{"id":10566,"date":"2013-03-05T14:56:29","date_gmt":"2013-03-05T19:56:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/?p=10566"},"modified":"2013-03-05T20:02:06","modified_gmt":"2013-03-06T01:02:06","slug":"10566","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2013\/03\/05\/10566\/","title":{"rendered":"the real"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u017di\u017eek, Slavoj. “Zizek_TheLacanianReal_Television<\/a>” The Symptom<\/em> 9 Summer 2008.<\/p>\n

The usual idea of the Lacanian “real”<\/span> is that of a hard kernel resisting symbolization, dialectization, persisting in its place, always returning to it. But this is just one side of the Lacanian real; it\u2019s the side which predominates in the fifties, when we have the real – the brute, pre-symbolic reality which always returns to its place, then the Symbolic order, which structures our perception of reality, and finally the Imaginary, the level of illusory entities whose consistency is the effect of a kind of mirror-play, i.e., which have no real existence but are just a structural effect.<\/p>\n

With the development of the Lacanian teaching in the sixties and seventies, what he calls “the real”<\/span> more and more approaches what he called, in the fifties, the imaginary.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s take the case of traumatism: in the fifties, in his first seminar, the traumatic event is defined as an imaginary entity which wasn\u2019t yet fully symbolized, given a place in the symbolic universe of the subject.<\/p>\n

In the seventies, the traumatism is real<\/span>; it is a hard core resisting symbolization. But the point is that it doesn\u2019t matter if it took place, if it \u201creally occurred\u201d in so-called reality; the point is just that it produces a series of structural effects<\/strong> (displacements, repetitions, etc.).<\/p>\n

The real<\/span> is an entity which should be constructed afterwards so that we can account for the distortions of the symbolic structure.<\/span><\/p>\n

The most famous Freudian example of such a real<\/span> entity is of course the primal parricide: it would be senseless to search for its traces in prehistoric reality, but it must nonetheless be presupposed if we want to account for the present state of things.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s the same as with the primal fight to death between the (future) master and servant in Hegel\u2019s Phenomenology of Mind<\/em>: it is senseless trying to determine when this event could have taken place; the point is just that it must be presupposed, that it constitutes a fantasy- scenario implied by the very fact that people are working – it is the intersubjective condition of the so-called \u201cinstrumental relation to the world of objects.\u201d<\/p>\n

The paradox of the Lacanian real<\/span> is then that it is an entity which, although it doesn\u2019t exist (in the sense of \u201creally existing,\u201d taking place in reality),<\/span> has a series of properties.<\/span><\/p>\n

It exercises a certain structural causality; it can produce a series of effects in the symbolic reality of subjects.<\/span><\/p>\n

That\u2019s why it can be illustrated by a multitude of well-known jokes based on the same matrix: \u201cIs this the place where the Duke of Wellington spoke his famous words?\u201d \u201cYes, this is the place, but he never spoke those words.\u201d These never-spoken words are a Lacanian real<\/span>.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat\u2019s that package up there in the baggage rack?\u201d
\n\u201cOh, that\u2019s a MacGuffin.\u201d
\n\u201cWhat\u2019s a MacGuffin?\u201d
\n\u201cWell, it\u2019s an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands.\u201d
\n\u201cBut there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands.\u201d
\n\u201cWell, you see how efficient it is!\u201d<\/p>\n

That\u2019s a MacGuffin, a pure nothing which is nonetheless efficient<\/strong>. It is needless to add that the MacGuffin is the purest case of what Lacan calls objet petit a<\/span>: a pure void which functions as the object-cause of desire.<\/strong><\/p>\n

That would be, then, the precise definition of the real<\/span> object: a cause which in itself doesn\u2019t exist, i.e., which is present only in a series of its effects, but always in a distorted, displaced way. If the real is impossible, it is precisely this impossibility to be grasped through its effects. Laclau and Mouffe were the first to develop this logic of the real in its relevance for the social-ideological field in their concept of antagonism<\/strong>: antagonism is precisely such an impossible kernel, a certain limit which is in itself nothing, and which is only to be constructed retroactively, from a series of its effects, as the traumatic point which escapes them and prevents a closure of the social field.<\/p>\n

We might reread this way even the classical notion of the \u201cclass struggle\u201d<\/strong>: it is not the last signifier giving the meaning to all social phenomena (\u201dall social processes are in the last instance expressions of the class struggle\u201d),<\/strong> but quite the contrary a certain limit, a pure negativity, a traumatic limit which prevents the final totalization of the socio-ideological field<\/span>. The \u201cclass struggle\u201d is present only in its effects,<\/span> in the fact that every attempt to totalize the social field, to assign to social phenomena a definite place in the social structure, is always doomed to failure.<\/p>\n

If we define the real as such a paradoxical, chimerical entity which, although it doesn\u2019t exist, has a series of properties<\/strong> and can produce a series of effects, it becomes clear that the real <\/span>par excellence is jouissance<\/span>: jouissance doesn\u2019t exist;<\/span> it is impossible, but it produces a lot of traumatic effects<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

And this paradoxical nature of jouissance offers us also a clue to explain the fundamental paradox which unfailingly attests the presence of the real: the fact of the prohibition of something which is already in itself impossible. The elementary model of it is, of course, the prohibition of incest; but there are many other examples. Let\u2019s just mention the usual conservative attitude towards child sexuality: it doesn\u2019t exist, children are innocent beings, that\u2019s why we must strictly control them and fight child sexuality.<\/p>\n

The real<\/span> is then at the same time the hard, impenetrable kernel resisting symbolization and a purely chimerical entity which has in itself no ontological consistency. To use Kripkean terminology, the real is the rock upon which every attempt at symbolization stumbles, the hard core which remains the same in all possible worlds (i.e., symbolic universes); but at the same time its status is thoroughly precarious: it\u2019s something that persists only as failed, missed, in a shadow, and dissolves itself as soon as we try to grasp it in its positivity. As we have already seen, this is precisely what defines the notion of a traumatic event: a point of failure of symbolization, but at the same time never given in its positivity.<\/p>\n

It can only be constructed backwards, from its structural effects. All its efficacy lies in these effects, in the distortions it produces in the symbolic universe of the subject The traumatic event is ultimately just a fantasy-construct filling out a certain void in a symbolic structure and as such the retroactive effect of this structure.<\/p>\n

the real<\/span> is not a transcendent positive entity, persisting somewhere beyond the symbolic order like a hard kernel inaccessible to it, some kind of Kantian \u201cThing-in-itself.\u201d 17<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u017di\u017eek, Slavoj. “Zizek_TheLacanianReal_Television” The Symptom 9 Summer 2008. The usual idea of the Lacanian “real” is that of a hard kernel resisting symbolization, dialectization, persisting in its place, always returning to it. But this is just one side of the Lacanian real; it\u2019s the side which predominates in the fifties, when we have the real … Continue reading “the real”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[41,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10566","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-the-real","category-zizek"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10566","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10566"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10566\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10574,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10566\/revisions\/10574"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10566"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10566"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10566"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}