\
Subversion of the subject and dialectic of desire 2gt
N IN E
The subversionof the subjectandthe dialectic
of desirein the'Freudianunconscious
\. 1
This text representsmy contribution to a conferenceentitled
.'LaDialectique', held at Royaumont ry-4 September,
, r96ci."The conferencewas organized by the'Colloques
philosophiques internationaux', and I was invited
rhisconrerencer::.|.X'.'l'f;l"*Jff
hy#;grBsdeBonnevar,
at which I delivered my text, Position de l'inconscient.Thelater
*,.:ff
;,J;?rffi,i:ii:rl:r::*::H,f
il'j:*;'*
teaching has always been ahead of my
published work.
(The graph reproduced here first appeared in my seminar on the
formations of the unconscious. It was worke{ out with parti-
cular relation to the structure of the witticisrfi, which, to the
surprise of my audience, I took as a fioirii of ileparture. An
account of this seminar, which took place in the first term
of the year rgrT-8, appeared, together with the graph,
in a number of the Bulletin depsyclzologie.)
)ld{
,/.
The praxis that we call psychoanalysisis constituted $r_a structure.
An audiencelike the one here today - an audiencethat wi piesiime 6 Ft
aware of philosophicalproblems - cannot ignore this structure.
The notion that to be a philosopher meansbeing interestedin what
everyone is interestedin without knbwing it has the interesting peculi-
arity that its pertinencedoes not imply that it can be verified. For it can
be put to the test only by everyonebecoming a philosopher.
-^
I say-iG philosophical pertinence,for such, in the last resort, is the
schema that Hegel gave us of History in The Phenomenologyof Mind,
Summarizing it in this way is to provide us with a mediation that
facilitatesthe situating of the subject- namely, in relation to knowledge.
It is also .iiy to dimonstrate the ambiguity of such a relation.
The sameambiguity is manifestedin the effectsof sciencein the world
tod3y.
The scientist,too, is a subiect,and one particularly qualified in his
constitution, as is shown by the fact that sciencedid not come into the
world of its own accord(its birth was not without its vicissitudes,and it
. trl was precededby a number of failures- by abortion or prematurebirth).
-:l
Now this subject who must know what he is doing, or so one pre-
sumes,does not know what, in the effectsof science,is already, in fact,
of interest to everyone. Or so it would appear in the world of today,
where everyone finds himself at the same level as the scientist as far as
ignoranceon this point is concerned. i ,
This fact alone justifiesus in speakingof a subjectof science- a notion
to which an epistemologythat can be said to asliliy moie promisethan
success hopesto be equal.
Hence, let it be noted, my enrirely didactic referenceto Hegel, by
which I wished to say something,for the purposesof the training that I
have in mind, about the questionof the subject,in so far as that question
is properly subverted by psychoanalysis. 'i:
What qualifies me to proceed in this direction is obviously my ex-
perienceof this praxis. What has decidecime rp do so, those who follow
(
I my teachingwill bear this out, is a theoreticalrfullity coupled with abuses
in the way in which it is passedon, which, while presenting no danger
to the praxis iiself, result, in eithei case,in a total absenceof scientific
i status. To pose the question of the minimum conditions required for
such a status was not perhapsa dishonestdeparture.This departurehas
taken us a long way.
I am not dealing here with anything so broad in scope as a radical
questioning of social baseslI do not intend, in particular, to dwell on the
conclusionsthat I have been forced to draw about the notorious devi-
ations in analytic praxis that are.perpetraredin the name of psycho-,
analysisin Britain and America. \l; ,, ',. . , , ! ,j
What I will try to define is subversionproper, and I apologizeto this
gathering, whose quality I have already acknowledged,for being unable
to do more in its presencethan in its absence,that is, to take it as the very
pivot of my demonsration, even though it is up to me to justify this
latitude with regard to it.
Yet I shall use it in order to take as given the fact that emgili_cisgr
cannot constitutethe foundationsfor a science. <4#'*
At a t.Cond stage,we encou";;t;il;;'ir.r-atr.ady been constiruted,
by virtue of a scientificlabel,under the nameof psychology.
A label that I would reiect - precisely because,as I will show, the
function of thc subjcct,as it is establishedin Freudian experience,dis-
clualifiesfronr thc outsct what, under cover of the term 'psychology',
 I
i 1
,r.
294 Iicrits: A Selection
however one dressesup its premises, merely peqpetuatesan academic
framework.
Its criterion is the unity of the subiectrThich is ondlof the presupposi-
tions of this sort of fty&6f"i$"i[6Einp even taken a'ssymptomatic that
its theme is always more emphaticallyisolated,as if it were a question
of the return of a certain subject of knowledge (connaissance),or as
if the psychicalhad to obtain its credentialsas a double of the pfysical
1
organiim.',t.i
We must take as our standardhere the idea in which a whole body of
traditional thought comes together to validate a term, 'state of know-
ledge' (itat de la connaissance),that is not without foundation. Whether
it is a questionof the statesof enthusiasmdescribedby Plato, the Buddhist
degrees of samadlti, or the Erlebnis, the experienceobtained under the
influence of hallucinogenicdrugs, it is necessaryto know how much of
theseis authenticatedby any theory.
Authenticatedin the registerof the connaturality implied in knowledge
(connaissance).
It is clearthat Hegelianknowledge (savoi), in the logicizing AttJhebung
on which it is based,sets as little store by these statesin themselvesas
modern science,which can recognizein them an object of experience,in
the senseof an opportunity to definecertain co-ordinates,but in no way
an ascesisthat might, let us say, be epistemogenicor noophoric.
It is certainly on this accountthat referenceto them is pertinent to my
approach.
For I supposemy listenersare sufficiently informed about Freudian
pracrice to grasp that such statesplay no part in it - but what is not fully
appreciatedis the fact that the practitioners of this supposedly deptlr
psychology do not think of using them to obtain illumination, for example,
do not even attribute to thesestatesany value in relation to the direction
indicated by such a depth psychology.
For that is the meaning,which is not insistedon, of that distancefrom
which Freud proceedswhen it comesto hynoid s_t319s, even when it ir
merely a question of explaining the phenomena associat'ed with .lty-l!giu.
The siupifi""g fact is that Freud prefersthe dipg-ourse 5fthe hysterig. Whor
I have called 'fruitful moments' (momentsf€conds) in my"mapping of
paranoiacknowledge (connaissatrce) is not a Freudian reference.
I have somedifficulty in getting a hearing in circlesinfatuatedwith tlrc
most incedible illogicality for what is involved in questioning tlrc
-imconsciousas I ilo, that is to say, to the point at which it givcs a rcply
Subversionof the subjectand dialecticof desire zgl'
that is not some sort of transport of delight, or flat rejection, but rather
that lit says why'.
T^ u :- - r - * _ 1 .- --.
lf we take the subject anywhere it is to a deciphering that already
rpresupposesthis sort of logic in the uncpnscious:in which, for example,an
igterrogative voice, even the development of an argument, is recognized.
,*fhg 4ol. psychoanalytic tradition s-uppoltsthe view that the-analyst's
vciice can intervene only if it enters at the right place, and that if it enters
*to-oearly it merely produces a closing up of'pommunicarion.,
In other words, psychoanalysisthat is sustainedby its allegianceto
Freud cannot in any circu-mstances offer itself asa 'rite of passage'to some
archetypal, or in any senseineffable, experience:the day when anyone
expressesa view of this order that is not simply a dead loss will be the
day when all limits have been abolished.And we are still a long way
from that.l
This is merely an approach to our subiect. For it is a question of
grasping more preciselywhat Freud in his doctrine himself articulatesas
constitutinga'Copernican' step.
Is it enough that a privilege should be consignedto it, namely the one
that put the earth in the centralplacel The subsequentdislodging of man
from a similar placeby the triumph of the idea of evolution gives one the
feeling that this would involve a gain that would be confirmed by its
consistency.
But can one be sure that this is a gain, that it is real progressl Does
nothing make it appearthat the other truth, if we may so term revealed
truth, is seriouslyaffectedas a resultl Do we not believethat, by exalting
the centre, heliocentrismis no less of a lure than seeingthe earth as the
centreof the Universe, and that the fact of the ecliptic no doubt provided
a more stimulating model of our relations with the true, before it lost
much of its interest by being no more than the earth nodding its assentl
In any case,it is not becauseof Darwin that men believe themselvesto
be any the lessthe top dogs in creation, for it is precisely of this that he
convincesthem.
The linguistically suggestiveuse of Copernicus' name has more hidden
resourcesthat touch specificallyon what has just slipped from my pen as
the relation to the true, namely, the emergenceof the ellipseas being not
unworthy of the locus from which the so-calledhigher truths take their
name. The revolution is no less important for concerning only the
'celestialrevolutions'.
To stop at this stageno longer meanssimply revoking some idiotic
 (
r' l \ !-t. ,

\' ' t" !

iC
'-

it u
t t.' '., " -- \ -.
--. ' : -. _ - i .l t.
./ " -. . .

296 Ecrits: A Selection Subversionof ,the

\-...
subjectlnd dialecticof desire 2gT
' _-_.,'
Indeed, a number of cracks to be heard confusedly in the great con-
notion deriving from the religious tradition, which, as can be seenwell
sciousnesses responsiblefor some of the outstanding changesin physics
enough, is non-ethe worse for it, but 3the1 of binding more closely thc
remind us that, after all, for this F*gwlejgs aq for, others it is elsewhere
r€gime of knowledge to the rdgime of truth'
"Fo, that the hour of truth must strikel-fl'.1,,' ! i' l r'- r,''' i
, -^ if the work 6f Cop.tnicus, as others have remarkedbefore, is not-
of And why would we not seethat the astonishingconsiderationshown
rF as Copernicanas is customarily believed,it is in this that the doctrine
r do,rbll truth conrinuesto offer shelterto a knowledge that until that time, to the din emerging from psychoanalysisin sciencemay be due to the
of being quite content with it' theoreticalhope psychoanalysisoffers - a hope that is not only the result
it must be said,had every aPPearance
''-'' So here we are atthis-sensitivefrontier betweentruth and knowledge; of confusionl
Of course,f am not referring to that extraordinarylateral transference,
and it might be said after all that, at first sight, our sciencecertainly seemr
by which the categoriesof a psychology that re-invigorates its menial
to have re-adoptedthe solution of closing the frontier.
tasks with social exploitation acquire a new strength in psychoanalysis.
Yet if the Listorical birth of scienceis still a sufficiently burning
For the reasonalready given, I regard the fate of psychology as signed
quesdon for us to be aware that at that frontier a shift took place, it.ir
and sealed.
p.rh.p, there that psychoanalysisis marked out to rePresentan earlh'
In any case,my double referenceto Hegel's absolutergb-L.Sland to the
quake yet to come.'
abolished subject of gdgfs provides the illumination necessaryto an
For i.t ,r, look again from this angle at the servicewe exPectedfrom
accurateformulation of Freud's dramatism:the re-entry of truth into the
Hegel's phenomer&gy, for it repr.setttsan ideal solution - a solutioq
field of scienceat the sametime as it gains recognition in itre filta of its
or."-igirr say, involvi-ng . p.trnrttent revisionism, in which truth is in r
praxis: repressed,it reappears.:!. ..,
state ol.onri.nt re-absorptiott in its own disturbing element, being In
Who cannot seethe distancethat separatesthe unhappy consciousness
itself no more than that which is lacking for the realization of knowled8*
- of which, however strongly it is engravenin Hegel, it can be said that
- The anrinomy that the Scholastictradiiion posedas a matter of principb
it is still no more than the suspensionof a corpusof knowledge - from the
is here takett ,o be resolved by virtue of being imaginary. Tru-tlt.ll
'discontentsof civilization' in Freud, even if it is only in a mere phrase,
nothing other than that which knowledge can apprehendas knowlerlSl
uttered as if disavowed,that marks for us what, on reading it, cannot be
only b! settingits ignoranceto work. A real crisisin which the imaginlry
;rrticulatedotherwise than the 'skew' relation2 that separatesthe subject
it t.tolued, thus engendering a new symbolic form, to use my own
from sexualityl
categories. This dialectic is convergenr and attains the conjunctutt
There is nothing, then, in our expedientfor situating Freud that owes
defined as absoluteknowledge. As such it is deduced,it can only bc rb
;rnything to the judicial astrology in which the psychologist dabbles.
conjunction of the symbolic with a real of which there is nothing nrorolo
'W'hatis this real, if not a subjectfulfilled in.his identity to Nothing that proceedsfrom quality, or even from the intensive,or from
b. e"p..ted.
.rny phenomenology from which idealism may draw reassurance. In the
himselfl From which, one can conclude that this subiect is alrcrdT
lireudian field, in spite of the words themselves,consciousness is a feature
perfect in this regard, and is the fundamental hypothesis of this wlrrilr
.rsinadequateto ground the unconsciousin its negation (that unconscious
pro..rr. He is nariedr'in effect,as being the substratumof this-procenih'
rlatesfrom St Thomas Aquinas) as the affect is unsuited to play the role
is called the Selbstbrrurrtrrio, the being conscious of self, tlre fullt
,,f the protopathic subject,sinceit is a servicethat has no holder.
consciousself.
- I nril SinceFreud the unconscioushas been a chain of sigaifiers that some-
I would to heavenit were so, but the history of gggnc-e-itself
Greek mathematics - prcro[ *'hcre (on anoiher stage, in another scene,he wrote) is repeated,and
our science,from its inception, say, in
little wirlr thl rrrsistson interfering in the.breaksoffered it by the effectivediscourse
itself rather in the form of aeio,ris that comply very
.rrrrlthe cogitation that it informs. ' I *.
immanentism.In fact, the theories- and let us not be misled by lrry |}
ln this formula, which is mine only in the sensethat it conformsas
absorption of the limited theory into the generalizedtheory - d,f ttril, ll
dilloil , l,rselyto Freud's tcxt as to tlrc cxperiencethat it openedup, the crucial
,ny *.y, fit together accordingio the thesis/antithesis/synthesis
 ) \"
2g8 Ecrits: A Selection (., i' Subversion of the subject and dialectic of desire zgg
i
rerm is the signifier, brought back to life from the ancient ftt of rhetoric But if I say'tue'fthe 3rd personsfirgularof tuer,to kill and the past
by modern linguistics, in a doctrine whose various stT$es cannot bc participleof setaire,to fall, or remain,silent],because they bore me to
traced here, but of which the namesof F.erdinandd.9Sqgitg*.and Roman death,wheream I situatedif not in the 'tu' lthe familiar form of 'you'J
Jakobson will stand for the dawn and its present-dayculmination, not from whichI eyetheml
forgetting that the pilot scienceof structuralismin the W'est hasits roott Don't go into a sulk, I am merelyreferringobliquelyto what I am
in Russia,where formalism first flourished. 'Geneva rgto' and'Petrograd reluctantto coverwith the distorting map of clinicalmedicine.,i, . I . " -'
rgzo'sufice to explain why Freud lacked this particular tool. But thir Namely,the right way ro reply ," ,h. question,'Who is speakingl',
whenit is the subjectof the unconscious -Fd-ihff
defect of history makesall the more instructive the fact that the mechan- that is at isslie. *iFiy "
isms describedby Freud as those of 'the primary process',in which thc cannotcomefrom that subiectif he doesnot know what he is saying,or
unconsciousassumesits rule, correspondexactly to the fuirctions that thir evenif he is speaking,as the entire experience of analysishas taught
school believes determines the most radical aspectsof the effects of US.j-t

languager *d-neto+yryJ- in otherwords,thesignifier'r

el.Sely-rygpllo-l It follows that theplaceof the'inter-sai d'(inter-ditJr*,hi.h i, ,h.'inrra-
effects of substitution-irid'combination on the respectively synchronic said' (intra-di) of a between-twoiiibjeiiir'is the very placein which the
t

ryd diachronic dimensionsin which they aPPearin discourse. \, transparencyof the classicalsubiect is divided and passesthrough the
the$ry1$11of languagehasb-eenrecognizedin the unconscious, effectsof 'fading'.a.thatspecify the Freudian_subiect by its occultatiol bI
f .Once li
Iwhat sort of pufiiggtgan we conceivefor itl ' . d ,: dt .'' - , t l an ever purer signifier: that these effectslead us to the frontiers at which
\ slips of the tongue and witticisms, in their collusion, become confused,
We can try, with *.Jbqdological'rigour, to set out from the strictly
linguistic definition of the Ils signifier, in which there is nothing but tho even where elision is so much the more allusive in racking down presence
'{t.hifJ. )or indicative, ;nfth, in-the subject of the statement, dlqrgnalef to its lair, that one is surprisedthat the Desek hunt hasn't done better
','
tli snbjectin the sensethat he is now speaking. L '..,- out of it.
3 Lest the hunt be in vain for us analysts,we musr bring everything back
That is to say, it designatesthe gubject of the enunciation but i, 191 | "being. -which
not signi& it. This is apparent from the fact that every signifier of tlre I to the fpq{ion of the,,'fti" discourse, !"bp-*.l.tq-o--q1gegt that -
subiectof the enunciationmay b"l&g_in the statement,not to mention I agt!-?.s-*bfrbetwgqn 1!reslgnifier and the signified. There the subject that
the fact that there are those that differ from the I, and not only what ir I interests'us is sg5Eised, since by binding himself in signification he is
inadequatelycalled the casesof the first person singular, even if onc I placed under the sign of the pre-conscious.By which we would arrive at
added its accommodationin the plural invocation, or even in the Sclfl the paradoxof conceivingthat the discoursein an analyticsessionis
-.
(So0 of auto-suggestion. valuableonly in so far as^iptumblesor is interrupted:if the sessionitself
' were ndt institutedg:"gl.ubn a false$codilAJ- or rather,i6'-tfiu#6;"r
I ihink, for-e#iople, that!recognized the s.rbj6ctof the enunciationin j
the signifie\'ne'rwhich grammarianscall the -expletiv-e, a term that already that the discoursedffid;in emptying"iis6lfiJ3pee.h,in beingno more
prefiguresthe incredible opinion of those,and they are to be found among than Mallarmd'syorn coinagethat .is passedfrom hand to hand 'in
the best, who regard its form as being a matter of mere chance.May tlro s i l e n c e '. - ,, . i .,. -. \ ,,- ,/'' ,: ' {r r ' ,r i ..1,.r ' r ,. (-
weight that I give it persuade them to think again, before it becomer This cut in the signifrt.g chain alone verifies the struiture of ihe
obvious that they have missedthe point (avant gu'il rri! soir avdr{ qu'ils n'y subject as discontinuity in the
_re{I.If linguistics enables us to see the
comprennentricn) - take out that ne and my enunciation loses its attack, signifier as the determinant of the-signified, analysis reveals the truth of
Jeifiaing me into the impersonal.Butlfear that in this way they will this relation by making 'holes' in the meaning of the determinants of its
:
come to curse me (je crains ainsi gu'ils n'en viennentd me honnir) - slide discourse i r' J ' ' | \ ''t
r I'
over that n'and its-absence,reducing the allegedfear of a declarationof It wasalongthis line df approachthat Freudwasableto carry out the
my repggnanceto a timid assertion,reducesthe emphasisof my enuncil. imperative,which he brought to a level of sublimity worthy of the pre-
tion by situlting p: in thq st41erpe,nt.-,/ Socraticsin the formulatior,'Wo eswar, sollfch yerden',which I have
 .a
3o,0 Ecrits: A Selection
commented upon several times already, and which I will now try to
present in a different light'
- }"gylSdre,
To take one step at a time in Freud's grammar: 'there where it was . . .'
(td oilcefut. ..), which meanswhatl If it were only that which had been
(in an aoristicrindefiniteform)rhowcan I come there in order to make
myself be there, to stateit nowi
But the French says:'Ld oil c'itait. . .' Let us make use of the benefit
that French gives us of a distinct imperfect.sThere where it was just now,
there where it was for a while, betweenan extinction that is still glowing
and a birth that is retarded, 'I' can come into being and disappearfrom
what I say.
An enunciation that denounces itself, a statement that renounces
itself, ignorance rhat dissipatesitself, an opportunity that loses itself,
whar remainshere if not the maceof what nustbe in order to fall from
beingl
Alream descibed by Freud in his article, 'Formulations on the Two
lrin6iplesof the Mental Functionitg',u gives us, with all the pathos that
the figure of a dead father returning as a ghost would be invested, the
sentence:'Hedid not know that he was dead.'
I have already taken the pretext of this sentenceto illustrate thc
relation of the subject to the signifier - a relation that is embodied in an
enunciation (Cnonciiation) whose being trembles with the vacillation tlnt
comesback to it from its own statement(enoncQ.
If the figure of the dead father survives only by virtue of the fact tlrnt
one doesnor tell him the truth of which he is unaware,what, then, is trt bc
said of the I, on which this survival dependsl
He did not know . . . A little more and he'd have known. Oh ! let'r
hope that never happens!Rather than have him know, "I'd die. Yes, tltlt'r
how.f get there,there where it was:who knew, then, that.f was deadl
Being of non-being, that is how f as subject comes on the scen f
conjugited with the double aporia of a true survival that is abolishedby
knowledge of itself, and by a discoursein which it is death that sustdtr
existence.
Are we to weigh this being against that, which Hegel as subiec, lt -
forged, of being the subject who treats of history in the discounc r{
'We
absoluteknowlJgel rememberthat he admits to having expericntrd
the temptation of madness.And is our way not that which overcoltll
that tempration,in going as far as the truth of the vanityof this discourul
Let ui not advance our doctrine on madnessat this point. For th|t
;f
SuB'ersionof the subjectand dialecticof desire :.or
eschatologicalexcursion is here only to designateg[q-gag_thatseparares
those two relations of the subjecrjo lhe r'telaiu" rttd th.
Hegelian.
And to show that there is no firmer root than the modes that dis-
tinguish the dialecticfrom desire. , '
Fot in Hegel it is desire (Begierde)that is givgn qh9respgnsibility for
.
that minimum connexion with ancient knowledge (imn:efssinre)that the I
subject must retain if truth is to be immanent in the rcalizationof know-
,
ledge (savoir). Hegel's 'cunning of reason'meansthat, from beginnin gto r " *
-(,,,..:-- .;
end, the subjectknows what he wants. i,. i :
It is here that Freud reopensthe junction betweenmuth and kifwledge I '
to the mobility out of which revolutionscome. \),^ , ',
.-, .0.,
In this respect:that desire becomesbound up with the desire of the
^
Other, but that in this loop lies the desireto know. ,
Freud's biologism has nothing tb'do with the mordlistic abjection
that wafts up from the psychoanalytic kitchen. _\, i
And you have to be made to live the death instinct, which is held in
such abomination there, if you are to catch the true tone of Freud,s ,
biology. For to ignore the death instinct in his docrine is to misunder
stand that docrine entirely. ,
From the approachthat we have indicated,the readershould recognize
in the metaphor of the return to the inanimate (which Freud .tt."h.r to ',
every living body) that margin beyond life that language gives to the
human bging by virtue of the fact that he speaks,and which is precisely"'
that in which such a being placesin the position of a signifier, not only ,
thoseparts of his body that are exchangeable, but this body itself. Thus it-
' !
becomesapparentthat the relation of the object to the body is in no way
definedas a partial identificationthat would have to be totalized in such a
relation, since,on the conrrary, this obiect is the prototype of the signifi- ){
canceof the body as that which for being is at siake. I
#
At this point, I take up the challengethat is offered to me when what
&
B Ilreud callsTricl is translatedas'instince'.'Drive'would seemto translate
f tlre German word quite well in English, but is avoided in the Standard
Iidition.In French, my last resort would be'dirive', if'I .wereunableto
give the bastardterm 'pulsion'the necessaryforcefulness.
And so we insist on promoting instinct, whether grounded or not in
lriological observarion, to a place among the modes of knowledge
(connaissance) required by nature of the living being so that he may
'..rtisfyhis needs.Instinct is then dcfined as knowledge (connaissorril

3oz Ecrits: A Selecdon ',
that has the astonishing property of being unable to be knowled ge (tn
savoir).But in Freud it is a questionof something quite different, which is
a savoir, certainly, but one that involves not the least connaissattce, in
that it is inscribed in a discourse,of which, like the 'messenger-slave'of
ancient usage, the subiect who carries under his hair the codicil that
condemns him to death knows neither the meaning nor the text, nor in
what languageit is written, nor even that it had been tatooed on his
shavenscalpas he slept.
This story hardly exaggeratesthe little physiology that is of interest
to the unconscious.
It will be appreciatedby the counter-proof of the contribution made
by psychoanalysisto physiology since its inception: this contribution ir
nil, even where the sexualorgans are concerned.No amount of fabulation
will alter this balance-sheet.
For, of course, psychoanalysisinvolves the real of the body and
the imaginary of its-mental schema.But to recognizetheir stopEin the
perspectivethat is authorized by development, we must first perceive ,
that the more or less departmentedintegrations that appear to order it,
function in it above all like heraldic elements,like the body's coat-of-
arms. This is confirmed by the use one makes of it to read children't
drawings
'What
we have here is the principle - we shall return to it later - of the
paradoxicalprivilege'possessed by the phallus in the dialectic of the un-
conscious, without the theory produced by the part-object being r
sufficient explanation of it.
Need I now say that if one understandswhat sort of support we havo
sought in Hegel to criticize a degradationof psychoanalysisso inept tlnt
it can find no other claim to interest than being the psychoanalysisof
today, it is inadmissible that I should be thought of as having been
lured by purely dialectical exhaustion of being. Nor can I regard r
particular" philosopherT as being responsible when he authorizes tlrir
misunderstanding.
For far from ceding to a logicizing reduction where it is a question
of desire,I find in its irreducibility to demand the very source of tlrrt
which also preventsit from being reducedto need.To put it ellipticallyr
it is precisely becausedesire is articulated that it is not articulable, I
mean in the discoursebest suited to it, an ethical, not a psychologicrf
discourse.
I must now develop much further for you the topology that I hrve
\
Subversionof the subjectand dialecticof desire 1o1,
.'',, 1'
elaboratedin my teaching over the past fiv'e years, that is, introduce a
certain diagram, which, I should warn your also serves pu{poses other
than the use that I am going to make of it here, having been construcred
and completed quite openly in order to map in its arrangement the most
broadly pracdcal structure of the data of our experience.It will servehere
to show where desire,in relation to a subiect defined in his articulation by
the signifier, is situated. ,.1,
.. |".3 ;,
rr
Graph r' r
r , !-
1
t
,.'')
t'i This is what might be said to be its elementary.ggl] (.f. Graph ^Q.In it
t is articulated what I h.rr. called the 'anchoring poiitt' (pokt de capiton),
by which the signifier stops the otherwise endlessmovement (glissemen)
of the signification. The signifying chain is regardedas being supported
by the vector Sg - even without entering into the subtleties of the
directio" which its doqble intersection with the vector
-Tgoae i"
A.$ occurs. Only in this vector does oiie seethe fish it hooks, a fish less
suitablein its free movement lgnyeprgqeptwhat it witholds from our grasp
than the intention that tries to'Bury it in the massof the pre-text, namely,
the reality that is imaginedin the ethologicalschemaof the return of need.
The diachronic function of this anchoring point is to be found in
the senience,even if the sentencecompletesits signification only with
its last term, eachterm being anticipatedin the construction of the others,
and, inversely, sealing their meaning by its retroactive effect. f :
But the synchronic structure is more hidden, and it is this stircture
that takesus to the source.It is metaphor in so far as the first attribution
is constitutedin it - the attributionthat promulgates'thedog goesmiaow,
the cat goes woof-woof',8 by which the child, by disconnecting the
animalfrom its cry, suddenlyraisesthe sign to the function of the signifier,
r-i
 't
-

Subversion of the subject and dialectic of desire 1ot

3o.4
for veri- decompletingit essentiallyin order, at one and the sametime, to have ro
and reality to the sophisticsof signification,and by contemPt
the same thing dependon it and to make it function as a lack.
similitud., op.rm up'the diversity of objectifications of
The Other as previous site of the pure subjectof the signifier holds the
that have to be verified.
master position, even before coming into existenCe,to use Ffegel'sterm
Does this possibility require the topology of a four-corneredStd
may against him, as absolute Master. For what is omitted in the platitude of
That is the sort of q,r.ttiott that looks innocent enough?bt -t which
must be dependent on modern information theory is the fact that one can speakof code only if
gi". ,o*e trouble, if th. subsequentconstruction
it is already the code of the Other, and that is something quite different
it.
function from what is in questionin the message,sinceit is from this code that the
I will spareyou the various stagesby giving you at 9ne g9 the
in this simplified The first, subject is constituted, which means that it is from the Other that the
of the two ptints of intersection *.raqh.
which does not mean subiect receiveseven the messagethat he emits. And the notations O
connoted O, is the locus of the signifier'streasure, (
of a sign and s(O) are justified. !- ,'' , ' ',.."
the code,streasure,for it is not that the univocal correspondence
Code messagesor messagecodeswill be distinguishedin pure forms
*iiffi.thing is preservedin it, but that the signifieris constitutedonly
eachis in the subjectof psychosis,the subjectwho is satisfiedwith that previous
from ryn.hrJnic and enumerabiecollection of elementsin which
" to each of the others' Other.
,,rrt.it.d only by the principle of its oppo-sition
in Observe, in parentheses,that this Other, which is distinguishedas the
The second,lorrrroted^s(O-),is what may be called the punctuation 'Without
locus of Speech,imposesitself no less as witness to the Truth.
which the significationls constitutedas finished product' -
ratlter the dimensionthat it constitutes,the deceptionpractisedby Speechwould
Observe ile dyssymetry of the one, which is.flqq:-(e.Pl1tt'
a moment (a-rhyi|m, rather than r be indistinguishable from the very different pretence to be found in
than a space),to th; other, which is
physical combat or sexualdisplay. Pretenceof this kind is deployed in
duration).
by imaginary capture, and is integrated into the play of approach and
Both participate in this offering to the signifier that is constituted
other as r rejection that constituted the original dance, in which these two vital
the hole in the real, the one as a hollow for concealment,the
situations find their rhythm, and in accordancewith which the partners
boring-hole to escaPefrom. "+
in tlre ordered their movements - what I will dare to call their 'dancity'
Thi subiection of ,n. subject to the signifier, _which ?:"ltt
to O and back from O to "(O) is really n (dansitQ. Indeed, animals, too, show that they are capableof such be-
circuit that goes from
"(O) of being haviour when they are being hunted; they manageto put their pursuers
circle, evenirough th. rtt.ttion that is establishedin it - for lack
than its own scansion, in other words, for off the scentby making a falsestart. This can go so far as to suggeston
able to end on aiything other
- refers only to its .wn the part of the game animal the nobility of honoring the element of
lack of an acr in whichlt would find its certainty
o!rlg r,$Fsl:-in itsgf-!ltigL-'!:l\t; .t' ' displayto be found in the hunt.But an animaldoesnot pretendto pretend.
- aiti.ifttion in thecomposition Colnlcri'n He doesnot make tracks whose deceptionlies in the fact that they will be
: ,To bepossible, of thisffi;G;;it requi:es.itie
thesquaring
the locur taken as falser-while being in fact true ones,ones,that is, that indicatehis
of the rignifying'battery set up in o, henceforth symbolizing
that this other is simply the puno true trail. Nor does an animal cover up its tracks, which would be tanta-
of the oilr.rl It"then belomes upput.nt
accessibleto tlto rnount to making itself the subject of the signifier.
subiect of modern gamestheory, an-d1 t,r.l perfectly
in to govern All this has been articulated in a confused way even by professional
calculationof conie-t,rr., even though the real subiect, order
subicctivr philosophers.But it is clearthat Speechbeginsonly with the passagefrom
his own calculation,must leave oui of account any -so-called 'pretence' to the order of the signifier, and that the signifier requires
that is, the psychological, acceptation ol'tlro
aberration,in th. .orn*on,
int.tiption of an exhaustiltb another locus - the locus of the Other, the Other witness,the witness
term, and concern himsef on$ with ih. ()ther than any of the partners- for the Speechthat it supportsto be
combinatory.
fact tlnl capableof lying, that is to say, of presentingitself as Truth.
Yet such-asquaringis impossible,but only by virtue of thc
ir :rrrd by Thus it is from sonrcwltcrcothcr than the Realitv that it concernsthat
the subiectis constitited o"ty by subtractinghimsclf frr'r
 'l 1) S ' t
.
\ .r. r.-lL \ ('.-
. . t - ^- . ^ oJi - 1' :
/-/\J

Ecrits: A Selecdon Subversionof the subjectand dialecticof desire 3o7

3c,6
Speech the ageingof the psychoanalyticgroup in the diasporaof the war, and the
Truth derives its guarantee:it is from Speech.Just as it is fr.om I reduction of a distinguishedpractice to a label suitableto the 'American
fictional structure.
that Truth receiv.l th9 mark that establishesit in a
il, dit premier)standasa decree'a 1,.*, t1 . )
wayof life'.e i,. .^,'
The first ;il-$Jr.." I
the real / in any case,what the subiectfinds in thii iltered image o[ hir 6oay iJ
aphorism, an oracki they confer their' obscure authority uPon
the paradigm of all the forms of resemblancethat will bring over on to
other.
t say the world of obiects a tinge of hostility, by projecting on them the
t"ti" just one signifier as an emblem of this omnipotence,that is to
birth of manifestationof the narcissisticimage, which, from the pleasurederived
t of thi, *ttotty pote"ntialPower (9r.4ouroir tourtenpuissance)r-this j:

from meeting himself in the mirror, becomeswhen confrontating his

yoo hane-thgoiiitbtoken line- (trait ultaire).which, by
It

possibiliry,
'.. "tta subject.derives from the signifier, fellow man an outlet for his most intimate aggressivity.
huing in'ihe invisible mark tdi;h;
ego ideal. It is this image that becomesfixed, the ideal ego, from the point at )
-t alienatesthis subiectin the primary identification that forms the
stage, I must which the subject stops as ego ideal. From this point on, the ego is a
:li
-.! This is inscibed in the notation I(O), which, at this
its function of masteryt a play of presence,of bearing (prestance),and of
substitute for the $, the barred S of the retrograde vector' bringing
!_

\ o*'
'1 constitutedrivalry.In the captureto which it is subiectedbyits ipnaginary
back to
fp back
tip starting point
its starting
to its Graph II)'
(cf. Graph
point (cf. II)' ' , ,..f" ''r-' .,L
,.,,: 1.'
,,". /h nature,the egom.sksits dlpficity, that is to ."yi thJt*'g6i;"ftffir in
G r aphll
S / ..
, !1,.,
:, . Y which it assuresitself of an incontestableexistence(a naivety to be found
--:) r.
.l-i "';', , 'ri..,i )r'
/
l- . v ' /---\
,/ \ f|
,,, in the meditation of a Fdnelon) is in no way immanent in it, but, on the
./ \ - -
' , . : : ' r n, . ' ,.,.
, ,rt
/; , n\ u-{,-r",*(r0l '-
.' '' ,'-'l '
' ' contrary, is transcendenT$-e itis,suppo#fC"hy the unbroken line of the
L, ego idqal (which the Cartesian ?a'gituaiU li8f fail to recognizelo). As a
ris'ul[r?fie ffanscendentalego itself is relativizedrimplicatedas it is in,the t,
Signifier Voice
", ryW.einwhichtheego'sidentificationstakeroot.nJ1,.-j.....i,,"l;
i (ol-\f'- .. This imaginary process,which begins with the specular image and
0
-i{"r:
i;r., '", 'O!;i/'
', . : .,.-t', ^*-\--..t
l ' -$
goes on to the constitution of the ego by way of subiectificationby the
\ I
"/ Pr
" l. i' . ' " signifier, is signified in our graph by the vector Srrwhich is one-way,
i. (
v V ' ' ' ..o"1 ;(
j./- l
but which is doubly articulated,once in a short circuit over ffi;, .na
I .- - .

This is'a ietroversion effectby which the subjectbecomesat eachstage again in a return direction over r(O). O. This shows that the ego is only
what he was before and annoulrceshimself - he will have been - only in completed by being articulated not as the I of discourse,but as a me-
the future perfect tense. tonymy of its signification (what Damourette and Pichon take as the
At this point the ambiguity of a failure to recognize that-is essentirl 'alloyed' (6rofO person,as opposedto the'purified' (subtile)person,the *':
to knowing myself (r* mClonnaitreessentielau me connaitre)is introduced; latter being no more than the function designatedabove as the 'shifter').
For, in thil'rear ,rie*' (rCtrovisCe), all that the subje"t It be certain of h The promotion of consciousness as being essentialto the subjectin the
th" image coming to-meet him that he catchesof himself ln lristorical after-effectsof the Cartesian cogito is for me the deceptive
"ttti.ipated
his mirror. Lh"U io, t *ntti here to the function of my 'mirror stago" accentuation of the transparencyof the I in action at the expenseof the
that first strategic point that I developed in opposition to the favotu opacity of the signifier that determinesthe I; and the sliding movement
accordedin psyiho*"tyri" theory to the suppotedly eutorw*oY ego'.'l"ln (glbsement) by which the Bewuss$ek serves to cover up the confusion
academicrestoratiot oi this 'autonofnous igo' iustified my view tlrrt I of the Selbsteventually reveals,with all Hegel's own rigour, the reason
misunderstandingwas involved in any attemPt to strengthel lht ego ln t for his error in The Phenomenologyof Mind.
type of analysistf,at took asits criterion of 'success'asuccessfuladaptntlct The very movement that shifts the axiq of the phenomenon of mind
tl'society -'u phenomenonof mental abdication that was bound up wlrl ').,. i'r "-Se '')''1'-t.|
I

'.,e i
&T
 308 Ecrits: A Selectian
rowards the imaginary relation to the other (that is to sav, to the counter-
part connotedby the small'o', the objetpetir a), revealsits effecnnal9th
ih. aggt.ssivity that becomesthe beam of the balanceon which will be
centred the decomposition of the eguilibrium of counterPart to counter-
part in the Mastet-Sl"ve relationship, relationship that is pregnant with
"
th. cunning tricks (ruses)by which reasonsetsits impersonalreign in
"ll
motion.
I can now show what is concealed in this initial enslavement - a
mythical, rather than a real genesis,no doubt - of the 'roads to freedom'
precisely becauseI have revealedit as never before.
-
The itruggle that establishesthis initial enslavementis rightly called a
struggle of pure prestige, and the stake, life itself, is well suiled to echo
that d"ng.r- of the generic Prematuration of birth, which .Hegel was
unaware bf, and which I see as the dynamic origin of specular clPture.
But preciselybecauseit is drawn into the function of the stakes- a more
honest-wagerthan Pascal's,though it is also a guestion of poker, since
there is a limit on how high one can raise the bid - death shows by the
same token what is elided from a prior rule, and from the ultimate rule.
For, in the end, the loser must not perish if he is to become a slave.In
other words, the pact is everywhere anterior to the violence before
perpetuatingit, and what I call the symbolic dominatesthe imaginar1/,
which is why one may ask oneselfwhether murder is the absolu.teMaster.
For it is not to decide on the basis of its effect - DeathJiJiill
"rro,rjh
remains to be decided which death,1l that which is brought by life or
that which brings life.
'Without
detiacting from the Hegelian dialectic by an accusation of
inadequacy,which has often been laid againstit on the question of wltat
bound the society of masterstogether, I simply wish at this point to
stresswhat, on the basisof my o'wn experience,is self-evidentlysymPto'
maric, that is ro say, as installation in repression.This is properly the
theme of the Cunning (Ruse)practisedby reason- and the fact that it ir
erroneous,as I pointed out above, in no way diminishes its attraction.
The work to which the slave is subjected and the pleasure that he re'
nouncesout of fear of death,we are told, will be preciselythe way through
which he will achieve freedom. There can be no more obvious lurc
than this, politically or psychologically. Jouisnnce comes easily to tho
slave, and it will leive tlie work in bondag'f*
The cunning of reasonis an attractive notion becauseit echoeswith r
personalmyth that is very familiar to the obsessionalneurotic, and wltorc
(
ai I
Subversionof the subjecrand dialecticof desire jq
structure is often found among the intelligenrsia.But evenif the obsessional
avoids the bad faith of the professor, he cannot easily deceive himself
that it is his work that must make jouissancepossible for him. palng
v!ry progelly unconscious homage to the history written by Hegei, he
often finds his alibi in the death of the Master. But what aboui this deatlf
He quite simply waits forF-
Infact, it is from the locus of the Other where he installshimself that he.' ' .
follows the game, thus rendering any risk inoperant, especiallythe rirh.. ,,
_
of any contest,in a 'consciousness-of-self'forwhich death is prisent only '
"
in iest. cl.-- ! \
So philosophers"i,l;.{
should not make the mistake of thinking that they
can take little account of the imrption that Freud's viewJ on desirl
'-^r.. (..0 --
represented. !:r.r,l-*)..r*J i-.*-*--t..,. ul;r.31,, ,. r...r.
And this under the pretext that demand, together with the effectsof
frustration, has submerged everything that reachesthem from a practice
that has declined into educative banality that cannor be revived even by
such a sell-out.
Yes, the enigmatic traumasof the Freudian discovery are now merely
represseddesires. Psychoanalysisis nourished by the observation of
children a1d by the infantilism of the observations.I will not bore you
with case-histories,edifying as they all no doubt are - though they-are
hardly noted for their humour, their authors being too .ott.erned with
their 'responsibilities'to leave any room for the irremediably ridiculous
side to the relations that the unconsciousmaintains with iis linguistic
roots.
Yet it is impossible,for thosewho claim that it is through the welcome
accorded to demand that incompatibility is introduced into the needs
that are supposedto lie at the origin of the subject,to ignore the fact that
there is no demand that does not in some sensepast tltough the defiles
of the signifier.
And if the somatic anankeof man's powerlessness for some time after
birth to move of his own accord, and a fortiori to be self-sufficient, en-
sures that he will be grounded in a psychologT of dependence,how can
that ailnnke ignore the fact that this dependenceis maintained by world
of language,preciselybecauseby and through languageneedr.i. "diversi-
fied and reducedto a point at which their scopeappCarsto be of a quite
different order, whether in relation to the subiect or to politicsl To sum
uP: to the point tltat theseneedshave passedover into the registerof
desire,with all that this brings in termsof an obligationto confront our
 \
t ' , . . -i1
..' '', ', i'i
.!
J .1, . ': l
,.1, ' l,_]* (i
'r
''- C'^'J- \1
'
,\"u
,
.' Ya.) ( - f
trcrlts: /!. Jelectnn
i\
3ro
,i
new experience with its paradoxes, which have alwavs interested the
moralist, with that mark of the infinite that theologiansfind in it, even
'll
ll
with the precariousnessof its status, as expressedin its most extreme
form by Sartre:desire,a uselesspassion.
What psychoanalysisshows us about desire in what might be called
its most natural function, since on it depends the propagation of the
t species,is not only that it is subjected,in its agency, its appropriation,
its normality, in short, to the accidentsof the subject'shistory (the notion
of trauma as contingency), but also that all this requiresthe co-operation
of structural elements,which, in order to intervene, can do very well
without theseaccidents,whose effects,so unharmonious,so unexpected,
so difficult to reduce, certainly seemto leave to experiencea remainder
\ that drove Freud to admit that sexuality must bear the mark of some
unnatural split (ftkre).
It would be wro@T6 think that the Freudian myth of the Oedipur
complexhad put an end to theology on the matter. For it is not enough to
wave the flag of sexualrivalry. It would be better to read what Freud hrr
to say about its co-ordinateslfor they amount to the questionwith which
he himself set out: ''What is a Fatherl'
'It is the deadFather', Freud replies,but no one listens,and, concern-
ing that part of it that Lacan takesup again under the heading'Name-of-
the-Father', it is regrettable that so unscientific a situation should still
deprive him of his normal audience.r2
Yet analytic reflexion has centred vaguely on the problematic
miconnaissance on the part of certain primitive peoplesof the function of
the progenitor, and psychoanalystshave argued, under the contraband
banner of 'culturalism', over the forms of an authority of which it cannot
even be said that any sector of anthropology has provided a definition of
any scoPe.
Will we have to be overtakenby the practice,which may in the courro
of time becomecommon practice,of artificially inseminatingwomen wlto
have broken the phallic bounds with the sperm of some great mrn,
before a verdict on the paternal function can be dragged out of usl
Yet the Oedipus complex cannot run indefinitely in forms of society
that are more and more losing the senseof tragedy.
Let us set out from the conceptionof the Other as the locus of tlro
signifier.Ary statementof authority has no other guaranteethan its vcry
enunciation,and it is pointlessfor it to seekit in another signifier, wlrich
could not appear outside this locus in any way. Which is what I meln
Subversionof the subjectand dialecticof desire jrr
when I say that no metalanguagecan be spoken,or, more aphoristically,
that there is no Other of the Other. And when the Legislator (he who
claimsto lay down the Law) presentshimself to fill the gap, he doesso as
an imposter.
But thereisnothing falseaboutthelaw itself,orabouthimwhoassumes
its authority.
The fact that the Father may be regardedas the original representative
of this authority of the Law requires us to specify by what privileged
mode of presencehe is sustainedbeyond the subject who is actually led
to occupy the place of the Other, namely, the Mother. The question,
therefore,is pushed still further back.
It will seem odd, no doubt, that in opening up the immeasurable
spacethat all demandimplies, namelS that of being a requestfor love, I
should not leave more play to the question;but should concentrateit on
that which is closedthis side of it, by the very effect of demand,in order
to give desireits proper place.
Indeed, it is quite simply, and I will say later in what way, as desire of
the Other that man's desirefinds form, but it doesso in the first instance
by representingneed only by meansof a subjectiveopacity.
I will now explain by what bias this opacity produces,as it were, the
substanceof desire.
Desire begins to take shapein the margin in which demand becomes
separatedfrom need: this margin being that which is opened up by
demand,the appealof which can be unconditional only in regard to the
Other, under the form of the possibledefect,which need may introduce
into it, of having no universal satisfaction(what is called 'anxiety'). A
margin which, linear as it may be, reveals its vertigo, even if it is not
trampled by the elephantinefeet of the Other's whim. Nevertheless,it is
this whim that introduces the phantom of the Omnipotence, not of the
subiect,but of the Other in which his demandis installed (it is time this
idiotic clich6 was, once and for all, put back in its place), and with this
phantom the need for it to be checkedby the Law.
But I will stop there and return to the smtusof the desirethat presents
itself as autonomous in relation to this mediation of the Law, for the
simple reasonthat it originatesin desire,by virtue of the fact that by u
strangesymmetry it reversesthe unconditional nature of the demandfor
love, in which the subjectremainsin subiectionto the Other, and raisesit
to the power of absolute condition (in which 'absolute' also implies
'detachment').
tr2 Ecrits: A Selection Subversionof the subjectand dialecticof desire iri'
For the gain obtained over anxiety with regard to need, this detach- of his desire to an ego that is neverthelessintermittent, and, inversely,
ment is successfulin its first, humblest form, that in which it was de- protects himself from his desire by attributing to it these very inter-
tected by certain psychoanalystin the course of his pediatric practice, mittences.
" Of course,one may be surprisedby the extent of what is accessibleto
and which is called 'the transitional object', in other words, the bit of
'nappie' or the beloved bit of material that the child never allows to leave consciousness-of-sel{providing one has learnt it elsewhere- which is
his lips or hand. certainly the casehere.
This is no more than an emblem, I say; the representative of repre-
Graph IIf
sentationin the absolutecondition is at home in the unconscious,where
it causesdesireaccording to the structure of the phantasy that I will now Chevuoi?
extract from it.
For it is clear that the stateof nesciencein which man remainsin rela-
tion to his desireis not so much a nescienceof what he demands,which
may after all be circumscribed,as a nescienceas to where he desires.
This is what I mean by formula that the unconsciousis 'discoursda
-y
l'Aure' (discourseof the Other), in which the de is to be understood in
the senseof the Latin de (objective determination): de Alio in oratiotu
(completed by: tua res agitur).
But we must also add that man's desireis the disir del'Aute (the desirr
of the Other) in which the de provides what grammarians call the 'sub-
iective determination',namely that it is gua Other that he desires(which
is what provides the true compassof human passion).
That is why the question of the Other, which comes back to the
subiect from the place from which he expectsan oracular reply in some
such form as'Che uuoi?'r'What do you wantl', is the one that best leadr
him to the path of his own desire- providing he setsout, with the help
of the skills of a partner known as a psychoanalyst,to reformulate it, For in order to rediscover the pertinence of all this, a fairly detailed
even without knowing it, as 'What does he want of mel' study is required - a study that can only take place in the analytic ex-
It is this superimpo-sedlevel of the structure that ivill bring my graplr perience- that would enableus to complete the strucrure of the phantasy
(cf. GraphIII) to compledon, first by introducing into it as the drawing. by linking it essentially, whatever its occasionalelisions may be, to the
of a guestion-mark placed in the circle of the capital O of the Other, condition of an object (the privilege of which I have done no more than
symbolizing by a confusing homography the questionit signifies. touch on above in terms of diachrony), the moment of a 'fading"3 or
Of what bottle is this the openerl Of what reply is it the signifier, tho eclipseof the subiect that is closely bound up with the Spaltung or split-
universal key' ting that it suffers from its subordination to the signifier.
It should be noted that a clue may be found in the clear alienationtlrrt This is what is symbolized by the sigla ($Or), which I have intro-
leavesto the subiect the favour of stumbling upon the guestion of in ducedin the form of an algorithm; and it is no accidentthat it breaksthe
essence,in that he cannot fail to recognizethat what he desirespresentr phonematicelementconstitutedby the signifying unity right down to its
itself to him aswhat he doesnot want, the form assumedby the negation literal atom. For it is createdto allow a hundred and one differentreadings,
in which the mtconnaissarrce of which he himself is unawareis insertedin r a multiplicity that is admissibleaslong asthe spokenremainscaughtin its
very strangeway - a miconnaissance by which he transfersthe permanenct algebra.
 3r4 Ecrits: A Selecdon
subversionof the subje* and dialecticof desire
This algorithm and the analoguesof it used in the graph 3r,
in no way the vagina,the slit formedby the_eyelids,
contradict what I said earlier ab.9utthe impossibility of"" ,n.t"t"ngrrgJ. eventhe horn-shapedaperrure
They are not transcendentsignifiers;they are the indices of
of the ear (I am avoiding elbp'ologi..i-l.trit,
an absolute rr9r.). hopir"tory
signification, a notion yhich, without further commentary, erogeneityhasbeenlittre rt,tdi.d, but iiir obviousry
will seem ,rrr""gh-ih. ,pur,,'
app^ropriare, that it comesinto play.
I h9pe, to the condition of the phantasy.
to the qha11as1presentedin this *.y, the graph inscribes
. 9r that Conpleted Graph
desiregoverns itsel{ which is similar to the relation i.t*."r,
the ego and
the body iT.g9, excePtthat it still marks the inversion of the
m1connais-
sanceson which each is based.Thry the imaginary way, through
which I
*Tt passin analysis,and where the unconicio.n **'itself,ri
is closed.
Let us say, borrowin_gthe metaphor used by Damo,rr.ri. and pichon
. Jouissan,ce
C o str o ti o n
about the grammatical'r' and applying it to a *b|..r,ro which 4( $
it is better \l
suited, that the phantasy is teaiiy-thJ'stuff' of ihe 'I' that is d.
originally
repressed, because it can be indicated only in the ,fading, :I
I
ir ,m
enunciation.
So our attention is now drawn to.the subjectivesrarusof the signifying
chain in the unconscious,or rather in primal repression (Urverdrcingung).
In our deduction it is easierro und.rrtrnil why it ias Si g n i fi e r
,...rrrry ,,
question oneselfregarding the function that rr'rpport, the subject
of tho
unconsciousrto grasPthat it is difficult to designatethat subject'anywhero
as subject of a srarement,and therefore as thf articulator,
*h.r, he do.
not even know,that he is speaking.Hence the conceptof drive,
in wlricS
he is-designated"bf.tt org.nic, oll, anal, etc., mappi"g that r{o) $
satisfiesrlre
requirement of being all the farther away from ,p..fi"g
the more lrc observethat this mark of the cut is no lessobviously
speaks. presenrin the
object describedby.analytic theory: the mamilla,
But althoygh:T completedgraph enablesus to place the
drive as rln
faeceqthe phallus
(imaginaryobied), the urinary fl:*. (A,
treasureof the signifiers,its notition as ($OD) maintainsits structure ;hinkable list, if one adds,
by I.do, the phoneme,the g^ir, th" .,roi."- ,t
linking it with diachrony. It is that which-proceed, from demand ": -this nothing.) For is it not
wlren obvious that this fearure,
the subiect disappearsin it. It is obviour etrough that demand partial f.utur.," rightly".*prr.rired in
also clir objects,is applicablenot because^these
aPPears'with the single exception that the cirt remains, for obje.rcut. part-of a Lt.l object,
tSis ort the bodR,but becausethey representorly
Present in that which distinguishes the drive from
partially the function that
lemains the orglnh producestheml
function it inhabits: namely, its grarimatical artifice, so manifest
i1 16 Tt r. objectshaveone commonfearurein
reversions of its articulation to both source and obiect - Freud , my elaborationof them _
is un. they,havgno speculgimag9,or, in other *orir,
failingly illuminating on this matrer. i, what
cnablesthem to be the 'st,rfp, or rather the
Th: very delimitation of the 'erogenouszone' that the drive lining,"rffiir)";l't"i
though not in any
^ isehro sensethe reverse,of the very subjectthat
from the metabolismof the function (,h...t of devouring conccrns one tak."s,o u?. ,uli..t or
c.nsciousness. For this.subjict, who thinks he canaccede
organs than the mouth - ask one of Favlov's dogs) is tlie result pf 'rlnt to himserfby
l cuf dcsignating himselfin the,iut.-.nt, is no more,t.r, ,,..t,
expressedin the anaromicalmark (trait)"oia margin o, b,,rder oli..r. ert
S?"py:r) thc writeraboutthe.anxictythathe experi";;;;
lips, 'the enclosureof the teerh', the rim ofihe unur, th. tip
of the pcnrq
- *h.*fr";J;;"n h. bhnk
slrectof paper,andhe wiil rcll y.ru who ri the
turd of his phantasy.
#,
&;r
 ,/.s
\ :l
l
T6 Ecrits: A Selection
It is to this obiect that cannotbe graspedin the mirror that the specular
image lendsits clothes.A substancecaught in the net of the shadow,and
. r. which, robbed of its shadow-swellingvolume, holds out once again the
I tired lure of the shadow as if it were substance.l6
What the graph no'w offers us is situated at the point at which every
''signifyi"g chairr prides itself on looping its signification. If we are to
-'
. expectsuch an effect from the unconsciousenunciation,it is to be found
heie in S(O), and read as:-signifierof a lack in the Other, inherent in its
very function as the treas,.ileofthe signifii:r. And this is so even though
al the Other is requi red (che vuoi) to respond to the value of this treasure,
'l
that is to say,to-reply, from its placein the lower chain certainly, but alstr
. in the signifiersthat constitutethe upper chain, in terms of drive, in other
- \.' words.
The lack referred to here is indeed that which I have already formu-
' lated: that there is no Other of the Other. But is this mark made by the I
Unbeiiever of the truth te"liy the last"uiffi that is worth giving in reply I
to the question, 'What does the Other want of mel', when we, tltc'
analysts,are its mouthpiecel Surely not, and precisely becausethere ir
nothing doctrinal about our ofrce. We are answerableto no ultimate
truth; i. ur. neither for nor againstany particular religion.'
Ttjs already quite enough that at this point I had to situate the dead
not enough to suPPorta-ritcr
Eafhel in the Freudian myth. But a myth is
;na psychoanalysisis not the rite of the Oedipus complex - a point that I
shalidlrr.lop later.
No doubt the corpse is a signifier, but Moses'stomb is as empty firr
Freud as that of Christ was for Hegel. Abraham revealedhis myster/ to
neither of them.
Personally,I will begin with what is irticulated in the sigta S(O) by
being first of all a signifier. My definition of a signifier (there is no other)
is as filffii-fiigriiHAr is that which representsthe subiect for anotlter
signifier. This signifier will therefore be the signifier for whiCh-a-ll-flio
-"other
signifiersrepresentthe subject:that is to say, in the absenceof tlrir
signifier, all the other signifiers"'iepresentnothing, since nothing ir
representedonlyfor somethingelse. . '
And sinceth.6.ttry of signifiers,as su'ch,is by that very fu.t.,r,frlct.,
this signifiercan only be a line (trait) that is drawn from its circlewitltottt
being ableto be counted part of it. It can be symbolizedby the inlterenco
)' t exceptfor the fact, and this has nothing to do with its power as myth,
of a (-I) in the whole set of signifiers-
As suchit is inexpressible,but its operationis not inexpressible,for it h_
i\ - ,,
.\
Subversionof the subjectand dialecticof desire
3rz
that which is produced whenevera proper noun is spoken. Its statement
'ntf"::'i'f'llffil;* that,ignin#on
...o,ain!l
,otiif ^[.r,.i.
method used here, namely: r
:-
S(signifiet)_ n t+L^^+^]^s^_]\
s (the statement),with S : (-I), produces:s - \/=.
< Al-
i
This is what the subjectlacksin order to think himself exhaustedby his
cogito,namely, that which is unthinkable for him. Bur where does this
being, who appearsin some way defecive in the sea of proper nouns,
originatei
We cannot ask this question of the subjectas 'I'. He lacks everything
neededto know the answer, since if this subiect 'I' was dead, he would
not, asI saidearlier,know it. He doesnot know, therefore,that I am alive.
Ho*, therefore,will 'I' prove to myself that I aml
For I can only just prove to thd Olhei-iliafhe-exists, not, of course,
with the proofs for the existenceof God, with which over the centurieshe
has been killed off, but by loving him, a solution introduced by the
Christian kerygma,Indeed,it is too precarious a solution for me even
to think of using it as a meansof circumventing our problem, namely:
'What am "I"i'
"
'F.* i" the placefrom which a voice is heardclamouring'the universe
is a defectin the purity of Non-Being'. ,. , 'i
And not without reason,for by protecting itself this placemakes_Bging
itself languish.This placeis calledJouissaryc.e,and it is the absencbof this
that makesthe universevain. i
Am _I responsiblg fo1 i1,.tlrgnt Yes, probabfy. Is this Jouissance,the
lack of which makes the Oitrer insubstintial, mine, thenl Experience
proves that it is usually fotbiddeg-me, not only, as certain fools believe,
becauseof a bad arrangehieniof sbciety, but rather becauseof the fault
(faute) of the Other if he existed:and sincethe Other does not exist, all
that remainsto me is to assumethe fault upon'I', that is to say,to believe
in that to which experienceleadsus all, Freud in the vanguard,namely,to
original sin. For even if we did not have Freud's express,and sorrowful
avowal, the fact would remain that the myth Freud gave us - the latest-
born myth in history - is no more use than that of the forbidden apple,
that, though morc succinct,ir is distinctly lessoppressive(crCtinisant).

3r8 Ecrits: A Selection
But what is not a myth, and which Freud neverthelessformulated soon
after the Oedipus complex, is the casration complex.
In the castrationcomplex we find the major mainspring of the very
subversionthat I am trying to articulatehere by meansof its dialectic.
For this complex,which was unknown as such until Freud introduced it
into the formation of desire,can no longer be ignored in any reflexion on
the subject.
There can be little doubt that in psychoanalysis,far from there having
been any artempt to carry its articulation further, it has been employed
preciselyin order to avoid any explanationof it. This is why this great
Samson-likebody has beenreducedto turning the grinding wheel for the
Philistinesof generalpsychology.
Certainly thereis in all this what is calleda bone. Though it is precisely
what is suggestedhere, namely, that it is structural of the subject, it
constitures in it essentially that margin that all thought has avoided,
skipped over, circumvented,or blocked whenever it seemsto succeedin
b"i"g sustainedby circle, whether that circle be dialecticalor mathe-
" we have only to considerhis recompense,which was not slow in coming:
matical.
This is why I am so anxiousto guide my studentsover the placeswhere
logic is disconcertedby the disjunction that breaks through from the
imaginary to the symbolic, not in order to enjoy the paradoxesthat are
producedin sucha disiunction,nor to point out some'crisis'in thought,
but, on the contrary, to bring their false brilliance back to the gap that
they designate,which I always find instructive, and above all to try to
work out rhe method of a sort of calculation,the inappropriation of which
as such would spoil the secret.
Such is the phantom of the cause,which I have followed in the purest
symbolization of the imaginary through the alternation of the similar
and the dissimilar.lT
Let us observecarefully, therefore,what it is that objectsto conferring
on our signifierS(O) the meaningof Manaor of any of its cognates.The
fact is we cannotbe content to articulateit from the poverty of the social
fact, evenif this is tracked down in somesupposedtotal fact.
No doubt Claude L6vi-Strauss,in his commentary on Mauss,wished
to recognizeii-it ihd efri:Ciofi ,ero symbol. But it seemsto me that what
we are dealing with here is rather the signifier of the lack of this zero
symbol. That is why, at the risk of incurring a certainamouht-of oPPro:
Sriumr I have indicated to what point I have pushedthe distortion of the
mathematicalalgorithm in my useof it: the symbol \/ -j, which is srill
i\**
Subversionof the subjectand dialecticof desire 3rg
written as'i'in the theory of complexnumbers,is obviously iustifiedonly
becauseit makesno claim to any automatisrnin its later use. ( i.,, i,
But we must insist thatjouissanceis forbidden to Jrim ryho'speaksas
such,although it can only fiHEffif*een the lines fbi'whoever is subject
of the Law, sincethe Law is grounded in this very prohibition. :
Indeed, the Law appearsto be giving the orderr'Jouis!', to which the
subiect can only reply 'J'ouis' (I hear), the jouissancebeingno more than
understood.
But it is not the Law itself that bars the subject'saccessto jouissance-
taihei il Createsout of an almost natural barrier a barred subject.For it is
pleasurethat sets the limits on jouissance,pleasureas that which binds
incoherent life together, until another, unchallengeableprohibition arises
from the regulation that Freud discovered as the primary processand
appropriate law of pleasure.
It hasbeensaid that in this discoveryFreud merely followed the course
alreadybeing pursuedby the scienceof his time, indeed, that it belonged
to a long-standing tradition. To appreciatethe true audacity of his step,
failure over the heteroclitenature of the castrationcomplex.-s ' .'
It is the only indication of thatjouissanceof its infinitude that brings
with it the mark of its prohibition, and, in order to constitute that mark,
involves a sacrifice:that which is made in one and the sameact with the
choice of its symbol, the phallus.("* '
This choice is altoff€A-tr&ffie the phailus, that is, the image of the
penis,is negativity in its placein the specularimage.It is what predestines
the phallus to embodyTbuissance in the dialecticof desire.
We must distinguish, therefore, between the principle of sacrifice,
which is symbolic, and the imaginary function that is devoted to that
principle of sacrifice,but which, at the sametime, masks the fact that it
gives it its instrument.
The imaginary function is that which Freud formulated to govern the
investment of the object as narcissisticobject. It was !,g this point that I -
riturned myself when I showed that the specularimage is the channel
taken by the transfusionof the body's libido towards the object. But even
though part of it remainspreservedfrom this immersion, concentrating
within it the most intimate aspectof auto-eroticism, its position at the
'tip' of the form predisposesit to the phantasyof decrepitudein which is
completedits exclusionfrom the specularimage and from the prototype
that it constitutesfor the world of obiects.
 Subversion of the subject and dialectic of desire i2r
320
Ecrits: A Selecdon
jouksanrernot It is all the more important for philosophersto grasp the relevanceof
Thus the erectile organ comesto symbolize the place-of this formula in the caseof the neurotic, precisely becausethe neurotic
in the de-
in itself, or even in the"form of an image, b9, as a Part b.-H"q falsifiesit.
,ir.i im"g., that is why it is equivalent to the \/-of the signification
of its Indeed, the neurotic, whether hysteric, obsessional,or, more radically,
produced above, of the joub:ry, that it restores-bythe coefficient gh*!", is he who identifies the lack of the Other with his demand, O
^rr.r.^.rrt to the function of lack of signifier (-I)'
is never- with D.
if ir, role, therefore,is to bind the prohibition of jouisla,cerit As a result, the demandof the Otfiier assumesthe function of an obiect
their supersession
theless not fof these formal reasons, but because in his phantasy,that is to say,his phantasy(my formulae make it possible
(ourrrp*rernent) signifies that which reduces all desiredjouisyn'1e to the to know this phantasy immediately) is reduced to the drive ($OD).
confor-
ir.rriiy of auto-erJri.ir*, the paths laid out by the anatomical That is why it was possibleto draw up the catalogueof drives in the case
ihat is, the already perfected hand of the
mation of the speaking being, of the neurotic.
monkey, have'r,ot, itt' .tr i, been ignored in a certain philosophical
But this prevalencegiven by the neurotic to demand, which, for an
paths oi wisdom that his wrongly been termed cynical' analysisdeclining into facility, shifted the whole treatment towards the
"r".rir'u, ^ sugge-sted
certain individuals, obsessedno doubt by this memory' h1"9 handling of frustration, concealsits anxiety from the desireof the Other,
to this tradition: the technique of the
to me that Freud himself belongs anxiety that is impossiblenot to recognizewhen it is coveredonly by the
that analytic experience demon-
body, as Mausscalls it. The fact remains phobic object, but more difficult to understandin the caseof the other
,rr"i.r the original character of the guilt that its Pracdcein{uge.s' rwo neuroses,when one is not in possessionof the thread that makesit
in the
Guilt that is bound up with the recall of jouissince thatis lacking possible to present the phantasyas desire of the Other. One then finds
function of the
ofrce renderedto the ,.ul org.n, and "ont."otion of the its two terms shattered,as it 'were:the first, in the caseof the obsessional,
imaginary
- signifier to strike the obiects of prohibition.
stage in asmuch ashe deniesthe desireof the Other in forming his phantasyby
T"hir, ina.".a, is the radical function for which a more primitive accentuatingthe impossibility of the subjectvanishing, the second,in the
j.rr.loprrrent of psychoanalysisfound more accidental (educative)
in rhe caseof th. iyit"fiiiin ii ; A;il;GlffiinJd only throughthe
in which it
causes,just as it inflected towardt th" trauma the other forms lack of satisfactionthat is-;;li
introduced into it vrhen he eludeshimself as
namely, those relating to the sacrali'
had the merit of interesring itself, object. '!
zation of the organ (circumcision)' Thesefeaturesare confirmedbyffib fundamentalneedof the obsessional
from one
The pass.g. iro* the (-9) (small phi) of the phallic image neuroric to standin the placeof the Other, and by the disbelievingside of
th9 symbolic,
side to the other of the .q,niiott, from the imagiyt 1o hystericalintrigue
even if it fulfils a lack. Although a suPPort
renders it positive in any crse, In fact, the image of the ideal Father is a phantasy of the neurotic.
tJl: phallus that cannol
of the (-i), it becom.r O (capital Phi), ytnlolic Beyond the Mother, the real Other of demand,whose desire(that is, her
joui"tonie. Avndit is this character of the o that
b. n.g"t.a, ifr. signifier of desire) one wishes she would assuage,there stands out the image of a
both thJparticularities of the woman's approach to sexuality, father who would close his eyes to desires.The true function of the
"*piuin,
and th"t which the male sex the weak sexin the caseof perversion* Father, which is fundamentallyto unite (and not to set in opposition) a
as it
I will not deal with the guestion of perversion here, in as much
-.k.t
desireand the Law, is even more marked than revealedby this.
the manr in so far u
accentuatesro sorne extent ih. fun.tion of desire in The neuroti"tJ iished-for Father is clearly the dead Fither. But he is
jouissance, the obiect o-of
h. s.r, up dominance in the privilege{ p1".. of also a Father who can perfectly master his desire- and the samecan be
which he sulstitutes for the @.Perversion addr i
,h. ph"rriasy(objetpetita), said of the subiect.
scarcely aPPear original if it did n't
,*brorption of in. $ that would This is one of tlte dangersthat analysismust avoid, jh9_iqfqtminabls
"interest the Other as such in a very particular v/ay' Only my formulation
aspectof the transferencc principle.
himself tlro
of phantasy enablesus to reveal ihit th. subiect here makes vacillationof the analyst's'neurality'may be
That is rvhy a calculatc<l
insirument of the Other's jouissarce'

1
322 Ecrits: A Selection
more valuablefor a hysteric than any amount of inteqpretation- though
there is always a danger of frightening the patient. Provided, of course,
that this fright doesnot lead to a breaking off of the analysis,and that he
becomesconvinced by what follows that the analyst's desire was in no
way involved. This, of course, is not a piece of technical advice, but a
view that is opened up to the question of the analyst's desire for those
who would not otherwise know about it: how the analyst musr
preserve for the other the imaginary dimension of his non-mastery, of
his necessaryimperfection, is as important a matter to settle as the in-
tentional consolidationin him of his ignoranceof eachsubjectwho comes
to him for analysis,of an ever renewed ignorance that prevents anyone
becominga 'case'. i of jouissance,that he can thus (with the help of a certain amounr of drink)
To return to phantasy,let us say that the pervert imagineshimself to
be the Otherin orderio .rr,rr. Lit jouirr"i;;; ild iE; it6ffiilfi-.
ne*Arcii&evealswhen he imagineshimself to be a pervert-in his case,ro
assurehimself of the existenceof the Other.
It is this that gives the meaning of the perversion that is supposedto
lie in the very principle of neurosis.The perversionis in the unconscious
of the neurotic asphantasyof the Other. But this doesnot meanthat in the
case of the pervert the unconsciousis 'open ended'. He, too, after his
fashion, defendshimself in his desire.For desireis a d"f9y:*@**A,l
prohibiti on (difense) against going beyond i cimaii'Tlffi{1i}ql!4sancc.
In its structure as I have defined it, the phantasy contains ,8. (i)-
the imaginary function of castrationunder a hidden form, reversiblefrom
one of its terms to the other. That is to say, like a complex number, it
imaginarizes(if I may use such a term) alternatively one of these terms
in relation to the other.
Included in the objet a is the dyaXp,a,the inestimable treasure that
Alcibiadesdeclaresis containedin the rusticbox that for him Socrates'sface
represents.But let us observethat it bearsthe sign (-). It is becausehe
has not seenSocrates'sprick, if I may be permitted to follow Plato, who
doesnot spareus the details,that Alcibiades the seducerexaltsin him the
fuiltto, the marvel that he would like Socratesto cedeto him in avowing
his desire:the division of the subject that he bearswithin himself being
admitted with great clarity on this occasion.
Such is the woman concealedbehind her veil: it is the absenceof the
penis that turns her into the phallus,the obiect of desire.Draw attention
to this absencein a more preciseway by getting her to'wear a pretty wig
and fancy dress,and you, or rather she,will have plenty to tell us abour:
Subversionof the subjectand dialecticof desire 3zJ
the effect is guaranteedroo per cent, for men who go straight to the
point.
Thus by showing his object as castrated,Alcibiades presentshimself
as he who desires- a fact that does not escapeSocrates'sattention - for
someoneelsewho is present,Agathon, whom Socrates,the precursor of
psychoanalysis,and confidentof his position in this fashionablegathering,
doesnot hesitateto name as the object of the transference,placing in the
light of an interpretation a fact that many analysts are still unaware of,
that the love-hate effectin the analytic situation is to be found elsewhere.
But Alcibiades is certainly not a neurotic. It is even becausehe is par
excellence he who desires,and he who goesas far as he can along the path
producein the eyesof all the centralarticulation of the transference,made
presentby the object adornedwith his reflexions.
Nevertheless,he projectedSocratesinto the ideal of the perfect Masrer,
whom, through the action of (*y)rtr"e- has completely imaginarized.
In the caseof the neurotic,lfie(-d slidesunder the $ of fhe fhantasy,
to the advantageof the imagination that is peculiar to it, that of the ego.
For the neurotic has been subjectedto imaginary castration from the
beginning; it is castration that sustainsthis strong ego, so strong, one
might say, that its proper name is an inconveniencefor it, since the
neurotic is really Nameless.
Yes, it is beneaththis ego, which certain analystschooseto strengrhen
still more, that the neurotic hides the castrationthat he denies.
But, contrary to appearances, he clings to it.
What the neurotic does not'q/ant, and what he strenuously refusesto
do, until the end of the analysis,is to sacrificehis castrationto tlte jouiss-
anceof the Other by allowing it to serve thatjouissance.
And, of course,he is not wrong, for although,at bottom, he feelshim-
self to be what is most vain in existing,a'Want-to-be (un Manque-d-6tre)
or a Too-much-of-it (unEn-Trop)rwhy should he sacrificehis difference
(anything but that) to thejouissanceof an Other, which, Iet us remember,
doesnot exist. Yes, but if by somechanceit did exisr,he would 'enjoy' it
(il enjouirait). And that is what the neurotic does not want. For he
imaginesthat the Other demandshis castration.
What analytic experienceshowsis that, in any case,it is castrationthat
governs desire,whether in the normal or the abnormal
Providing it oscillatesalternately between $ and o in the phantas5
castrationturns phantasyinto that supple,yet inextensiblechain by which
324 Ecrits: A Selection Subversionof the subjectand dialecticof desirc )2,
the arrest of the object-investment, which can hardly go beyond certain Notes
natural limits, takeson the transcendentalfunction of ensuringthejouiss'
r. Or even from attempting to interest
ance ofthe Other, which Passesthis chain on to me in the Law. people, under the heading of-Psi pheno-
'certainly notr. but perhaps' procedure
doomed to mislead.
To whomsoeverreally wishes to confront this Other, there oPensuP
-whole
mena, in telepathy, or in the 8.' Le chienfait miaou, Ie chatfait oua-
the way of experiencingnot only his demand,but also his will. And then: Gothic psychology that a Myers is capable oua'. A nursery song in which-various
of reviving. The most vulgar quacli will
either io realizeoneselfasobiectrtoturn oneselfinto a mummyras in some be able to uncross the field ln which
animals are attributed with the wrong
sound [Tr.].
Buddhist initiation rire, or ro satisfythe will to castrationinscribed in the Freud has contained him in advance, by 9. I leave this paragraph only as a
Other, which culminaies in the supreme narcissismof the Lost Cause presenting what he acceprs of thesl monument to a battle long since forgot-
(this is the way of Greek tragedy, which Claudel rediscoversin a Chris-
phenomena as requiring translation, in ten added, 196z: where was my
the strict sense of the term, into con- -(note
headl).
tianity of despair). temporary forms of discourse. ro. The words in brackets have been
Castration-means that jouissance mlrst be refused, so thal it can be Even when prostituted, psychoanalytic added, with a view to pinpointins later
-
reaihed on the'inverted lidder (l'ichelle renversde)of ihe Law of desire. theory remains prudish (a well-known developments on identification (r9Zz).
characteristic of the brothel). As we say
I won'rgoany here. rr. This, too, refers to what I said in
l since Sartre, she's a respectable girl fune my- seminar, 'L'Ethique de la psych-
li*.r respectueuse,a rcference to Sartre's play, analyse' Q919-6o), on the second'death.
Ix{ La putain respectueuse- Tr.]: she won i Like Dylan Thomas, I don't want there
walk in_any old street (note added, ry66). to be two. But is the Absolute Master,
This article is now appearing for the the category implies gave me' on the z. The original reads: 'le rappoit de therefore, the only one that remainsl
first time: an unexPected shortage of the .ettain plealure. I noted with travers (en anglais on dirait: skiw) . . .'
"orrtr"rylu rz. That I should have said this at the
funds that are usually lavished on the no lessittt.t"tt the irackling that followed
soon afterwards at the word 'hell', since
lr'J. time, even in more vigorous terms, in
publication, even in their entirery, of such 3. I have translated Cnoncdas 'state- this d6to-ur,serves as a meeting-point by
?round-table' conferences having left it the voice that pronounced it gave it, ment' and dnonciation as'enunciation', the virtue of the fact that, three feirs later,
in abeyance, together with all the fine owing to the speiker's declared allegiance former referring to the actual words on the subject of the Name-of-the-
things that adorned this one. to Mincism, i certain piquancy- I must uttered, the second to the act of uttering Father, I took the opportunity of
I ihould mention, for the record, that admit that I am partial to a certain form them [Tr.]. abandoning the theses that t had- pro-
the'Copernican' development was added of humanism, a- humanism that comes 4. English in the original [TtJ. mised in my seminar, on account of the
later, .nd th.t the end bf the article, on from an area where, although it is not y. The English 'was' trinslites the peffnanence of this situation.
castration, was never delivered owing to used with any less cunning than else- French 'fut' (passd simple, past historic) 13. English in the original [Tt.].
lack of time, and was replaced in fact by where, neverthelesshas a certain quality and dtai t arfai t, imperfect) [Tt.]. 14. 'll oir s'6tait', thus making the
-machine -(imp
a few remarks on the in the of candour about it ''When the mincr 6. G.Itr/., VIII: 4j-8i Staniard Edi- verb 'to be' reflexive - an allusion to
modern sense of the word, from which comes home, his wife rubs him down . . .' tionr tzz zz1-6. Lacan's gloss on Freud's 'Wo es war soll
the relation of the subiect to the signifier I am left defenceless against suclt 7. T am referring here to the friend fch werden' [Tr.].
can be materialized. things. who invited me to this conference, ry. Which I have since justified by
From the fellow feeling natural in any In a private conversation someone having, some months before, revealed to means of a topological model bor-
discussion, I should not like to exclude asked me (this was how he Put it) me the reseryations that he derived from rowed from surface theory in analysk
that which was aroused in me by a par- whether to speak for the blackboard did his_personal ontology against'psycho- sirus (note added ry62).
ticular disagreement.The term'a-human' not imply belief in an eternal scribe. Sudr analysts'who were too 'Hegeliant fbr his 16. In French, 'proie'is usually'pt"y',
which someone wished to attribute to a beliei ii not necessary,I replied, to him liking, as if anyone except myself in that but it is also used in the phrase
what I said did not cause me the least who knows that all discourse has in assembly could be accusedof this. "ldc'her'la
proie pour l'ombre' ('to drop the sub-
distress, since the element of the new that effect through the unconscious. This in the confusion of pases from stance for the shadow') [Tr.J.
his iournal cast to the four'wInds (no r7. More recently, in the opposite
doubt by accident) that had snatched direction, in the attempt to make homo-
them from him. logous surfaces topologically defined
At which I made him agree that, in in the teffns employed here in the sub-
order to interest this ontology of his in jective-articulation. Cf. the simple refuta-
the, even entertaining, terms in which he tion of the supposed paradox 'I am lying'
clothed it in familiar notes, I found its (note added
ry62).