Consider first the relationship between fantasmatic logics and social practices. Though social practices are punctuated by the mishaps, tragedies and contingencies of everyday life, social relations are expereinced and understood in this mode of activity as an accepted way of life. The role of fantasy in this context is not to set up an illusion that provides a subject with a false picture of the world, but to ensure that the radical contingency of social reality — and the political dimension of a practice more specifically — remains in the background … (T)he role of fantasy is to actively contain or suppress the political dimension of a practice (145).
The operation of fantasmatic logics can thus reinforce the social dimension of practices by covering over the fundamental lack in reality and keeping at bay what we have labelled ‘the real’ (146).
In sum, whether in the context of social practices or political practices, fantasy operates so as to conceal or close off the radical contingency of social relations. It does this through a fantasmatic narrative or logic that promises a fullness-to-come once a named or implied obstacle is overcome — the beatific dimension of fantasy – or which foretells disaster if the obstacle proves insurmountable, which might be termed the horrific dimension of fantasy (147).
Images of omnipotence or of total control –> beatific dimension of fantasy
Images of impotence or victimhood –> horrific dimension of fantasy