that any rigorous interpretation of Lacan’s own works requires an equally legiti-
mate “filling in of gaps”: this is precisely the point at which a dedicated exegetical
reading demonstrates its compatibility with considerable creativity.
It is well known that Lacan always defended his subversion of the psycho-
analytic establishment by advocating a “return” to the true spirit of the Freudian
revolution. Yet at the same time, he was also unequivocally working on a reinven-
tion of psychoanalysis. Here the paradox is only apparent: his innovations were
first and foremost based on a meticulous reading of the writings of the father of
psychoanalysis; Lacan’s inventive additions originated from his insistence on
stubbornly confronting and overcoming the many deadlocks of Freud’s oeuvre. In
the same way, it is high time that “committed” Lacanians should acknowledge
the need to return to Lacan.^19 Although such a return should not aim at dogmatizing
his work—it is indeed essential to encourage a “dynamic usage” of Lacan in sev-
eral contexts precisely in oppositionto its “soft” dogmatization in feminist/cultural/
cinema studies—what is nevertheless indispensable in order properly to (re)direct
this interdisciplinary endeavor is a detailed analysis of Lacanian concepts; in all
likelihood this will also show that they are less deliberately elusive than they may
initially seem. To sum up, it is important to persevere in a rigorous exegesis of
Lacan’s work precisely in the name of a loving fidelity to Lacan’s open oeuvre,and of
the theoretical respectability that must be accorded to its divulgation.introduction