lacan's "mirror stage": where to begin

8/12/2019 Lacan's "Mirror Stage": Where to begin

1/12

Lacan's "Mirror Stage": Where to BeginAuthor(s): Jane GallopSource: SubStance, Vol. 11/12, Vol. 11, no. 4 - Vol. 12, no. 1, Issue 37-38: A Special Issue fromthe Center for Twentieth Century Studies (1982/1983), pp. 118-128Published by: University of Wisconsin PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3684185.

Accessed: 25/06/2014 16:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Wisconsin Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

SubStance.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 146.245.216.150 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:27:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwischttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3684185?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3684185?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwisc


2/12

Lacan's Mirrortage :Where oBegin1JANEGALLOP

The work ofthe FrenchpsychoanalystJacques Lacan has had a tremendousand unsettlingffect n thedisciplinesknown n France as the humansciences,that s, on bothwhatwe call thehumanities nd whatwe call the social sciences.Amongthe mostfar-reachingfLacan's subversionsofour traditions fknowl-edge is thehavoc he wreaksupon temporalsuccession. This essayconcentrateson the problem of chronologyas posed by Lacan's most famouswork, TheMirrorStage. The problemis explored in its relation to two importantkindsof history:the historyof the individual subject (that is, biography) and thehistory fa science. In a deceptively implerform, hequestionhere is whereto begin.The monumental collection of Lacan's work, Ecrits,2begins with theSeminar on The PurloinedLetter'. Alan Sheridan'stranslation, crits:A Selec-tion,3which does not includethe Seminar, beginswith an essay entitled TheMirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed in Psycho-analytic Experience. The jacket copy to Ecrits:A Selectionells us that TheMirrorStage is theearliest ndate ofthe collection.Sheridan'sselection husappears tobeginwith he earliest ext s partof a chronological rder.Yet closerexamination of the bibliographical information eveals a slightchronologicalirregularity.The jacket copy,havingnamed The MirrorStage as the earliest ssay,amplifies this statementby the information hat The Mirror Stage' wasdelivered in itsoriginalorm o the fourteenthnternationalPsychoanalyticalCongress in 1937 (italics mine). But the text translated is not the originalform, ut ratherwhatSheridan himself alls a much evisedaterversion p. xiii,italicsmine). In fact, heessay thatopens Sheridan's translation ctuallydatesfrom 1949 when itwas delivered at the sixteenth nternationalPsychoanalyti-cal Congress. Since thistext s dated 1949, it cannot be considered he earliest.The essay following t in this collection Aggressivityn Psychoanalysis -dates from1948. But we cannot rectify hronologyby simplyreversingtheorderof thesetwo essays, since the 1948 textmakes reference o The MirrorStage.SubStanceNo 37/38,1983 118

This content downloaded from 146.245.216.150 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:27:55 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/12

Lacan's Mirror Stage 119The first ntry n Bibliographical nformationnChronological Order inthe FrenchEcritss The MirrorStage, but the fifthntry s The MirrorStageas Formative ofthe Function ofthe I. The latterentry ollows Aggressivityin Psychoanalysis. 3 heridancondensesthetwodifferentmirror tage entriesinhisbibliographicalnotewith slight lteration.He writes: AnEnglishtrans-lationof[the1936] versionappeared in The nternationalJournalfPsychoanalysis,vol. 18, part I, January, 1937, under the title, The Looking-glass Phase(p. xiii). The Frenchbibliographyreads Cf. The nternationalournal fPsycho-analysis, ol. 18, part , January,1937, p. 78 wherethispaper is inscribedunderthe title The Looking-glass Phase'. Upon consultingthe 1937 journal, onerealizes thattheFrenchbibliography s not ust ambiguous, butactually ronic.One findsnothing t all under he title The Looking-glassPhase. Nothingbutthe title s given, simply he words J. acan (Paris), The Looking-glassPhase.There is no version,noteven a summary fthepaper, although he otherpapersfrom heCongressare summarized. The irony n thebibliographyshighlightedby a footnote n the introduction o the sectionof Ecritswhich contains TheMirror Stage. In thatnote, Lacan informsus that he had in factneglectedto deliver the textfor hereportoftheCongress Ecrits, . 67n). To myknowl-edge there s no published version of the original MirrorStage. Each entry

in thechronological bibliographyoftheFrenchEcrits orrespondsto a text nEcrits,except for the first ntry.The first ntry s a blind entry.Now mypointis notreallyor not simply obe fastidious bout chronologi-cal order,but ratherto pointto some difficultyround the question ofwheretobegin, some slight onfusion bout the beginning ofheEcrits, ome troubleabout where (and how) to begin reading Lacan. The Mirror Stage is un-doubtedlyLacan's best knownwork. It is the logical, the natural place tobegin. Yet, not onlydoes Ecritsnot begin there,but it turnsout that theremay be a difficult lace to locate exactly, a lost origin, one mightsay.In an excellentbook, thebest book devoted to Lacan, Catherine Clementwrites: Lacan, perhaps has never thoughtnythingelse besides the mirrorstage. . . . It is thegermcontainingeverythingTouty st ontenungerme]...When thewar comes along, Lacan's thought s formed. 4The war separatesthe twoversionsof The MirrorStage. Somewherebetween the 1936 and the1949versions,Lacan's thought, hethoughtwe identifys Lacan's, is formed.The titleof the 1949 versionis The MirrorStage as Formativef theFunctionof the I. The essay is about the formation, he forming f an I, of anidentity.And the text tself s formative f an identitywe call Lacan. Clementsays thatLacan's thought s all found thereengerme. ccordingto Lacan, whatis formed n the mirror tage willbe therootstock la souche,whichSheridantranslates s source )of ater dentifications.5f The MirrorStage poses trickybibliographical questions oforiginand chronology, t is onlyappropriate,forthe essay is preciselyabout the originof a chronology.And if we are havingsome difficultytabilizingchronology t thisorigin,we will soon findthat thetemporalityof The Mirror Stage is in some way alien to the logic ofchronology.



4/12

120 Jane GallopNow a word ofcaution seems appropriatehere. I have been so captivatedby the resemblance betweenwhat Clement says about The MirrorStage andwhat Lacan says in it, that, in my enthusiasm, I accepted, unquestioningly,ifonly momentarily,her claim that all Lacan is there engerme. acan, I find,has anticipatedCl6ment's assertion. In an introduction o the sectionofEcritswhich contains The Mirror Stage, he writes: It happens that our studentsdelude themselves n ourwritings ntofinding alreadythere' hat towhich ourteachinghas since broughtus (p. 67). Clement's gestureoffinding ll Lacanengermen the mirror tage is preciselyfinding alreadythere what has comesince.It is, however, difficult o read Lacan's statement bout his students' elf-

delusionssimply s an admonitionagainst chronological nfidelity. acan's stu-dents are readingearlierwritingsnviewof ater Lacan teachings.This impliesreading what comes after, before, nd what comes before, after. ucha violation of chronologicalorder is encouraged by Ecritswhichpresentsthe1956 Seminar on 'The Purloined Letter' before the earlier texts.But evenmore to the point, here, is an analogy between the students' llusion and theinfant's mirage n themirror tage. Accordingto Lacan, in the mirror tage,the subject anticipates in a mirage the maturationofhis power (Ecrits,pp.94-95; Sheridan, p. 2). The studentanticipates n theearlytextsthematura-tion of Lacan's teachings.Thus, somehow,the effect fLacan's texton his stu-dents is analogous to theeffect fthe mirroron the infant. Lacan's text func-tions as an illusorymirror mage.I said above thatClement's claim that all Lacan is engermen The MirrorStage producedan enthusiasm n me which mmediately ecame embarrassing.My embarrassment orresponded o a realizationthat t was extremely leasur-able to find he ater Lacan alreadythere n theearly writing.An anticipationof maturationproduced oy along with a willingness o suspend disbelief.Thisjoy may resemblethe jubilation which Lacan ascribes to the child assuminghismirrormage, being captivatedbyan analogyand suspendinghis disbelief.Briefly:nthe mirror tage,the nfantwho has notyetmasteredtheuprightposture and who is supported by either anotherperson or some device will,upon seeingherselfn themirror, jubilantly ssume theuprightposition.Shethusfinds alreadythere n the mirror mage a masterythat she will actuallylearn only later. The jubilation, the enthusiasm, is tied to the temporal dia-lectic by which she appears already o be what she will only aterbecome.The temporaldialectic n which Lacan's students re enmeshed s notexactlyone ofanticipation,ofseeingthe future n thepresent.Both the present ndthe future here are actually pasts. The students read the past in lightofa more recentpast, read early Lacan writings n lightofmore recentLacanteachings. Indeed one mightbe temptedto contrast the infant's nticipationwith the students' retroaction. But it turns out that the mirrorstage itself sboth an anticipation and a retroaction.The mirror tage is a turningpoint.After tthesubject'srelation to himselfis always mediated through totalizing mage whichhas come fromoutside.For example, the mirror mage becomes a totalizing deal whichorganizes and



5/12

Lacan's Mirror Stage 121orients heself.But since the self s necessarily totalized,unified oncept adivisionbetweenan inside and an outside - there s no self beforethemirrorstage. The mirror tage is thus a turningpoint, but betweenwhat and what?It is a turningpoint in the chronologyof a self,but it is also the origin,themoment of constitutionof that self. What therefore recedes it?Jean Laplanche and Jean-Baptiste Pontalis, in theirarticle The MirrorStage in TheLanguage fPsycho-analysis,ome close to answeringthatanteriorto themirror tage is le orpsmorcelid (theody in bits and pieces), a Lacanianterm for violentlynon-totalizedbody image. They explain thebody in bitsand pieces and themirror tage in Freudian terms. The body in bits andpieces would correspondto a primordial,polymorphous uto-erotic tatethatis priorto theconstitution f theego, whereas the mirror tagemarks the com-ingoftheego and thereforefnarcissismproper as opposed to auto-eroticism).Narcissism is love of an image ofself, nd so demands the image ofselfwhichis achieved for he first ime in the mirror tage. Laplanche and Pontalis thusseem to answer thatthebody inbits and pieces precedes the mirror tage. Buttheythenadd: Except forone importantnuance: forLacan, it would be themirrorstage whichwould retroactively ringforth he phantasy of the bodyin bits and pieces. 6The mirror tagewould seem to come after thebody inbits and pieces and to organize them ntoa unified mage. But actually, thatunorganized image onlycomes after he mirror tage so as to representwhatcame before. What appears to precede themirror tage is simplya projectionor a reflection.There is nothingon the other side of the mirror.The mirror tage is a decisive moment. Not onlydoes the self ssue fromthe mirrorstage, but so does thebody in bits and pieces. This moment isthe source not only forwhat followsbut also forwhat precedes. It produces.thefuture hroughanticipation and the past throughretroaction. And yet itis itself moment of self-delusion, f captivationby an illusory mage. Bothfutureand past are thus rooted in an illusion.Lacan and others have emphasized the illusion in themirrorstage. It isthefoundingmomentoftheimaginarymode, thebelief n a projected mage.It represents he firstnstance of whataccordingto Lacan is the basic functionoftheego, theclassic gestureofthe self:miconnaissance, isprision,misrecog-nition. According to Lacan, the importantpoint is that [the ideal formed nthe mirror tage] situatesthe agencyof theego . . in a line offiction Ecrits,p. 94; Sheridan, p. 2). However, I would like toemphasize notthefictionalityso much as thetemporaldialectic of a momentthat s at once anticipatory ndretroactive.Bothanticipation nd retroaction reviolations fchronology, ut separatelyeithercan, ifnecessary,be sortedout, theirelementsassigned to theirproperchronologicalplace. The specificdifficultyn thinking he temporality f themirrorstage is its intricacyof anticipation and retroaction.The retroactionis based on the anticipation. In otherwords, the self s constitutedthroughanticipatingwhat it will become, and thenthisanticipatorymodel is used forgaugingwhatwas before.For example, theanticipatory otalizedbody imageproduces the retroactivephantasy of the body in bits and pieces.



6/12

122 Jane GallopLacan writes hat what is formed n the mirror tage willbe the rootstockofsecondary dentificationsEcrits, . 94; Sheridan,p. 2). Will be is an antici-patorygesture,but what is anticipated is that thisform will have been therootstock, hat s, thenecessaryantecedent to the ateridentifications.Onlyby an effect f retroactionfromthe anticipated identifications o we under-stand that whathappens in the mirror tage is the formation fa rootstock.What thus occurs in the mirrorstage is the formationofwhat in the futurewill be an antecedent,what grammatically an be called a future nterior,theformation fwhat will havebeen rootstock.Later, in thefamousDiscoursde Rome, Lacan will have written: What realizes itself n myhistory, s notthepast definite fwhat was since it is no longer,noreven thepresentperfect

of what has been in what I am, but the futureanterior of what I will havebeen forwhat I am in theprocess ofbecoming. 7 My history, ubjectivehis-tory, hehistory f a subject, s a successionoffuture nteriors, astsofa future,moments twice removed from presentreality by the combined action ofananticipation and a retroaction.In The Mirror Stage Lacan writesthat thisdevelopmentis lived like atemporaldialectic thatdecisivelyprojectstheformation fthe individual intohistory Ecrits,p. 97; Sheridan, p. 4). Development, lived, and forma-tion imply a natural progression,a succession of presentmoments or pastmoments. But the mirror tage is decisive. t is a turningpointthat projectsthe individual into history, hat is, into the future nterior.The individualis no longer ivinga natural development,a chronologicalmaturation. She isprojected, thrownforward, n an anticipationwhich makes her progressnolongera natural developmentbut a history, movementdoubly twistedbyanticipationand retroaction.Yet the difficultyn thinking he temporality fthemirror tage s that t s nonethelessmoment n the aturalmaturation rocess,a momentwhich rojectshe individual outofthat rocess. t is the moment ina chronology hat violates thatveryorder.As Lacan writes: It is the momentthatdecisively . makes oftheI thatapparatus forwhichevery push oftheinstinctswill be a danger, even should it correspondto a naturalmaturation(Ecrits, p. 98; Sheridan, p. 5).Lacan says that the infant anticipatesthe maturationof his power. Yetnow we see that theanticipation smuch more complicatedthan a simple pro-jection intoa future.For theanticipatedmaturationwillnever simplyarrive.Not that the infantwill not growup, learn to walk, become capable of inde-pendentsurvival. But thevery processof naturalmaturation s now affectedby the anticipation. It at first ppears thatthe infant s inscribed n an inevi-table developmental chronologyand merely anticipates a later moment inthatdevelopment. The organism is inscribedin an instinctualdevelopment,but the I, the subject primordiallyformed n the mirrorstage, the subjectthat can say my history, must defend against natural maturation, mustdefendagainstnaturalchronologyn favorof thefuture nterior.Any naturalmaturation simplyproves thatthe selfwas not mature before,and since theselfwas foundedupon an assumptionofmaturity, hediscovery hatmaturitywas prematurelyssumed is thediscovery hattheself s builton hollowground.



7/12

Lacan's Mirror Stage 123Since the entirepast and present is dependent upon an already anticipatedmaturity that is, a projected ideal one - any natural maturation howevercloselyitmightresemble the anticipated ideal one) must be defendedagainstfor t threatens o expose the factthat the self s an illusion done with mirrors.Just as the subject cannot simplymature, cannot advance intothe futurewhichhe anticipated as his birthright, either can he inalienably possess hispast. He can never simplyfall back on some accomplishment,rest on somelaurelsalreadywon, since the past tself s based upon a future,which s neces-sarilyan uncertainty.Not that he will have done nothing,or simplyforgottenwhat happened, but the significanceof his past is dependent upon revelationin thefuture, nd it is onlyas significant xperiencethatany past can be hispast, his experience, the accomplishmentof a subject.Lacan finally id geta paper published in The nternationalJournalfPsycho-analysis-not in 1937, but in 1953. In thatarticle,he writes: This illusionofunity, n which a humanbeingis always ookingforward o self-mastery,ntailsa constantdanger ofslidingback again into the chaos fromwhichhe started;it hangs over the abyss of a dizzy Ascent in which one can perhaps see theveryessence ofAnxiety. 8The maturationofpower whichthe infant ntici-patednowhas a new name: self-mastery. etthe self whichmustbe masteredis the productof an anticipatory llusion. To master the self,to understandit,would be to realize itsfalsity, nd therefore he impossibility fcoincidingwith one's self. The momentof self-mastery annotbut be infinitelyeferred.But thatmomentwould also be the revelationof themeaning ofthepast (thefuture nterior),and so theacquisition and comprehensionofthepast is alsoinfinitelyeferred.No ground s everdefinitivelyovered,and one alwaysrisksslidingall theway back. Hence the effect fanticipationis anxiety.But howcan we correlatethisanxietywiththe infant'subilation, equally an effect fanticipation?In TheProblemfAnxiety,reud writesthat the d cannot be afraid,as theego can; it s notan organization. 9Anxietymight hen be connectedtoorgani-zation. That whichis notorganized or totalizedor unifiedcannot be violated.The anxietywhich Lacan represents s theriskof sliding ack again into chaoscan onlybe experienced by theego with ts illusionofunity. But the mirrorstage is onlythe first tep in the dizzyAscent. At thispointthe subject canlook forward without the fearof slippingback, since she is just beginningher climb. The ego is only ust beingformed nd as yethas no ongoing organi-zation to be endangered. The mirror tage is a fleetingmoment of ubilationbefore an inevitable anxiety sets in.The mirrorstage is thushigh tragedy: a briefmoment of doomed glory,a paradise ost. The infants decisively rojected utofthisoy intothe anxiousdefensiveness f history; much as Adam and Eve are expelled fromparadiseinto the world.Justas man and woman are already created but do not enterthe human condition untilexpelled fromEden, so the child although alreadyborn does not become a self until the mirrorstage. Both cases are two-partbirthprocesses: once born into nature, the second time nto history.WhenAdam and Eve eat fromthe tree ofknowledge, they anticipate mastery.But



8/12

124 Jane Gallopwhat they actually gain is a horrifiedrecognitionof their nakedness. Thisresembles themovementbywhich theinfant,having assumed by anticipationa totalized, mastered body, then retroactively erceives his inadequacy (hisnakedness ). Lacan has written notherversionofthe tragedyofAdam andEve.If the mirrorstage is a lost paradise, then it is appropriate to recall thatthetext The MirrorStage is likewisea lost,originarymoment. And perhapsthebibliographical hinking one earliercan helpus workthrough histragedy.There are, youwillrecall,two MirrorStages -one notinprint, n oral eventlostto recordedhistory; he otherreadilyavailable, frequently eprinted, rans-lated, collected. This doubling, however, undermines the uniqueness of theoriginal, lost version. For example, in Sheridan's translation,the loss is for-gotten,coveredover in various ways. Iftheparadise that s lost is notunique,then t s notexactly ost. In just such a way,perhaps,the ubilationoforiginaryanticipationneed not be lost.Lacan does not term hemirror tagea tragedy, uthe does call ita drama.The mirror tage s a drama whose internalmpetus ungesforwardsepricipiter,precipitatestself] romnsufficiencyoanticipation and which,for hesubjectcaptivated by the lure of spatial identification,machinates the succession ofphantasies which go froman image ofthe body in bits and pieces to a formwhich we will call orthopedicof tstotality and to thearmorfinally ssumedof an alienating identity,which will mark with its rigid structurehis entiremental development Ecrits,p. 97; Sheridan, p. 4). This precipitous nternalimpetus is the ineluctableunfoldingof a drama. The child'sdestiny s sealed:insufficiencybody in bits and pieces) to anticipation orthopedic form)andfinally o a rigidarmor. But letus carefully xamine thechronology mplicithere. The infant s thrown orward rom insufficiencyo anticipation. How-ever, that insufficiency an only be understood fromthe perspectiveof theanticipation. The image of thebody in bits and pieces is fabricatedretroac-tivelyfromthemirror tage. It is onlythe anticipated orthopedicformofitstotality hat can define retroactively - the body as insufficient. hus theimpetusofthe drama turns out to be so radically accelerated that the secondtermprecedes the first a precipitousnesscomparable to the speed of light.In thislight,we must question the finally fthe alienating identity. n atemporal succession where the second term can precede the first,what is thestatus of a finally ? y separating anticipationfromretroaction,Lacan pre-sents a tragedy.But having found thatanticipationis always entangledwithretroaction,we must question thistragicview. Is the rigidarmor an inevi-table conclusion?The problem of rigidity eems to be linked to a certain sort of temporalsuccession, an irreversiblechronologythat one mightcall tragic. t appearsthat the internal inear progressionof the drama leads to rigidity.But giventhe effect f retroaction,one mightalso say that it is rigidity hat producesirreversible hronology.

In Lacanian tragedy, the ego finallybecomes rigid, becomes a painful,encumbering armor that constrictsthe psyche. The notion of rigidity lso



9/12

Lacan's Mirror Stage 125appears when Freud is discussing the ego. But withFreud it is not the egothat is rigid,but our concept of the ego. The thirdchapterof TheProblemfAnxiety egins thus: To returnto the problemof the ego. The apparent con-tradiction s due to our having taken abstractions too rigidly p. 24). Freudfindshe has contradictedhimselffromone momentto thenextin his descrip-tion oftheego. Ratherthan consider he contradiction shortcoming, e decidesthat it is the overly sharp delimitationof the boundaries of the conceptof theego which causes thecontradiction.A more flexibledefinitionwould avoid theproblem.When Freud writes theproblemof the ego we read it as our problem inconceptualizingtheego, but perhaps we mightalso read it as theego's prob-lem. The abstraction hat s too rigidhere is our conceptionof theego. But,accordingto Lacan's notionof theformation ftheego in The MirrorStage,the self tself s an idealized form,abstractedfromthe real. So we couldsay that not only the psychoanalytic concept of the ego, but the ego itself stoo rigidan abstraction.Rigid abstraction s intrinsicallytheproblemof theego.Psychoanalyticscience is engaged in the same dilemma as its object, thepsyche. Rigidityis the tragedythat awaits both. Yet Freud seems to glimpsea happy ending. Not for hepsyche his outlook there s as bleak as Lacan's -but forthe science. Freud is optimistic bout the possibilityof a science thatwould not be irreparablyhampered by the rigidity fits concepts. Ifwe takethe libertyof seeing an analogy between the rigidconcept and the rigid ego,thenperhaps Freud's descriptionof a healthyscience can be helpful n findinga way forthe self to sidestep its inevitable progressto rigidity.Freud addresses the question of where to begin - theveryquestion withwhich began thispaper. Wheredoes Lacan's Ecrits egin?Where does a sciencebegin? Freud's discussion of this question begins the articlecalled Instinctsand theirVicissitudes : The view is often defended that sciences should bebuiltup on clear and sharplydefinedbasal concepts. In actual factno science,not even the mostexact, begins with such definitions.The true beginningofscientific ctivity onsists n describing phenomena and then in proceedingtogroup,classify nd correlate hem. '0 t is interestinghat thedefense is oftendefended ) is associated with the priority f clear and sharplydefined con-cepts. The clear and sharp definition ecalls the orthopedic, organized, idealform of the self,anticipated in the mirrorstage. As we have seen, it is pre-ciselythisclearlydefined form hat eads to defensiveness, o armor. Freudcontrasts hedefendedview thedefensivedeal) with actualfact. Freud assertsthatscienceactuallybeginswithdescription nd not definition.He thusappearsto have answered the chronological question Where does science begin?But he goes on: Even at the stage ofdescription t is notpossible to avoidapplying certain abstract ideas to the material in hand, ideas derived fromvarious sources and certainlynot the fruit fnew experience only. Still moreindispensable are such ideas-which will later become the basal concepts ofthe science- as the material is further laborated. They must at firstneces-sarily possess some measure of uncertainty; herecan be no question of any



10/12

126 Jane Gallopclear delimitation oftheir content. So long as theyremain in this condition,we come to an understandingabout theirmeaning by repeated references othematerialofobservation,fromwhichwe seem tohave deduced our abstractideas, but which is in point of factsubject to them.The true beginning is description. However, the true beginning,untaintedby abstraction,turns out to be itself nly an abstraction. In actualfact,abstraction s unavoidable, even at the stage ofdescription,even thoughthese abstractionsdo not derive from thenew experience. Yet theseabstrac-tions are not yet concepts; they will later become the basal concepts. Thebase, thefoundation s not laid first; t willbe built ater, retroactively. heseabstractions are anticipationsofretroactivebasal concepts verymuch as theimage of the selfformed n the mirrorstage will be the rootstock.Then Freud comes to a slight rregularity. he abstractions seem tofollowthe material fobservation ; utin fact hatmaterialfollows he abstractdeas.Again a comparisonwith themirror tage is enlightening.Lacan says thatthetotal formof the body . . . is more constitutivethan constituted Ecrits,pp. 94-95; Sheridan, p. 2). By this I understandthat although it seems thatthe image of one's own body as total form s deduced from the material ofobservation, fromwhat one observes in themirror, n point offact the totalform s an abstract dea which shapes the observation. The question ofwhichcomes first abstract idea or observation, image ofone's body as total formor perceptionof one's body as total form-remains tricky o answer.It is perhaps the uncertainty fthe answer to thisquestion which is mostprogressive. So long as the concepts remain to some degree uncertain, thatis, flexible,not sharplydefined,not rigidly rmored, thenthe question neednotbe answered. We can come to an understanding - thingsgo well,we canget along. There is an exchange, repeated references etween the abstrac-tionsand theobservations. Since there s a repeatedback and forthmovement,priority s not particularly mportant.Freud continues: Thus, strictly peaking, theyare in the nature of con-ventions; althougheverything epends on theirbeing chosen in no arbitrarymanner,butdeterminedbytheimportant elationstheyhave to theempiricalmaterial- relationsthatwe seem todivinebeforewe can clearlyrecognizeanddemonstratethem. The concepts are conventions;which is to say, theyarefictions. Not only that, but theyare divined : theyare anticipatoryprojec-tions. The analogy to themirror tage dynamic is evident. For Lacan and theinfant ubjectthisbuilding upon a fiction s tragic,whereas forFreud and theinfant cience, likewiseconstructedupon fictionalfoundations,there s hope.Somehow the avoidance oftragedydepends upon a retroactive ffect evers-ingthe nternal mpetuswhich ungesforward, retroactive cceptanceofone'sfoundations whether concepts or self) as fiction.Such an acceptance mightmean an openness to revision,ratherthan a rigiddefenseagainst therealiza-tion of fictionality.Freud concludes his developmentalhistory f an infant cience: It itonlyaftermore searching nvestigationofthe field n question that we are able toformulatewith ncreased clarity hescientific onceptsunderlying t,and pro-



11/12

Lacan's Mirror Stage 127gressively o tomodify heseconceptsthattheybecome widelyapplicable andat the same time consistent ogically.Then, indeed, itmaybe time to immurethem n definitions.The progressofscience, however,demands a certain elas-ticityeven in these definitions.Freud seems finally o go beyond the strangeyetnow familiar emporalityof the divined asal concepts nto one-way rreversiblerogression hatfinallyimmures hedefinitions.The immurement ftheconcepts ike thearmoringof the ego would definitivelydefinitionally?) nd the more fluid nterplayofanticipation and retroaction repeated references ) hatprecedes it. Sciencewould thenproceed to containment, mprisonment,what I have earlier calledtragedy.

Iftragedydemands an irreversible hronology, hen thetragic oss ofelas-ticity n a science would be based upon a simplechronological progression nwhichpastdiscoverieshave become givensand present bservations nd theori-zations are foundedupon that mmutablepast, eitheracceptingit or rejectingit,butneverquestioning hat t s alreadyknown. Such a doomed science wouldhave an objectivehistory fpasts and presentperfects ather han a subjectivehistoryof futureanteriors. Lacan has frequently alled his contributiontopsychoanalytic ciencea return o Freud. This return s nota simple regres-sion back to a stable point along a set line ofdevelopment. It is a retroactiveeffect f Lacan's teaching. Reading Freud afterhaving read Lacan is unlikereadingFreud beforeLacan. AlthoughLacanian theorys foundedupon Freud,followsFreud, the Freud that t follows s shaped, constituted yLacan's read-ing. The question of whichcomes first, reud or Lacan, although chronologi-cally absurd, becomes a valid question.In 1958, in The Signification fthePhallus, Lacan will claimthat Freud'sdiscoverytakeson its value precisely n that t must ave nticipatedhe formulas[ofmodernlinguisticanalysis]. Mature Lacanian psychoanalysiswill drawupon modern linguistic analysis (Ferdinand de Saussure, Roman Jakobson)whichpostdatesFreud. But Lacan retroactively ees Freud as having antici-pated this. Freud's text,in a sense, constitutes,forLacan, the mirror tageof psychoanalytic cience. In the case of the ego, the infantmay be jubilant,but Lacan, the tragic chorus, lucidly foretells he coming doom. But in thedrama ofpsychoanalysis, t s not Freud but Lacan himselfwho is retroactivelyjubilant at Freud's anticipation of mature psychoanalytic theory.Just asLacan's studentswill retroactively njoy reading an anticipation nto his earlytexts.Lacan may be tragic about the prognosis for the ego, but the ego mightlook to his history fpsychoanalysisforhope. After ll, it is mostlikelytherethat his ego is to be found. It is there that Lacan is at work trying o undoirreversible igidification.n thedrama ofpsychoanalytic istory, acan is nota passive, wise, ironicchorus, but a protagonist truggling gainst the tragicfateof mmurement. his struggle gainstthe neluctableprogress fchronologymust stake tshopes upon the combined effects fanticipation nd retroaction.

The question of which textcomes first, reud or Lacan, thisquestion ofa chronology freading rather han ofwriting) eturns s to thequestionwhich



12/12

128 Jane Gallopbegan this paper: where (and how) to begin reading Lacan? On one levelthat will always have been the implicit question of this essay. This essay iswritten .. (thisessaywill have been written as I writeofthe present aperI find the future nterior to be the most correct tense formy anticipationofyourreading). This essay willhave been written orpeople who have notreadLacan's texts, nd is meant to be a presentation, n enticement, nd an orien-tation for hatprojected reading.At thesame time the present ssaycan mostfullybe understoodas a responseto Lacan, and thus takes on anotherdimen-sion ifread after,ratherthanbefore,Lacan. If I were asked to suggestto myreader which should be read first, would want to reply: both.And so thisessaywhich s presentlythatis, in the future nterior) ttempt-ing to form tself, o create a cohesive image out ofchaos, finds tselfpartici-pating in the same temporaldialectic it is describing.As I thusrecognizemyessay as a mirror mage of itself, am jubilant.

NOTES1. This paper s dedicated oJamesCreech,whosework n prolepsisnd whose ommentson The Mirror tage n Chasing fterAdvances, Yale renchtudies,3 (1982), pp. 183-197,inspired hepresent eading f The Mirror tage.2. JacquesLacan, EcritsParis: Seuil, 1966).3. JacquesLacan, Ecrits: Selection,rans.Alan SheridanNew York:Norton,1977).4. CatherineClement,Vies t igendesejacques acan Paris:Grasset, 981),p. 119. Transla-tion mine.5. Le stadedu miroir ommeformateure la fonction uJe tellequ'elleestrevlleedansl'experiencesychanalytique,crits, . 94. The English ranslations in Ecrits: Selection,. 2.Allfurthereferences illbe in thetextwith age numbers orboth heoriginal nd Sheridan'stranslation;hetranslationn thetext,however,willbe myown.6. JeanLaplanche ndJean-Baptisteontalis,Vocabulairee apsychanalyseParis:PUF, 1967),p. 453. Italics mine.7. TheFunctionnd Field f peech ndLanguage nPsychoanalysis,crits,. 300; Sheridan,p. 86. ThismajorstatementyLacan is also translated ith engthyommentarynAnthonyWilden,TheLanguage f he elfBaltimore: ohnsHopkinsUniv. Press,1958).8. Jacques acan, SomeReflectionsn theEgo, nternationalJournalf sycho-analysis,4 1953),p. 15.9. SigmundFreud,TheProblemfAnxietyNew York:Norton,1963),p. 80.10. Sigmund reud, Instinctsnd TheirVicissitudes nGeneralsychologicalheoryNewYork:Collier,1963),p. 83.11. Lacan, The Significationf thePhallus, crits, . 688; Sheridan, . 284. Italicsmine.

lacan's "mirror stage": where to begin

Documents