Subjectivity and Otherness A Philosophical Reading of Lacan

unconscious signifying chains) represents for another (privileged) signifier (S1);

in the case of the standard phallic fantasy, the Master-Signifier is identifiable with

the symbolic phallus Φthat embodies the transcendent Law of the Name-of-the-

Father. Graph 4. 1 is primarily meant to represent topographically the transcen-

dence of the Name-of-the-Father with respect to all other signifiers (including Φ),

the fact that its function of “arrière-plan,” its being the “signifier of signifiers” singles

it out.It is precisely because the Name-of-the-Father encircles all other signifiers

that, at this stage, Lacanian theory seems to posit the existence of a self-enclosed

and fully independent symbolic Other: “All language implies a metalanguage.”^13

As a result of this, the order of the Real is entirely separated from the Symbolic. The

Real can be defined only negatively as that which the Symbolic is not.

It is not by chance, then, that, in this context, Lacan defines psychosis as a fore-

closure, a radical rejection of the Name-of-the-Father due to which the subject

finds himself in direct contact with the Real. The psychotic subject lacks the Other

of the Other. This is why, in “A Question Preliminary to Any Possible Treatment

of Psychosis” (1957‒1958), Lacan suggests that psychosis does not correspond to

an absence of the Other tout courtbut, rather, to the effect of the lack of the Name-

of-the-Father (as signifier of signifiers). “To the point at which the Name-of-

the-Father is called may correspond in the Other,then, a mere hole, which by the

inadequacy of the metaphoric effect will provoke a corresponding hole at the

place of the phallic signification.”^14 In other words, the psychotic is far from lack-

ing a relation to language, he is indeed immersed in a linguistic Other which is

not “phallically” organized by the paternal metaphor. Insofar as, in his case, the

Other of the signifiers (S2) is not regulated by the Other of the Law, the psychotic

remains a victim of language; he is “spoken” by it. This is what I schematize in

graph 4. 2. The Other of the symbolic Other prevents the subject from being in-

vaded by the Real. Such an invasion occurs, with disastrous consequences, in the

case of psychosis.

there is no other of the other

Graph 4.1

S2

S1, Φ

S

N.O.F.

(arrière-plan)

Real