Difference between revisions of "Imaginary"
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| [[German]]: ''[[Imaginäre{{Bottom}} | | [[German]]: ''[[Imaginäre{{Bottom}} | ||
| + | =====Jacques Lacan===== | ||
| + | [[Lacan]]'s use of the term "[[imaginary]]" as a substantive dates back to 1936.<ref>{{Ec}} p. 81</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Illusion===== | ||
| + | From the beginning, the term has connotations of illusion, fascination and seduction, and relates specifically to the [[dual relation]] between the [[ego]] and the [[specular image]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It is important to note, however, that while the [[imaginary]] always retains connotations of [[illusion]] and [[lure]], it is not simply synonymous with "the illusory" insofar as the latter term implies something unnecessary and inconsequential.<ref>{{Ec}} p. 723</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | The [[imaginary]] is far from inconsequential; it has powerful effects in the [[real]], and is not simply something that can be dispensed with or "overcome". | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Order===== | ||
| + | From 1953 on, the [[imaginary]] becomes one of the [[order|three orders]] which constitute the tripartite scheme at the centre of [[Lacan]]ian thought, being opposed to the [[symbolic]] and the [[real]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Ego Formation===== | ||
| + | The basis of the [[imaginary|imaginary order]] continues to be the formation of the [[ego]] in the [[mirror stage]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Identification===== | ||
| + | Since the [[ego]] is formed by [[identifying]] with the [[counterpart]] or [[specular image]], [[identification]] is an important aspect of the [[imaginary|imaginary order]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The [[ego]] and the [[counterpart]] form the prototypical [[dual relation]]ship, and are interchangeable. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Alienation===== | ||
| + | This relationship whereby the [[ego]] is constituted by [[identification]] with the [[other|little other]] means that the [[ego]], and the [[imaginary|imaginary order]] itself, are both sites of a radical [[alienation]]; | ||
| + | |||
| + | <blockquote>"Alienation is constitutive of the imaginary order."<ref>{{S3}} p. 146</ref></blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Narcissism===== | ||
| + | The [[dual relation]]ship between the [[ego]] and the [[counterpart]] is fundamentally [[narcissistic]], and [[narcissism]] is another characteristic of the [[imaginary|imaginary order]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Narcissism]] is always accompanied by a certain [[aggressivity]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Deception===== | ||
| + | The [[imaginary]] is the realm of image and imagination, [[truth|deception]] and [[lure]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The principal illusions of the [[imaginary]] are those of [[gestalt|wholeness]], [[dialectic|synthesis]], [[autonomous ego|autonomy]], [[dual relation|duality]] and, above all, [[counterpart|similarity]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Structure===== | ||
| + | The [[imaginary]] is thus the [[order]] of surface appearances which are deceptive, observable phenomena which hide underlying [[structure]]; the [[affect]]s are such phenomena. | ||
| + | |||
| + | However, the opposition between the [[imaginary]] and the [[symbolic]] does not mean that the [[imaginary]] is lacking in [[structure]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | On the contrary, the [[imaginary]] is always already [[structure]]d by the [[symbolic order]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | For example in his discussion of the [[mirror stage]] in 1949, [[Lacan]] speaks of the relations in [[imaginary]] space, which imply a [[symbolic]] [[structure|structuring]] of that space.<ref>{{E}} p. 1</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | The expression "[[imaginary|imaginary matrix]]" also implies an [[imaginary]] which is [[structure|structured]] by the [[symbolic]],<ref>{{Ec}} p. 221</ref> and in 1964 [[Lacan]] discusses how the visual field is [[structure|structured]] by [[symbolic]] [[law]]s.<ref>{{S11}} p. 91-2</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Linguistic Dimension===== | ||
| + | The [[imaginary]] also involves a [[linguistics|linguistic dimension]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Whereas the [[signifier]] is foundation of the [[symbolic order]], the [[signified]] and [[signification]] are part of [[imaginary|imaginary order]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thus [[language]] has both [[symbolic]] and [[imaginary]] aspects; in its [[imaginary]] aspect, [[language]] is the "wall of language" which inverts and distorts the [[discourse]] of the [[Other]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Captation===== | ||
| + | The [[imaginary]] exerts a [[captation|captivating power]] over the [[subject]], founded in the almost hypnotic effect of the [[specular image]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The [[imaginary]] is thus rooted in [[subject]]'s relationship to his own body (or rather to the [[image]] of his body). | ||
| + | |||
| + | This [[captation|captivating/capturing power]] is both [[seductive]] (the [[imaginary]] is manifested above all on the sexual plane, in such forms as sexual display and courtship rituals)<ref>{{L}} "[[Situation de la psychanalyse et formation du psychanalyste en 1956]]." ''[[Écrits]]''. Paris: Seuil, 1966 [1956b]: 272</ref> and disabling: it imprisons the [[subject]] in series of static fixations. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Nature===== | ||
| + | The [[imaginary]] is the dimension of the [[human]] [[subject]] which is most closely linked to ethology and animal psychology.<ref>{{S3}} p. 253</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | All attempts to explain [[human]] [[subjectivity]] in terms of animal psychology are thus limited to the [[imaginary]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Although the [[imaginary]] represents the closest point of contact between [[human]] [[subjectivity]] and animal ethology,<ref>{{S2}} p. 166</ref> it is not simply identical; the [[imaginary|imaginary order]] in [[human]] [[being]]s is [[structure]]d by the [[symbolic]], and this means that "in man, the imaginary relation has deviated [from the realm of nature]."<ref>{{S2}} p. 210</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Imagination===== | ||
| + | [[Lacan]] has a Cartesian mistrust of the [[imaginary|imagination]] as a cognitive tool. | ||
| + | |||
| + | He insists, like Descartes, on the supremacy of pure intellection, without dependence on images, as the only way of arriving at certain [[knowledge]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It is this that lies behind Lacan's use of [[topology|topological figures]], which cannot be represented in the [[imaginary|imagination]], to explore the [[structure]] of the [[unconscious]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This mistrust of the [[imaginary|imagination]] and the senses puts [[Lacan]] firmly the side of [[science|rationalism]] rather than [[science|empiricism]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Imaginary Reductionism===== | ||
| + | [[Lacan]] accused the major [[school|psychoanalytic schools]] of his day of reducing [[psychoanalysis]] to the [[imaginary|imaginary order]]: these psychoanalysts made [[identification]] with the [[analyst]] into the goal of [[treatment|analysis]], and reduced [[treatment|analysis]] to a [[dual relation]]ship.<ref>{{E}} p. 246-7</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Lacan]] sees this as a complete betrayal of [[psychoanalysis]], a deviation which can only eveer succeed in increasing the [[alienation]] of the [[subject]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Symbolic in Analysis===== | ||
| + | Against such [[imaginary]] reductionism, [[Lacan]] argues that the essence of [[psychoanalysis]] consists in its use of the [[symbolic]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This use of the [[symbolic]] is the only way to dislodge the disabling fixations of the [[imaginary]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thus the only way for the [[analyst]] to gain any purchase on the [[imaginary]] is by transforming the [[images]] into [[word]]s, just as [[Freud]] treats the [[dream]] as a rebus: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <blockquote>"The imaginary is decipherable only if it is rendered into [[symbol]]s."<ref>{{L}} "[[Situation de la psychanalyse et formation du psychanalyste en 1956]]." ''[[Écrits]]''. Paris: Seuil, 1966 [1956b]: 269</ref></blockquote> | ||
| + | |||
| + | This use of the [[symbolic]] is the only way for the [[treatment|analytic process]] "to cross the plane of identification."<ref>{{S11}} p. 273</ref> | ||
=====See Also===== | =====See Also===== | ||
| Line 44: | Line 136: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{Encore}} | ||
| + | :* [[Imaginary register]], 90, 95, 107, 133 | ||
| + | :: [[object a]] and, 92-94 | ||
Revision as of 06:37, 23 October 2006
| French: imaginaire |
| German: Imaginäre |
Jacques Lacan
Lacan's use of the term "imaginary" as a substantive dates back to 1936.[1]
Illusion
From the beginning, the term has connotations of illusion, fascination and seduction, and relates specifically to the dual relation between the ego and the specular image.
It is important to note, however, that while the imaginary always retains connotations of illusion and lure, it is not simply synonymous with "the illusory" insofar as the latter term implies something unnecessary and inconsequential.[2]
The imaginary is far from inconsequential; it has powerful effects in the real, and is not simply something that can be dispensed with or "overcome".
Order
From 1953 on, the imaginary becomes one of the three orders which constitute the tripartite scheme at the centre of Lacanian thought, being opposed to the symbolic and the real.
Ego Formation
The basis of the imaginary order continues to be the formation of the ego in the mirror stage.
Identification
Since the ego is formed by identifying with the counterpart or specular image, identification is an important aspect of the imaginary order.
The ego and the counterpart form the prototypical dual relationship, and are interchangeable.
Alienation
This relationship whereby the ego is constituted by identification with the little other means that the ego, and the imaginary order itself, are both sites of a radical alienation;
"Alienation is constitutive of the imaginary order."[3]
Narcissism
The dual relationship between the ego and the counterpart is fundamentally narcissistic, and narcissism is another characteristic of the imaginary order.
Narcissism is always accompanied by a certain aggressivity.
Deception
The imaginary is the realm of image and imagination, deception and lure.
The principal illusions of the imaginary are those of wholeness, synthesis, autonomy, duality and, above all, similarity.
Structure
The imaginary is thus the order of surface appearances which are deceptive, observable phenomena which hide underlying structure; the affects are such phenomena.
However, the opposition between the imaginary and the symbolic does not mean that the imaginary is lacking in structure.
On the contrary, the imaginary is always already structured by the symbolic order.
For example in his discussion of the mirror stage in 1949, Lacan speaks of the relations in imaginary space, which imply a symbolic structuring of that space.[4]
The expression "imaginary matrix" also implies an imaginary which is structured by the symbolic,[5] and in 1964 Lacan discusses how the visual field is structured by symbolic laws.[6]
Linguistic Dimension
The imaginary also involves a linguistic dimension.
Whereas the signifier is foundation of the symbolic order, the signified and signification are part of imaginary order.
Thus language has both symbolic and imaginary aspects; in its imaginary aspect, language is the "wall of language" which inverts and distorts the discourse of the Other.
Captation
The imaginary exerts a captivating power over the subject, founded in the almost hypnotic effect of the specular image.
The imaginary is thus rooted in subject's relationship to his own body (or rather to the image of his body).
This captivating/capturing power is both seductive (the imaginary is manifested above all on the sexual plane, in such forms as sexual display and courtship rituals)[7] and disabling: it imprisons the subject in series of static fixations.
Nature
The imaginary is the dimension of the human subject which is most closely linked to ethology and animal psychology.[8]
All attempts to explain human subjectivity in terms of animal psychology are thus limited to the imaginary.
Although the imaginary represents the closest point of contact between human subjectivity and animal ethology,[9] it is not simply identical; the imaginary order in human beings is structured by the symbolic, and this means that "in man, the imaginary relation has deviated [from the realm of nature]."[10]
Imagination
Lacan has a Cartesian mistrust of the imagination as a cognitive tool.
He insists, like Descartes, on the supremacy of pure intellection, without dependence on images, as the only way of arriving at certain knowledge.
It is this that lies behind Lacan's use of topological figures, which cannot be represented in the imagination, to explore the structure of the unconscious.
This mistrust of the imagination and the senses puts Lacan firmly the side of rationalism rather than empiricism.
Imaginary Reductionism
Lacan accused the major psychoanalytic schools of his day of reducing psychoanalysis to the imaginary order: these psychoanalysts made identification with the analyst into the goal of analysis, and reduced analysis to a dual relationship.[11]
Lacan sees this as a complete betrayal of psychoanalysis, a deviation which can only eveer succeed in increasing the alienation of the subject.
Symbolic in Analysis
Against such imaginary reductionism, Lacan argues that the essence of psychoanalysis consists in its use of the symbolic.
This use of the symbolic is the only way to dislodge the disabling fixations of the imaginary.
Thus the only way for the analyst to gain any purchase on the imaginary is by transforming the images into words, just as Freud treats the dream as a rebus:
"The imaginary is decipherable only if it is rendered into symbols."[12]
This use of the symbolic is the only way for the analytic process "to cross the plane of identification."[13]
See Also
References
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p. 81
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p. 723
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p. 146
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 1
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p. 221
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book XI. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, 1964. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1977. p. 91-2
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. "Situation de la psychanalyse et formation du psychanalyste en 1956." Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966 [1956b]: 272
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p. 253
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-55. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1988. p. 166
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-55. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1988. p. 210
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 246-7
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. "Situation de la psychanalyse et formation du psychanalyste en 1956." Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966 [1956b]: 269
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book XI. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, 1964. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1977. p. 273
Index
- Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XX: Encore, On Feminine Sexuality, The Limits of Love and Knowledge 1972-1973. Trans. Bruce Fink. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1998.
- Imaginary register, 90, 95, 107, 133
- object a and, 92-94
