2-8-11 Lacan, Ecrits

“The Mirror Stage as Formative of the I Function as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience”

Identification is one of the earliest processes of recognizing the other and provides a foundation for understanding the I function in psychoanalysis.

“The Signification of the Phallus Die Bedeutung des Phallus”

Lacan deals with the anatomical distinction that makes it difficult to interpret cases of women by arguing that the phallus is not a fantasy or an organ but a signifier of the Other’s desire.

"The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis"

 “For the function of language in speech is not to inform but to evoke.  What I seek in speech is a response from the other. What constitutes me as a subject is my question.” (247)

In the passage I have chosen, the use of “for” followed by several simple, declarative sentences signals that Lacan is making an important point here.  His use of declarative sentences stands out among the majority of the rest of his writing, as he does not use complicated clauses or piles of prepositional phrases.  I am struck here by this apparent simplicity, but I want to explore it further to tease out its complications.

The use of “for” refers to what has come before this passage.  This word does two things here: it makes the sentence into a very long prepositional phrase of sorts, and in doing so, it references what has come before it.  Immediately prior to “for,” Lacan says that “. . .what is redundant as far as information is concerned is precisely what plays the part of resonance in speech.”  Here, we can assume that “speech” in the first sentence of this passage refers to redundancies and resonances.  On the other hand, the use of “for” at the beginning of the sentence as a floating preposition unmoors it from context.  In the OED, it’s apparent that the meaning of “for” depends heavily upon context: its placement as a preposition, its situation within a phrase, and even the word that it substitutes.  In this case, it’s less clear what “for” substitutes in reference to the prior sentence, but it is clear that Lacan uses this word as a signal of emphasis, of substitution, and even possibly of transference.

Next, “the function of language in speech” acts as the sentence’s subject, and the construction of the prepositional phrases indicates that language, as a broader category, functions in specific ways when it is put into the category of speech.  Here, it is clear that Lacan is not talking about the ways that language functions in the unconscious or in writing; instead, he is referring to the ways that language functions in the act of expressing language vocally.  Here, I think it is important to consider the implications of the vocal act, where speech is considered to do something in particular ways.  For Lacan, speech evokes.  Speech, of course, can inform, but that is not what this particular verb is referring to in the sentence.  “Inform” and “evoke” both refer to the function of language, and so they are most strongly linked to language here rather than to speech.  Speech is an act, but it is active because of the way that language functions within it.  Therefore, language is evocative rather than informative.  It does not merely describe; it calls forth and makes associations.

The aural implications of speech are also evident in this passage, as the sentence to which the “for” refers makes clear.  Where information (the informing that language in speech does not do) seems redundant, it is this redundancy that transforms into resonance when put into the context of speech.  Resonance is the active part of repetition, as it also has implications of calling forth or evoking.  Instead of just a string of repetitions, resonances bounce back and forth, and the sound gets amplified as it goes.  The following two sentences (“What I seek in speech is a response from the other. What constitutes me as a subject is my question.”) achieve this resonance aurally in terms of their cadence and rhythm.  They are repetitive in that they are structured the same way and inform us as to what Lacan is saying, but they are resonant in that they act out what Lacan means about language in speech and the way that they call forth associations between the subject and the other.  Even though these sentences are written, they were originally delivered as a talk.  This complicates the idea that Lacan was only talking about speech here.   Can these categories be cordoned off from each other so cleanly?  Does language function differently in different contexts?

In this passage, the objects that amplify this speech, the surfaces that sound bounces between, are the subject and the other.  The idea that these sentences are not merely declarative (they don’t just inform) is evident when we consider the subjects of these sentences.  The sentences are not structured as questions, but the subject of both of them is “what”.  A simplification of what these sentences look like: “What I seek is a response.  What constitutes me is my question.”