First, I would like to discuss my understanding of some parts of Jacques Lacan’s theory including and surrounding the mirror-stage of development. I think a general discussion (in addition to a more focused discussion on this particular text) could help us to better understand the meaning of, as well as, the apocalyptic elements of this particular reading. Please feel free to correct and/or comment on anything I have written as it is my understanding of these concepts, and not necessarily the most correct interpretation.
In what Jacques Lacan refers to as the “mirror-stage,” an infant first realizes its state of separation or “otherness” from the world around him or her. Occurring between six and eighteen months of age, this stage is marked by the recognization of the self as the infant sees its reflection in the mirror and recognizes the different parts of the body as part of a separate “self” from the persons and things surrounding him or her. This separation from objects previously part of the Imaginary Order, a sort-of “fantasy” world where all objects are perceived as in union, marks the transition into the Symbolic Order, a world full of symbols and language. Each object has a name, a title not previously needed because of the lack of separation; thus, the emergence of language as a necessary form of expression. Also, developing from this shift in perception is the development of the unconscious and conscious mind(s). The unconscious is created from the initial state of anxiety created by the separation of the infant from its mother. The “formation of the I” is important because, according to Lacan, it accounts for great anguish in the separation from the most important figure in a child’s life, the mother figure. From this separation stems feelings of repression, the development of the “Oedipus complex” and an overall feeling of alienation from the world in the unconscious mind. The following passage from “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience” reflects just one of the descriptions of apocalyptic shifts in perception that occur during/after the mirror stage:
“It is this moment that decisively tips the whole of human knowledge into mediatization through the desire of the other, constitutes its objects in an abstract equivalence by the co-operation of others, and turns the I into that apparatus for which every instinctual thrust constitutes a danger, even though it should correspond to a natural maturation” (Lacan 60)
This passage portrays the apocalyptic nature of the shifts in perception during the “formation of the I.” This realization changes the way we view ourselves and the world around us forever. Once the social element of the self is realized, the whole of human experience changes in focus. Realizing the relation of the self in context with the entire human spectrum of social beings also affects both our unconscious and conscious states of being. Lacan uses the word “instinctual” to describe the way this social element affects our unconscious thoughts and decisions in every day life, each action constituting a “danger” of rejection from our peers. We also consciously view ourselves always in relation to others, never forgetting the separation between us. In a way, this social separation defines us as individuals (I am me, not you etc.) However, the apocalyptic element exists in that one can never return to the façade of total unity that existed previously, before the shift.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think your understanding of Lacan is correct, as this is how I, too, have understood his theory, but I have a question that maybe someone can clarify. When discussing the individual and the Ideal- I, it sounded as if each individual is motivated to act a certain way in hopes of moving towards this “Ideal-I”. But if the individual is looking out for their own interests, in a selfish manner, are they moving in the direction of this Ideal-I or in the complete opposite direction?
ReplyDeleteLikewise, if the "I" is who we are in relation to others, then if I gaze into a mirror, is my perception of myself based off the way that others see me?
If these are all correct, does that mean that the term "individual" is not real?
Great questions, Maria.
ReplyDeleteFor Lacan, here, the "I" is not your relation to others—it is your relation to *yourself* (and an inherently alienated relation at that).
Moving forward in life is always in a parallel relation to the "Ideal-I"—you never really get any closer or farther away no matter what you do. The "Ideal-I" is just out there, tracking alongside you, kind of tormenting you, really, serving as a reminder that you are a forever incomplete "I" (because you never really can attain the ideal state, or an external view of yourself).
The term "individual" is certainly real in the sense that it has meaning to us and we know how to use the term in various contexts. But Lacan's point might be that the idea of an 'individual' is always projected, like the leaning infant, out in a fictional direction, toward a goal that can never be attained or gotten any closer to. What we think of as an 'individual', according to Lacan's mirror stage, is always prefigured as a disfigured, fragmented being—and this is the place to start (it should not need to result in any sort of 'existential' crisis, for Lacan).
“At this junction of nature and culture, so persistently examined by modern anthropology, psychoanalysis alone recognizes this knot of imaginary servitude that love must always undo again, or sever.”
ReplyDeleteDr. Schaberg, I know that you had expressed your intention to write something regarding this statement, so hopefully you can provide some insight and clarify all the misinterpretations that I am about to make.
This statement leads one to believe that in order to transcend this “imaginary servitude,” that of our everyday ambitions to get closer to this Ideal-I, we create a notion of “love.” Love serves as the excuse to abandon our journey towards the Ideal-I because we take an undefinable idea in order to avoid something unattainable. Everyday you come across people using love as the reason for their behaviors as if it is THE ultimate excuse. Love seems to never be questioned, so naturally it would be the means to sever ourselves from this constant pressure to fulfill the requirements, that which we can never reach, set forth by this Ideal-I. Love shadows the fact that we are no closer to our ideal today than we were two years ago.
Elissa, you suggest at the end of your post that "the apocalyptic element exists in that one can never return to the façade of total unity that existed previously, before the shift." However, I think another startling implication about the mirror stage is that there was no 'façade of total unity' to begin with. It is almost as if we emerge from a nebula of being into a state of self-alienation, and there is never any guise of 'wholeness' at all—before, during, or after. This is an unsettling way to conceive of the 'self', as always lacking *from the beginning*. The mirror stage, in a way, *figures* this condition, projects it outward and provides a (fraught) model for seeing ourselves as being in the world—yet apart from ourselves, not totally ourselves, ever. So the apocalypse for the subject is not only that one can never return to the façade of total unity, but that there was no façade to begin with—it is more like a hologram that we imagine(d) after the fact, and to see through it (from the outset) puts the whole idea of the 'I' into radical suspension.
ReplyDeleteMichael, I think you are onto something in your reading of Lacan's enigmatic 'love' passage. As I understand this passage, Lacan is using 'love' in a very everyday sense, as something that can "sever" or "undo" the "knot of imaginary servitude." (And psychoanalysis "alone" recognizes how/why this can happen, because...it accepts the unconscious and desire as a real parts of what it is to be human?) So what is the "knot" here? Is it that constant bind between my fragmented self and my 'Ideal-I'? If so, how does 'love' sever or 'undo' it? By making me 'act', and in action, evaporating—if for an instant—the specter of the Ideal-I? What makes this a "junction of nature and culture"? Is it because the conventions of 'love' (a cultural practice) tap into the instinctual part of being human—in our inescapably partial and self-alienated condition? Sorry, I guess I have more questions than answers here; let's keep at this, though. I am curious what others might have to say along these lines.
Bear with me. Clearly my thoughts are all over the place, so hopefully someone can come along and help connect or disprove my ramblings.
ReplyDeleteRepeatedly reading this statement, I’ve come to believe that this “junction of nature and culture” is simply the definition of man. While nature represents a perfected system and a source of both intense human envy and admiration, culture—to whatever degree of complexity it may be—strives to create a world mimicking that of nature. All cultures seek to create a way of life that it feels best reflects how humanity should go about their daily lives. With this in mind, we find ourselves attempting to create an “ideal” society, ultimately be either one with nature or one as nature, but the problem lies within man himself.
Fragmented, man is not only alienated from nature and other men, but also from himself, but this does not diminish the fact that man remains the best mirror for nature however shattered it may be. This asymptotic relationship between your constantly “improving” state and the Ideal-I best reflects this alienation of man from himself, for this fragmentation can never be mended. And while we recognize this unapproachable goal, our efforts are not necessarily thwarted because this ideal state serves as the source for human motivation. It is better to strive for something unattainable than to not strive at all, so we find ourselves in this knot of imaginary servitude with the Ideal-I.
Man will never be perfected or ideal like nature, but he at least possesses the capacity to recognize both his limits and potential. Sometimes though, we get tired of battling this constant pressure brought on by these ideal concepts, so we created a concept: love
A cultural concept, love takes a variety of idealized forms. Perhaps man created the concept of love to prove his capabilities of producing an ideal because he himself cannot reach the ideal set forth by nature. Nature simply is, while man desperately wants to be.