Ibid., p. 7.
J. Lacan, De la psychose paranoïaque dans ses rapports avec la personnalité(Paris: Seuil, 1975 ), p. 253.
See Écrits: A Selection,p. 2 ; Écrits,p.18 0; The Seminar. Book I,p. 163.
31 .Écrits: A Selection,p. 27.
32 .The Seminar. Book I,p. 171.
33 .Écrits: A Selection,p. 17 (my translation).
34 .Écrits,p. 88 ; see also The Seminar. Book I,p. 141.
- Ibid., p. 121.
36 .Écrits: A Selection,p. 3.
Ibid., p. 2.
This is why Lacan states that psychoanalytic theory “does not distinguish [secondary]
identification from [primary] narcissistic identification: here the subject is equally as-
similated by the object”; the only notable difference lies in the “constitution of a new
object of reality, which opposes itself to a better formed ego” (“Les complexes fami-
liaux,” p. 54 ).
39 .The Seminar. Book I,p.13 7.
40 .Écrits: A Selection,p. 22.
Lacan associates the ego-ideal with the introjection of the imagoof the father in “Les com-
plexes familiaux” (193 8); by the time of his first Seminar ( 1953 ), the ego-ideal starts to
be analyzed more explicitly in relation to the order of the Symbolic. Only around 1955‒
1957 , however, will Lacan be able to reformulate the ego-ideal convincingly—still con-
nected with the Oedipus complex and the subject’s introjection of the Law—in terms of
a privileged signifier defined as the Name-of-the-Father.
It is in this sense that we should read Lacan’s apparently contradictory claim that the ideal
ego “will also be the source of secondary identifications” (the ego-ideal) (Écrits: A Selec-
tion,p. 2 ).
See especially The Seminar. Book I,p.13 4.
“Love doesn’t happen with just any partner or just any image” (ibid., p. 182 ).
Ibid., p. 171.
Ibid., p. 126. Lacan also states that “the love object is confounded... with the subject’s
ego-ideal” (ibid., p. 112 ).
Ibid., p. 142. Lacan also defines the ego-ideal as “the other in so far as he has a symbolic
relation to me [moi].”
Ibid. Of course this is not the case with the first love relation with the father: the ego-
ideal is in fact formed by it; there is as yet no Symbolic to be perturbed.
Ibid., p.17 6(emphasis added).
Ibid., p. 177.