Subjective dispossession and objet a
Chapter V: Lacan’s 4 discourses
Download 480.65 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- The Four Structural Locations (That Don`t Move)
- The Four Pieces of Content (That Move)
- Discourse of the Master
Chapter V: Lacan’s 4 discoursesThe ideal perfect communicative setting that “eliminates any kind of noise” is the goal of communication theories. Whereas even Foucault concentrated on the content of the discourse, parsing it for threads and supple criss-crossing tributaries of power, “Lacan, on the contrary, works beyond the content and accentuates the formal relationship that each discourse establishes in the very act of speaking” (Verhaeghe Does 100). It is not so much the words spoken as it is the position in which they are spoken from. Here Jodi Dean outlines just what this would mean in terms of the different social bonds or social links this entails: If I ask my young daughter, “What are you doing?” I am likely speaking from a position of parental authority. If I ask an associate in my laboratory, “What are you doing?” I may be speaking as a fellow scientist. If I ask a political leader, “What are you doing?” I may be challenging her authority, calling upon her to justify her policies and decisions. Lacan formulates the difference among these questions as different discourses, different ways that communication establishes a social link. (Dean 2006, 63) The formal structure of the discourse determines the nature of the social bond. So for instance Lacan laid out four different discourses and thus four different social bonds. Lacan introduced the 4 discourses in a series of lectures gathered in Seminar XVII and continue to refine them up to his Seminar XX Encore.
There are four positions or containers that don’t move: agent other truth product Typical of most theories of communication, Lacan starts out with the minimum two subjects needed in order to communicate. They are agent other. An agent communicates to an other as speaker to addressee. The product is the result of the exchange, it is located under the bar and so is hidden and therefore not a conscious product of the exchange. But up to this point we are still well within standard communication theory. It is only when we arrive at the fourth position: the position of truth, which is the driver and generator of each discourse. The position of truth is what remains unconscious and hidden from the position of the agent. “Freud demonstrated that, while man is speaking he is driven by a truth, even if it remains unknown to himself. It is this position of truth which functions as the motor and as the starting point of each discourse” (Verhaeghe Does 101). The Four Pieces of Content (That Move)S1 Represents the master. The master is the one that brings order to a chaotic situation, by an official pronouncement, a final decision or judgement. The Master S1 unifies what was prior to that mere nonsense or chaos. The S1is the ultimate point that ‘quilts’ a disparate field of signifiers S2 under its rule. For example Democracy, Communism, Woman are significant examples of an S1 that curtail or bring to an end the endless sliding of signification by defining and quilting the field. Thus for example a hegemonic struggle to define the S1 Democracy will in turn structure the field of discourse (S2) around ‘workers rights’ and ‘same-sex marriage’ etc. S2 Designates the field or chain of signifiers that make up knowledge. There is a distinct Lacanian emphasis on signifiers and the combination of signifiers to make meaning. Wherever there is a field of S2 there is an S1 lurking nearby in order to complete or consolidate the slippage or constant play of the S2 field.  Represents the barred subject. It represents the subject split between the conscious and the unconscious; it also represents the subject as subject of the signifier.
a This letter ‘a’ or objet petit a (here a stands for the french word autre) represents the unassimilable excess. Seemingly one of Lacan’s most straight-forward concepts to grasp, yet it defies all simple categorizations. Objet a stands for the ‘object-cause of desire’ and for that which escapes desire. It is that which causes the relentless and unending movement from object to object, always pronouncing after each successive capture, “That’s not it.” It is both the lure, the ‘object-cause’ of desire, and the void behind this lure. Once the subject falls into the defiles of the signifier, something retroactively is felt as lost, a lost primordial bond, a wholeness or oneness, that nevertheless never existed but retroactively comes into play once signification takes hold of the subject. Alternatively, the gap that opens up between the subject of the statement and the subject of the enunciation, this void is objet a. Objet a represents the void, at the same time as it is the object-cause of the desire that seeks to fill that void. The objet a as the gap between the subject of enunciation and subject of statement, is the object-cause behind the relentless pursuit to find that final meaning that will reveal the big answer. It is behind the subjective pursuit of his or her authentic cause, her authentic desire. The objet a is what throws the subject off kilter, throwing the subject continually out of joint. Discourse of the Master
The discourse of the Master is the discourse of the all-seeing One, the One that pronounces the Law. In classical age the Discourse of the Master served as the Divine Right of Kings; it is Hobbes’ Leviathan. The master’s word is S1, the master signifier occupying the position of agent. S2 occupies the position of the other. This can be read as a master signifier in the operation of quilting a string of signifiers into a coherent knowledge S2. However, as with all signification, this operation produces a remainder ‘a’ which is the product. Beneath the bar, in the position of truth is the barred subject written It veils over its lack with the illusion that it is whole and complete; the méconnaissance of a self that imagines that it is identical to itself and to its master ignifier. It imagines that it has mastery of a ‘univocal’ discourse that masks its unconscious division. (Lacan 1992, 103) The split subject is split between the subject of enunciation and the subject of the enunciated, or the statement. The fact that the subject of the statement: “I am kind, generous and I care about the plight of starving children in sub-Saharan Africa” is not in the same place as the subject that made the enunciation may strike some as an odd, if not downright nonsensical. As soon as the subject speaks, it speaks from an (other) place. Unless it is reading from a prepared speech the subject never knows what it is saying. Its apprehension of itself is composed of a fantasy framework of which the discourse of the Master remains ignorant.58 In a radical democratic vein, Laclau and Mouffe’s work argues that the S1 in the position of agency works as the ‘quilting signifer’ or anchor point and its efficacy depends on ‘recruiting’ a chain of S2s to its position. For example, the S1 of democracy becomes a raging battle in the Wisconsin state legislature, as competing forces try to recruit the S1 ‘democracy’ to a string of S2 +S3+S4+Sn : collective bargaining + public services + living wage. The string of S2s that slide under the S1 of democracy as S1 S2 produces an ‘excess’ product, objet a which acts as a constant driver of the political process. Objet a represents the forever ineffable, political deadlock and also the lure that covers over that deadlock. Objet a is the reason why the meaning of S1 is constantly battled over, revised, re-invigorated or outright replaced by competing political forces in the contestation for hegemony. Mark Bracher points out, the discourse of the Master as produced in the arena of pedagogy, produces a teacher who seeks to replicate in his or her students an appreciation for any classical canon, for the masterpieces in an area of study. As a form of authoritarian pedagogy Bracher points out that the discourse of the Master, “engages students’ desire for recognition by promising that if they can successfully embody the authority’s ideals, values, desires, or enjoyments, they will merit recognition and validation by that authority or its avators, (e.g. the teacher)” (Bracher 2006, 87). Download 480.65 Kb. Share with your friends:
|
. Recall that the position of truth is the unconscious driver of the discourse. So in this case the Master S1 disavows his split subjectivity, and instead covers this over giving the impression that his directives are seamless, whole and complete and without contradiction. 
is under the bar means the Master signifier S1 denies that it is castrated by the signifier. She or he believes rather that she is impermeable, in control of her intentions, purposeful and whole.