ture necessarily raises the question of jouissance,of a “pleasure in pain” that regu-
lates the unconscious life of the subject and is intimately linked to the order of the
Real. For this reason, I devote the final two sections of Chapter 5 to a discussion of
jouissance.^10
4.2 From “There Is an Other of the Other”...
In the 196 0s and 197 0s, Lacanian theory seems to be firmly relying on the pre-
supposition that “there is no Other of the Other” (which is algebraically rendered
as A barred). Given that this phase of Lacan’s thought is preceded by one in which
he provides us with often contrasting statements on this matter, it is difficult to
identify clearly the specific moment at which this essential conclusion was fully
assumed for the first time. Seminar V (1957‒1958) unequivocally introduces the
functioning of the paternal metaphor as being based on the assumption that there
isan Other of the Other; as Lacan puts it, “[analytic] experience shows us the in-
dispensability of the background [arrière-plan] provided by the Other with respect
to the Other, without which the universe of language could not articulate itself.”^11
Less than a year later, Seminar VI unhesitatingly proclaims that “there is no Other
of the Other... no signifier exists which might guarantee the concrete conse-
quence of any manifestation of the signifier.”^12
How should we treat these apparently irreconcilable quotations? I suggest that
the hasty singling out of a fundamental Kehrein the time between Seminars V and
VI would probably overlook the multifaceted and nonlinear evolution of Lacan’s
thought. Nevertheless, it is certain that during the prolific years between 1958 and
1963 Lacanian theory rapidly moves beyond the prevalence it had given in the
mid-195 0s to the notion of “structure,” a notion for which “there isan Other of
the Other” should be considered the implicit motto. Let us briefly recapitulate what
this formula means.
The fact that there is a (symbolic) Other of the (symbolic) Other indicates that
the Other as the order of signifiers is guaranteed by another transcendent Other,
namely the paternal Law. The Other as Law, the Other of the Other, corresponds to
the Name-of-the-Father: this is precisely what allows the resolution of the Oedi-
pus complex, and consequently the detachment of the subject from the disqui-
eting relation he entertained with the mother. The subject is thus enabled actively
to enter the intersubjective symbolic field. I refer at this point to graph 4. 1 , which
shows the relationship that exists between the barred subject (S), the Other of the
signifiers (S2), the Master-Signifier (S1), and the Other of the Other quaName-of-
the-Father. Insofar as the subject is barred as a consequence of the Spaltunginduced
by language, he is to be regarded as that which one signifier (any signifier S2 in the