13/9/12 Ben Tyrer

1

This Tongue Is Not My Own: Dogtooth, Phobia and the Paternal Metaphor

Yogos Lathios Dogtooth exists in the shadow of certain real life cases; aesthetically, it is

a post-Haneke minimal-realist piece, of fixed shots and cramped framing, and it employs an

amalgam of professional and non-professional actors; it is also a reflection on the

transgressive and liberating possibilities of the cinema itself; but what is most interesting

about the film, from a Lacanian perspective, is what it suggests about language and family

structure. And so, through Laas oeption of phobia and the paternal metaphor, this

paper will explore the constitution of the Subject, in and through language, in Dogtooth to

reveal in a properly psychoanalytic manner what the pathological instance here can tell

us about the general condition.

The film depicts the homeschooling ideal, pursued to its logical (and absurd)

conclusion, showing the lives of three teenage children who have never been permitted to

leave the walled garden of their isolated house, and who receive all their care and guidance

from their e liteall sta-at-home-mother and middle-management father: the latter

being the only person able to leave the family compound. Their only contact with the

outside old is the fathes olleague, Chistina, a security guard whom he pays to have sex

with the son.

To gie ou a idea of the fil, I goig to sho a shot lip o: to which, I will

return in detail as my presentation progresses. Here we have a typical night in with the

family.

[CLIP: BR 00:54:59 00:57:50]

The first feature that I want to discuss is the way that Dogtooth places great

emphasis on signifiers and meaning, showing the latter to originate with the paternal regime.

13/9/12 Ben Tyrer

2

This clip presents a fairly common family situation, in which a child has picked up a word that

he or she does not know and innocently asks a parent what it means. So far, so good.

Sometimes, the situation is benign such as a scene where the son asks his mother what a

zoie is and sometimes it is not; here, the elder daughter has gleaned a word from a

pornographic video that the parents had been watching. One might expect here either

embarrassment or a discussion about sex and anatomy, but probably not for the mother to

defie puss as a lage lap, ad the to use it i a eepla setee. The sae, in

fact, is tue fo zoie, hih she defies as a sall ello floe. It soo eoes

clear that while this family might deal in recognised signifiers, its Symbolic order depends

at times on radically different signifieds. And this is not just a case of the sort of lazy lies

that parents tell when they are caught off guard or are too exhausted to explain the truth,

for this reactive re-signification is also joined by a pro-active dictation of signifieds through

the hildes hoeshoolig egie.

[SLIDE 2: Homeschool]

The film begins with a cassette tape playing and a voice defiig e ods suh as sea

as a leathe ahai ad otoa as a stog id.

So what is happening here? How is the family organisation in Dogtooth to be

understood? There is certainly a degree of pathology on display in the film, involving incest

and violence, but my aim is not to diagnose the characters, nor to search for causes: the film

offers none. Like Bressonian models, the family are stripped of psychology. They are not

even afforded proper names, being efeed to thoughout as Dad, Mu, o o

Bothe, Daughte o iste. The effet, I at to suggest, is to edue the fail

members to symbolic terms in an Oedipal equation, in the same way that Lacan rendered the

terms of the Freudian family drama into the Symbolic, as metaphors for the constitution of

13/9/12 Ben Tyrer

3

the Subject. Similarly then, I suggest that what is at stake in Dogtooth is not psychology but

structure.

The question of what structure is then the crucial one. Of Laas thee liial

structures, psychosis might be the most appealing here. However, there is in the film a

functioning Symbolic order: which precludes psychotic structure. Although it is, to be clear,

an alternative formation of the Symbolic order in that, for example, it accommodates incest.

Nor can this family structure be related to perversion: perverse structure is articulated

around a mechanism of disavowal that is not suggested by Dogtooth.

This leaves neurosis, but again, clearly, this film presents a structure that might not

necessarily be identified as euoti. It is here that the concepts of phobia and the

paternal metaphor are instructive. Eah of Laas liial stutues is a odalit of the

paternal metaphor: the process by which the Subject is constituted in and through language.

Laas eadig of the Oedipus complex through metaphor presents two formulae. The first

being a formula for metaphor in general:

[SLIDE 3: Metaphor (E: 464)] And the second, for the paternal metaphor in particular:

[SLIDE 4: Paternal Metaphor (E: 465)]

In brief, the structure of metaphor presents one signifier substituted for another signifier,

which produces a signification. The Lacanian Oedipus complex presents the signifier of the

Desire of the Mother as an abyssal question for the Subject: the unknown signified, x. In the

13/9/12 Ben Tyrer

4

resolution of the complex, the signifier of the Name of the Father intervenes, naming and

thereby replacing the Desire of the Mother for the Subject: hence it has the structure of a

metaphor. The signification produced by the paternal metaphor, this formula suggests, is a

phalli sigifiatio that ostitutes the Othe which is to say the Symbolic in relation to

the Subject as a One, a meaningful whole.

The paternal metaphor, then, provides the structure of and for the Subject, and its

different permutations produce, for example, neurosis, psychosis, or perversion: the latter

two being associated with something going awry in the paternal metaphor, which prompts

the Subject to attempt to provide its own solution, with the construction of, for instance, a

delusion or a fetish. This is where phobia comes in.

[SLIDE 5: Phobia]

Laa states that, phoia is another way of solving the difficult problem introduced by the

hilds and the othes elatios ... i ode fo thee to e thee tes i the tiagle,

there must be a closed space, as a way of organising the symbolic world, that is called the

father. Well, phobia is more or less of this order. It concerns the bond that encloses [the

world]. At a particularly critical moment, when no other way is open for solving the problem,

phobia constitutes a call for rescue, a call for a singular symbolic element (S4: 58). He

suggests that phobia arises as a means of dealing with anxiety, transforming it into the fear

of a specific object. However, apropos of Feuds ase stud of Little Hans, Lacan insists that,

instead of fixating on the object of phobia which, in that instance, is the horse it is

necessary to consider the function that it performs, which is that of the Name of the Father,

or more specifically, a stand in for Name of the Father: the sigifie hose poided for

Hans an organising logic; Lacan states that, it is the euialet of the pateal etapho

13/9/12 Ben Tyrer

5

(S4: 380). It provides a determining principle for his Symbolic order: allowing a phobic

structure of signification.

At this point, I hope, the connection to Dogtooth becomes apparent. Again, to be

clear, diagnosis is not my aim here; instead, I am trying to identify a structure of phobia that

regulates the family relations in the film. The phobic logic of Dogtooth is to quote the

father that the outside is full of dages that luk ad that, If ou stay inside, you are

poteted. The paternal regime in Dogtooth thus seeks to establish a closed order, which

to recall the previous quotation concerning the enclosure of the Symbolic world is in fact

the function of the Name of the Father, or its equivalent in phobia: Lacan states that, for

Has, the hose estutue[d] the world, by marking its liits e pofoudl (S4: 307).

Similarly then, is the fails old i Dogtooth enclosed by a phobic logic.

This is constituted literally by the high fence that encircles the garden, but it also

functions at the level of the Symbolic, through the regulation of signifiers. Certain things

occupy the position of a phobic object for the family: most notably a domestic cat that strays

into the garden and is declaed the fathe to e the ost dageous aial thee is.

[SLIDE 6: ...dangerous animal...]

It is, however, signifiers themselves that seem to constitute the greatest threat. Contact with

signifiers of and from the outside is strictly controlled. When the father buys branded goods

such as bottled water, he strips them of their labels before returning home; instead of

watching the television or listening to the radio, family entertainment is provided by the

repeated viewing of home movies and by messages of encouragement and discipline sung by

gadpa ad taslated ito the familial idiom by the father; and when a signifier does

itude, suh as zoie, it is edeed haless its paetal defiitio. The family life is

13/9/12 Ben Tyrer

6

thus structured by an alternative, phobic Symbolic order determined by a closed logic and a

strictly regulated relation between signifier and signified.

The dog of Dogtooth, then, pertains to the mythical function in phobia. Following

Levi-Strauss, Lacan refers to the individual myth that allows the Subject to negotiate an

impossibility (S4: 330). It is, he suggests, not identical to mythology as such, but it serves the

sae futio: to poide a solutio to a situatio that is losed ad i a ipasse, as is the

case of little Hans in relation to his father ad othe (S4: 330). Phobia is then, as Darian

Leader notes, an essentially mythical activity: as evinced, for example, in the stories that

Little Hans constructs about horses, trams and other children in order to deal with the

world around him (2003: 41).

The family in Dogtooth clearly has its own phobic mythology. It is articulated around

the central idea of the safety of the family home (and concomitantly, the impossibility of

leaving it), and has two most notable features: the missing son and the eponymous dogtooth.

In the clip, we saw the father drilling his children on this mythology, which insists that they

will only be ready to deal with the outside world when their canine tooth has fallen out, and

even then, that the only safe way to venture out is by driving the car, a skill which cannot be

learnt until the canine has grown back again. Of course, this is will not naturally occur (as is

implied by the myth) and so the children are trapped forever in a parentally-determined

state of immaturity. Thus the phobic structure is maintained by what Lacan calls the

soli eatios of tholog (E: 432). Such a construction is of the same order as the

pro-active definition of signifiers I observed earlier, and similarly is there a reactive

formation of the family mythology that responds to the exigencies of daily life. Although the

film is, characteristically, never clear on the matter, it is possible to infer that the missing son

mentioned by the family is, in fact, a really existing sibling who has escaped to the outside

13/9/12 Ben Tyrer

7

world. The fathe sees the iidet ith the at as a good oppotuit to otai the sos

escape through a further elaboration of the phobic mythology. Before returning home, he

shreds his clothes and smears himself with blood.

[SLIDE 7: ...brother...]

He then tells the family, You othe is dead, efoe eplaiig that he as attaked

another cat, which has killed their departed sibling. In one moment through another

soli eatio the father has closed off any connection to the outside world

suggested by the escaped brother; and he has succeeded in turning the family back in on

itself once more by establishing the cat as an imminent threat that prevents them from

leaving the house. Phobic structure thus persists its closed Symbolic order is regulated

due to the family mythology.

However, the paternal regime in Dogtooth cannot be maintained indefinitely. I have

already begun to note the bleeding of foreign signifiers into this phobic order. The most

significant outside influence, of course, is Christina: a stranger to the family, who

demonstrates a mischievous and even abusive attitude to the children. For instance, it is she

who itodues the od zoie to the so. But most important is the relationship

Christina develops with the elder daughter, in which pointing to her own crotch she tells

the daughter to oe lose ad lik fo a hile, in exchange for cheap accessories.

Human anatomy having no sexual signification for the daughter, she duly obliges. This

exploitation culminates in a threat of blackmail by the daughter, which leads to Christina

reluctantly handing over two rental videos.

It becomes evident that these are Jaws and Rocky IV, as the elder daughter, like

many children, acts out scenes from the movies in her own imaginative play. Foreign

13/9/12 Ben Tyrer

8

signifiers begin to flood her subjectivity as she enacts shark attacks and replays boxing

matches.

[SLIDE 8: Purloined Videos]

She is, to use a pleasingly ambiguous construction fo Laas eia o The Puloied

Lette, i the videos possession: as Laa eplais, [] oig ito the lettes possessio

... its eaig possesses the (E: 21). iilal the, is the daughte possessed the

signifiers of the Hollywood cinema these purloined videos to which she has been exposed.

This takes on an almost literal quality when, during a dance she performs for the family, the

daughter appears to be overcome by the spirit of Jennifer Beals in Flashdance as she

performs a frantic version of Ales auditio. The film thus seems to insist on the fact that

the effect of the Symbolic is to introduce the cause into the individual, that the Subject is not

its own cause but athe, as Laa isists, [the] cause is the sigifie (E: 708).

This condition in Dogtooth, then, suggests a fundamentally structuralist constitution

of the Subject, determined by the istae of the letter, understood as the agency of the

letter over the Subject (E: 412). The Symbolic order exists before the Subject: being born into

a world of language, a child must choose to submit to the Other, to accept a discourse that is

not his or her o, i ode to eoe a ubject. This is the process enacted by the

paternal metaphor, ad hih Laa desies i late ok as the el of alieatio, where

thee is i fat o eithe/o eause the hoie is a foed hoie, opaale to the

dead, You oe o ou life! (S11: 209-212). One must choose to part with the

money, to submit to the Other, otherwise one will have no life, no subjectivity. This

alienation is the institution of the Symbolic order and the assignation of a place for the

Subject in the symbolic chain. The signifier thus comes to stand over the Subject, the Subject

becoming but the reflection of the signifier.

13/9/12 Ben Tyrer

9

For Lacan, this ca e elated to the form of [the] proper name (E: 414); an alien

sigifie hih eists efoe oes birth but is inextricably linked to oes subjectivity, so

much so that it will stand in for the Subject, who fades udeeath it. Moeoe, as iek

notes, this process can be related to the logic of interpellation, as the moment the Subject is

called into being by the signifier (2001: 10 & 25). The proper name bestows a symbolic

mandate upon the Subject situating him or her in the structure of the chain of signifiers.

Strikingly, Dogtooth dramatises this very process.

[SLIDE 9: Interpellation]

Following her acculturation by the Hollywood blockbuster, the elder daughter announces to

he uopehedig siste, I at ou to all e Bue. This declaration precipitates the

following discussion:

YOUNGER: What is Bruce?

ELDER: A name. Ee tie ou sa Bue, Ill tu.

(...)

YOUNGER: Bruce!

[The elder sister turns towards her]

YOUNGER: Bruce!

[She turns]

YOUNGER: Bruce!

[She turns again]

YOUNGER: Bruce!

[She turns once more]

13/9/12 Ben Tyrer

10

Here, then, have two teenage girls come to the same conclusion regarding the interpellating

power of the Symbolic order, and act it out as a hilds gae. And it is as if, with each turn,

the sense of subjectivity is increased: the elder daughter o Bue feels the insistence

of agency instilled in her by this signifier, and her behaviour becomes, by the familial

standard, more and more outlandish. In response, the father redoubles his efforts to

maintain the phobic order: having discovered the illicit videos, he beats both his daughter

and Christina, whom he expels from the family structure, and he decides that the needs of

his son should now be met by the daughters, thereby, at last turning the family back in on

itself in the most profound manner possible.

The fils phobic order, however, cannot contain the agency of these purloined

letters, now insisting upon and through the daughter.

[SLIDE 10: ...dogtooth falls out...]

Bue decides that, if her dogtooth is not going to come out of its own accord, then she

ust help it out with a few sharp blows to the mouth with a dumb-bell. She spits her

broken teeth into the sink, smiles, and then walks out of the house, across the garden, and

climbs inside the boot of the car. The film ends with the father driving to work the next day,

and concludes with a shot of the car, parked outside his office. The final frames: a fixed,

medium shot of the boot, Bue presumably still inside.

This is a ope edig i the sese that e ae gie o lea idiatio as to what

happens next, but at the fils ed it is important to note that she is in fact trapped.

[SLIDE 11: Car]

This is not, then, some grand liberation into the Beyond. As the interpellation sequence

suggests, the elder daughter has succeeded in escaping the phobic structure of the family

only to be caught as Bue in the net of being that is the wider Symbolic order. In order

13/9/12 Ben Tyrer

11

to become a Subject, she must submit to the el of alieatio. I takig a ae, Bue

ostensibly takes control of her own destiny, but this name does not belong to her: it belongs

to the Symbolic order, which insists, []ou eliee ae takig atio he I a the one

akig ou sti (E: 29). These ods ae ut lettes, puloied fo the Othe. Lacanian

theory like Dogtooth shows the Subject to be positioned by the Symbolic order,

determined by the signifying chain that traverses it.

I began this paper with a discussion of the paternal metaphor as it introduces the

structure of the Subject: the Name of the Father provides what Bruce Fik desies as a

compass reading on the basis of which to adopt a oietatio (1995: 55). Dogtooth

demonstrates what happens when this compass is broken but, importantly, the film presents

phobia as equivalent to the paternal metaphor, phobic signification as phallic signification:

the outcomes may be different but the structure remains fundamentally the same.

The fils phoi signification presents an inversion of the logic of the uncanny: here,

the sea eoes a ahai, a zoie a floe, ad so the unheimlich is rendered

heimlich by the paternal discourse. The effect of the film as a whole, however, is properly

uncanny. Lacan renders the Freudian concept with the neologism, extimit (S7: 139), which

emphasises an eteio itia. The etiate can thus be understood as the position of

the Symbolic in relation to the Subject; it is the decentred-centre of the Subject, what

Jacques-Alai Mille alls the itiate that is adiall Othe (1994: 76). What Dogtooth

achieves is to make language strange again. The film does this by emphasising at every point

that the words in the mouths of the children originate with the Other; more generally, by

insisting in concert with Lacan that language, the means by which the Subject expresses

the most intimate details of its inner life, comes from the outside, from another place: the

transindividual structure of the Symbolic order.

13/9/12 Ben Tyrer

12

Dogtooth thus reveals only the finest of distinctions or indeed, lack of distinction

etee the pathologial ad the geeal oditios i this istae. In escaping the

phoi ode, i eoig Bue, the elde daughte has o hoie ut to suit oe

again to the discourse of the Other, to the quotidian bonds of human language: as both this

film and Lacanian theory make clear, the interpellation of the Subject by the Symbolic order

is the submission of the Subject to that order. Even if she does succeed in escaping to the

outside world, Bue will always, in this sense, be forced to speak with a tongue that is not

her own.

Thank you.