{"id":7650,"date":"2011-04-22T18:11:35","date_gmt":"2011-04-22T23:11:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/?p=7650"},"modified":"2013-06-07T11:09:52","modified_gmt":"2013-06-07T16:09:52","slug":"7650","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2011\/04\/22\/7650\/","title":{"rendered":"Fink Stavrakakis Van Haute"},"content":{"rendered":"

Fink, Bruce. The Lacanian Subject<\/em>. New Jersey: Princeton UP, 1995. [LS]
\nStavrakakis, Yannis. Lacan and the Political<\/em>. New York: Routledge, 1999. [LP]
\nVan Haute , Phillipe. Against Adaptation.<\/em> New York: Other Press, 2002. [AA]<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Alienation<\/strong> [LS 48]
\nBy submitting to the Other, the child nevertheless gains something: he or she becomes, in a sense, one of tf language\u2019s subjects, a subject \u201cof language\u201d or \u201cin language.\u201d Schematically represented, the child, submitting tothe Other, allows the signifier to standin for him or her.
\nOther\/child
\nThe child, coming to be as a divided subject, disappears beneath or behind the signifier, S.
\nS\/$
\n\u201cYour money or your life!\u201d
\n… it is clear that your money is as good as gone. … You will thus, no doubt, be more prudent and hand over your wallet or purse; but you will nonetheless suffer a restriction of your enjoyment, insofar as money buys enjoyment. … in his or her confrontation with the Other, the subject immediately drops out of the picture<\/em>. While alienation is the necessary \u201cfirst step\u201d in acceding to subjectivity, this step involves choosing \u201cone\u2019s own\u201d disappearance.<\/p>\n

Lacan\u2019s concept of the subject as manqu\u00e9-\u00e0-\u00eatre<\/em> is useful here: the subject fails to come forth as someone, as a particular being; in the most radical sense, he or she is not, he or she has no being<\/strong>. The subject exists<\/em> \u2014 insofar as the word has wrought him from nothingness, and he or she can be spoken of, talked about, and discoursed upon \u2014 yet remains beingless<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Prior to the onset of alienation there was not the slightest question of being … Alienation gives rise to a pure possibility of being<\/em>, a place where one might expect to find a subject but which nevertheless remains empty. Alienation engenders, in a sense, a place in which it is clear that there is, as of yet, no subject: a place where something is conspicuously lacking<\/strong>. The subject\u2019s first guise is this very lack<\/em>. [LS52]<\/p>\n

Lack in Lacan\u2019s work has, to a certain extent, an ontological status, it is the first step beyond nothingness.
\n… the subject is completely submerged by language, his or her only trace being a place-marker or place-holder in the symbolic order.<\/p>\n

The process of alenation may, as J.A. Miller suggests, be viewed as yielding the subject as empty set, {0}, in other words, a set which has no elements, a symbol which transforms nothingness into something by marking<\/em> or representing<\/em> it. [LS52]<\/p>\n

The empty set as the subject\u2019s place-holder within the symbolic order is not unrelated to the subject\u2019s proper name. That name is often selected long before the child\u2019s birth, and it inscribes the child in the symbolic. A priori, this name has absolutely nothing to do with the subject; it is as foreign to him or her as any other signifier. But in time this signifier \u2013 more, perhaps, than any other\u2014will go to the root of his or her being and become inextricably tied to his or her subjectivity. It will become the signifier of his or her very absence as subject, standing in for him or her.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cImaginary relations\u201d are not illusory relationships \u2013 relationships that don\u2019t really exist \u2013 but rather relations between egos, wherein everything is played out in terms of but one opposition: same or different.<\/strong> They involve other porple who you consider to be like yourself for a variety of reasons. It could be because the two of you look very much alike, are similar in size or age, and so on.<\/p>\n

Imaginary relationships<\/strong> are characterized by two salient features: love (identification) and hate (rivalry). Insofar as the other is like me, I love and identify with him or her, feeling his or her joy and pain as my own. In the case of identical twins, one often finds that one twin cathects the other twin\u2019s ego almost as much as his or her own.<\/p>\n

Difference inevitably creeps between even the most identical of twins, whether due to differential treatment by parents or changes in appearance over time, and the closer the relationship at the outset, the greater the rage over minute differences is likely to be.<\/p>\n

Sibling rivalry is the best-known example of imaginary relations involving hatred. Whereas very young children usually do not call into question their subordination to their parents — perceiving a clear difference between their parents and themselves \u2014 they do regularly contest, right from a very tender age, their rank and status among their siblings.\u00a0 Children generally consider their siblings as in the same category as themselves, and cannot abide overly preferential treatment by the parents of anyone other than themselves, double standards, and so on. They come to hate their siblings for taking away their special place in the family, stealing the limelight, and perfomring better than they do in activities valued by the parents. That same kind of rivalry generally esxtends in time to classmates, cousings, neighborhood friends, and so on. The rivalry in such relationships very often revolves around status symbols and implies all kinds of other symbolic and linguistic elements as well.\u00a0 LS 84-85<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Fink, Bruce. The Lacanian Subject. New Jersey: Princeton UP, 1995. [LS] Stavrakakis, Yannis. Lacan and the Political. New York: Routledge, 1999. [LP] Van Haute , Phillipe. Against Adaptation. New York: Other Press, 2002. [AA] Alienation [LS 48] By submitting to the Other, the child nevertheless gains something: he or she becomes, in a sense, one … Continue reading “Fink Stavrakakis Van Haute”<\/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":[111,38,12,21,24,72,15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7650","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-desire","category-ethics","category-fantasy","category-jouissance","category-lacan","category-objet-a","category-subjectivity"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7650","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=7650"}],"version-history":[{"count":16,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7650\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11214,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7650\/revisions\/11214"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7650"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7650"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7650"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}