Although it is mentioned only once in the writings of Sigmund Freud, the so called
\u201cJewish joke\u201d appears on various occasions in the work of Jacques Lacan (1978: 139; 1993: 37;
2006: 13, 436) and is developed in various permutations, and with great didactic force, by Slavoj
\u017di\u017eek (1989: 197; 1992: 73; 1998: 12). The joke, as Freud originally presents it, is as follows:

Two Jews met in a railway carriage at a station in Galicia. \u201cWhere are you going?\u201d
asked one. \u201cTo Cracow,\u201d was the answer. \u201cWhat a liar you are!\u201d broke out the other. \u201cIf
you say you\u2019re going to Cracow, you want me to believe you\u2019re going to Lemberg. But I
know that in fact you\u2019re going to Cracow. So why are you lying to me?\u201d (1960: 137-8)

For Freud, this unusual joke points up \u201cthe problem of what determines the truth\u201d by playing on
the difference between two kinds of lying. Whereas a basic lie involves a willful attempt to
represent things as other than they are, regardless of who is listening, a second option is also
available. Taking into account how various statements might be received by a particular
individual\u2014for instance someone already known to be a skeptic\u2014a speaker may create a
customized lie, one more ideally suited to the disposition of its potential victim. The result is a
paradox: a lie that takes the form of the truth itself. In other words, as in the Jewish joke\u2014which
implies not only a mutual familiarity but also a past history of deception between the two

travelers\u2014when skepticism is in the air, one way to succeed in lying is by trying to fail. Or, we
might say that one way to win the day is to deliberately give up one\u2019s game, with the liar\u2019s
passive surrender of the truth transforming into an active victory.

For Lacan, the Jewish joke discussed by Freud is an archetype of human deception
since, unlike an animal, only a human subject (i.e. one who operates on the order of the
symbolic) will on occasion mislead his opponent by telling the truth in anticipation that it will be
taken as a lie:

You are in the presence of a subject insofar as what he says and does\u2014they\u2019re the
same thing\u2014can be supposed to have been said and done to deceive you, with all the
dialectic that that comprises, up to and including that he should tell the truth so that you
believe the contrary. [. . .] What the subject tells me is always fundamentally related to
a possible feint, in which he sends me, and I receive, the message in an inverted form.
(1993: 37)

Because an inverse position \u201ccan be supposed\u201d in any utterance, gesture, or action, the
prospect of a \u201cpossible feint\u201d hovers over all human signification, all the time. This is not, of
course, to say that in all cases we are actually being misled, but rather that our engagement
with representation is always/already structured in anticipation of a deception that may or may
not, in fact, occur. The point (and the humor) of the Jewish joke, then, is not that the second
Jew is lying, but that the first is convinced such a deception is afoot no matter what, and that his
counterpart must be dealt with accordingly. We are thus presented with the unthinkable but
nonetheless perfectly logical hypothesis that a flawed lie (i.e. one that leaks the truth
\u201caccidentally on purpose\u201d) can ensnare a human subject just as well as, and perhaps even
better than, a lie that lacks any such flaws.

In his 1992 book Looking Awry, Slavoj \u017di\u017eek gives this counterintuitive form of lying a
proper name: \u201cdouble deception.\u201d The adjective \u201cdouble\u201d here suggests not that the victim of
the lie is super-deceived (i.e. more deceived than usual), but that one deception is being
compounded by another, with the second doubling back upon the first:

Man alone is capable of deceiving by means of truth itself. An animal can feign to be or to intend something other than what it really is or intends, but only man can lie by telling a truth that he expects to be taken for a lie. Only man can deceive by feigning to deceive. (\u017di\u017eek 1992: 73)

\u017di\u017eek goes on to explain that both in truth-telling and in lie-telling, the human subject positions
her/his statement in anticipation of the Other\u2019s judgment. In other words, because we cannot
empirically test each enunciation to see how it will be received, the Other performs this
judgmental function for us, establishing a standard for our signifying practices and gauging
whether what we are about to do or say will have its desired effect. Despite being purely
hypothetical, the Other nonetheless performs an indispensable role as what Lacan calls \u201cthe
guarantor of Good Faith,\u201d even though nothing binds the subject to follow suit and represent
things truthfully (2006: 437). In this way, Lacan can speak of \u201cthe Other that even my lie
invokes as a guarantor of the truth in which my lie subsists\u201d (436).

An interesting example of double deception, and one that is particularly transparent in its
attempt to appease the judgmental function of the Other, involves a set of security measures
that were employed in the heyday of analog videotape. With the popularization of the VHS
videocassette in the 1980s, video rental stores began appearing in every American city and
small town. Video distribution companies sought to capitalize on this trend by pricing new
releases very high (around $80 per tape) for the rental market, and then lowering prices for
consumer purchase once rental revenues had declined. Quite naturally, the owners of video
rental stores became very concerned about securing their inventory against theft, and were thus
among the first retailers to install the large, walk-through magnetic sensors we see at the
entrances and exits of many retail stores today. While the high visibility of such technology
established a sentry-like point of surveillance, the unmanned scanners also begged the
question of their own trigger mechanism. That is, having encountered this new security system
for the first time, patrons could not help but wonder what invisible device had been included with
the cassette to activate the alarm, and where this device was located. The answer, of course,
was that a series of adhesive-backed magnetic strips were affixed to the VHS tapes
themselves. Strangely, however, the purpose of some of these tags was not primarily to remain
unseen and engage the alarm, but instead to be readily detected as a sham and thus engage
the mischievous skepticism of the would-be video thief.

One typical configuration of VHS security tags involved a three-layer approach. First, on
the outer cassette shell appeared a magnetic strip camouflaged as something else\u2014usually a
UPC barcode or a \u201cBe Kind, Please Rewind\u201d sticker. This outermost sticker was only a decoy,
however. Existing to be removed, or in a conceptual sense \u201cseen through,\u201d the dummy barcode