ouldn't be there.He is there, down on th e right. tTo be sure, that isn't where he sees himself- that is never the case -even atthe end of analysis. He sees himself in a, and tha t is why he has an ego. He maybelieve that this ego is him, everybody is at that stage, and there is no way of

getting out of it.


7/8

The ego in Freud's theory and in the technique of psychoanalysisWhat analysis teaches us. on the other ha nd, is that the ego is an absolutelyfundam ental form for the cons titution of objects. In particular, it perceiveswha t we call, for struc tura l rea sons , its fellow being, in the form of the specularother. This form of the other has a very close relation to the ego, which can besuperimposed on it, and we write it as a'.So there's the plane of the m irror, the sym metrical world of the egos and of thehomoge neous o thers. We'll have to distinguish an other level, which we call thewall of language.The imaginary gains its false reality, which nonetheless is a verified reality,

startin g off from th e order defined by the wall of lang uag e. The ego suc h as weunderstand it, the other, the fellow being, all these imaginary things areobjects. To be sure, they aren't homog eneous with moons - an d we are liable toforget that all the time. But they are indeed objects, because they are named assuch within an organised system, that of the wall of language.When the subject talks to his fellow beings, he uses ordinary language,which holds the imaginary egos to be things which are not simply ex-sisting,but real. Not knowing what there is in the domain in which the concretedialogue is held, he is dealing with a certain nu mber of characters, a', a". In sofar as the subject brings them into relation with his own image, those withwhom he speaks are also those with whom he identifies.That said, we, the analysts, must not overlook our basic assumption - wethink there are subjects other than us. that authentically intersubjectiverelations exist. We would have no reason to think that if we didn't have thetestimony of the characterising feature of intersubjectivity, that is, that thesubject ca n lie to us. That is the decisive proof. I am not saying thai that is thesole foundation of the reality of the othe r subject, it is its proof. In oth er words,we in fact address An A 2, those we do not know, true Others, true subjects.They are on the other side of the wall of language, there where in principle!never reach them. Fundamentally, it is them I'm aiming at every time 1 uttertrue speech, but I always attain ', a" , through reflection. I always aim at truesubjects, and 1 have to be content with shadows. The subject is separated fromthe Others, the true ones, by the wall of language.If speech is founded in the existence of the Other, the true one. lang uage is somade as to return us to the objectified other, to the other whom we can makewhat we want of. including thinking that he is an object, that is to say that hedoesn't know wha t he's saying. When we use language, our relation with theother always plays on this ambiguity. In other words, language is as muchthere to found us in the Other as to drastically prevent us from understandinghim. And that is indeed what is at stake in the analytic experience.The subject doesn't know what he is saying, and for the best of reasons.because he do esn't know w hat he is. But he sees himself. He sees himself fromthe other side, in an imperfect m anne r, as you know, as a consequence of th

Introduction of the biy Other 24 5fundamentally incomplete nature of the specular Vrbild,which is not onlyimaginary, but illusory. The perverted inflection which analytic technique hasbeen acquiring for some time is founded on this fact. Within this perspective,o ne would like the subject to aggregate all the more or less fragmented,fragmentary pieces of this thing in which he fails to recognise himself \seineconnaft]. One wants him in effect to gather everything which heexperienced in the pregenital stage, his scattered limbs, his partial drives, thesuccession of partial objects - think of Carpaccio's Saint George skewering thedragon, with small severed heads, arms, and so on, all around. One w ants toallow this ego to ga ther its strength , to realise itself, to integrate itself- the dearlittle thing. If this end is pursued in a direct fashion, if one focuses on theimaginary and the pregen ital, one necessarily ends u p in that sort of analys is inwhich the consummation of partial objects is achieved through theintermediary of the image of the other. Without knowing why, the authorswho follow this path all end up w ith the same conc lusion - the ego can only re-encounter and reconstitute itself by way of the fellow being the subject hasbefore him - or behind him, the result is the same.

The subject reconcentrates his own imaginary ego essentially in the form ofthe analyst's ego. Besides, this ego doesn't remain simply imaginary, for thespoken intervention of the ana lyst is expressly conceived of as an en cou nter ofego with ego, as a projection by the analyst of precise objects. In thisperspective, the analysis is always represented and planned on the plane ofobjectivity. W hat is at issue, as it's written up, is to get the subject to shift from apsychic reality to a true reality, that is to say a moon reconstituted in theimaginary, and very precisely, someth ing also not hidden from us, on the modelof the ego of the an alyst. This accou nt is sufficiently coheren t to realise tha t itisn't a matter of being indoctrinated, nor of showing what one should be doingin the world. It is clearly on the imaginary level that one is operating. That iswhy noth ing would be more appreciated th an locating the ineffable experiencebeyond what is considered to be the illusion, and not the wall, of language.Amongst several clinical examples to hand, there's a very pretty vignette,

that of the patient terrorised by the tho ught that the ana lyst knows w hat shehas in her suitcas e. She both know s it and she doesn't. Everything she managesto say is neglected by the an alyst from th e perspective of this imag inary worry.And all of a sudden , you realise th at th at is the only thing of impo rtance - she isafraid th at the analyst will takeaw ay everything she ha s got in her belly, that isto say the con tents of the suitcase , which sym bolises h ;r partial object.The notion of the imaginary assumption of partial objects through theintermediary of the figure of the analyst leads to a kind pf Comulgatorio, to usethe title which Baltha sar Grecian gave to a Treatise on th e Holy Eucharist, leadsloan imaginary con summ ation of the analyst. A strange comm union - at theSail, a head with parsley stuffed up its nose, or again with a well-c cein his


8/8

24 6 The ego in Freud's theory and in the technique of psychoanalysispant s , and as Apoli inaire said in The Breasts ofTiresias - Eat the feet of youranalyst in the same sauce, that's the fundamental theory of analysis.

Isn't there another conception of analysis, which allows one to concludethat it is something other than the reconstitution of a fundamental imaginarypartialisation of the subject?This partialisation does in fact exist. It is one of the dimension s w hich enablethe ana lyst to operate th rou gh identification, by giving the subject his own ego.I'll spare you the details, but it is certain th at the ana lyst can, by m eans of a

specific interpretation of the resistances, by a specific reduction of the totalexperience of the analysis to its solely imaginary elements, succeed inprojecting on to the patient the different characteristics of his analytical ego -and God knows they can differ, in a way w hich com es clear at the end ofanalyses. What Freud taught us is exactly the opposite.One trains analy sts so that the re are subjects in whom the ego is absent, Thatis the ideal of analysis, which, of course, remains virtual. There is never asubject with out a n ego. a fully realised subject, but that in fact is what o ne mustaim io obtain from the subject in analysis.The analysis m ust aim at th e passage of true speech, joining the subject to another subject, on the ot her side of the w all of languag e. That is the final relation

of the subject to a genu ine O ther, to the Other who gives the answ er one doesn'texpect, which defines the terminal point of the analysis.Throughout the course of the analysis, on the sole condition that the ego ofthe analyst does agree not to be there, on the sole condition that the anaiyst isnot a living mirror, but an empty mirror, what happens happens between theego of the subj ect -it is always the ego of the subject which speak s, ostensibly -and the others. The entire development of the analysis consists in theprogressive displacement of this relation, which the subject can grasp at anymoment, beyond the wall of language, as being the transference, which is hisand in which he doesn't recognise himself. It isn't a matter of reducing thisrelation, as you'll find it written, but of having the subject assu me it w here he is.The analysis consists in getting him to become conscious of his relations, not

with the ego of the analyst, but with all these Others who are his trueinterlocutors, whom he hasn't recognised. It is a matter of the subjectprogressively discovering which Other he is truly addressin g, with out knowingit. and of him progressively assum ing th e relations of transference at the placewhere he is. and where at tirst he didn't know he was.There are two m eanings to be given to Freud's phrase - Wo 5 war, soli khwerden. This Es . take it as the letter S. It is there, it is always there. It is thesubject. He knows himself or he doesn't know himself. That isn't even the mostimportan t thi ng- -he speaks or he doesn't speak. At the end of the analysis, it ishim who must be called on to speak, and to enter into relation with the realOthers. Where the S was. there the kh should be.

Introduction of the big Other 24 7That is where the subject authentically re-integrates his disjointed limbs, andrecognises, reaggregates his experience.In the course of an analysis , something like an object m ay be formed. But thisobject, far from being w hat is at issue, is only a fund amentally alienated form ofit. It is the im aginary ego which gives it its centre and its group, and it is clearlyidentifiable with a form of alienation , akin to para noia. That th e subject ends upbelieving in the ego is in itself madness. Thank (iod, analysis very rarelysucceeds in that, but we have a thousand proofs that it is being pushed in that

direction.This will be our programme for next year - what does paranoia mean? Whatdoes schizophrenia mean? Paranoia, as compared w ith schizophrenia, alwayshas a relation to the imaginary alienation of the ego.25 May 1955

introduction of the big other [excerpt]

Documents