Page 119 - Cultural Theory and Popular Culture an Introduction

CULT_C05.qxd 10/25/08 16:31 Page 103

Lacanian psychoanalysis 103

The second stage of development is the ‘fort-da’ game, originally named by Freud
after watching his grandson throw a cotton reel away (‘gone’) and then pull it back
again by means of an attached thread (‘here’). Freud saw this as the child’s way of com-
ing to terms with its mother’s absence – the reel symbolically representing the mother,
over which the child is exerting mastery. In other words, the child compensates for his
mother’s disappearance by taking control of the situation: he makes her disappear
(fort) and then reappear (da). Lacan rereads this as a representation of the child begin-
ning to enter the Symbolic, and, in particular, its introduction into language: ‘the
moment when desire becomes human is also that in which the child is born into lan-
guage’ (113). Like the ‘fort-da’ game, language is ‘a presence made of absence’ (71).
Once we enter language, the completeness of the Real is gone forever. Language intro-
duces an alienating split between being and meaning; before language we had only
being (a self-complete nature), after language we are both object and subject: this is
made manifest every time I think (subject) about myself (object). In other words, ‘I
identify myself in language, but only by losing myself in it like an object’ (94). I am ‘I’
when I speak to you and ‘you’ when you speak to me. As Lacan explains, ‘It is not a
question of knowing whether I speak of myself in a way that conforms to what I am,
but rather of knowing whether I am the same as that of which I speak’ (182). In an
attempt to explain this division, Lacan rewrites Rene Descartes’s (1993) ‘I think there-
fore I am’ as ‘I think where I am not, therefore I am where I do not think’ (Lacan, 1989:
183). In this formulation ‘I think’ is the subject of the enunciation (the Imaginary/
Symbolic subject) and ‘I am’ is the subject of the enunciated (the Real subject).
Therefore, there is always a gap between the I who speaks and the I of whom is
spoken. Entry into the Symbolic results in what Lacan (2001) describes as castration:
the symbolic loss of being that is necessary to enter meaning. In order to engage in
culture we have given up self-identity with our nature. When ‘I’ speak I am always
different from the ‘I’ of whom I speak, always sliding into difference and defeat: ‘when
the subject appears somewhere as meaning, he is manifested elsewhere as “fading”,
as disappearance’ (218).
The Symbolic is an intersubjective network of meanings, which exists as a structure
we must enter. As such, it is very similar to the way in which culture is understood in
post-Marxist cultural studies (see Chapter 4). It is, therefore, what we experience as
reality: reality being the symbolic organization of the Real. Once in the Symbolic our
subjectivity is both enabled (we can do things and make meaning) and constrained
(there are limits to what we can do and how we can make meaning). The Symbolic
order confirms who we are. I may think I am this or that, but unless this is confirmed
– unless I and others can recognize this in the Symbolic – it will not be really true. The
day before I was awarded my first degree I was no more intelligent than the day after,
but in a symbolic sense I was: I now had a degree! The Symbolic order recognized and
therefore allowed me and others to recognize my new intellectual status.
The third stage of development is the ‘Oedipus complex’: the encounter with sexual
difference. Successful completion of the Oedipus complex enforces our transition from
the Imaginary to the Symbolic. It also compounds our sense of ‘lack’. The impossibil-
ity of fulfilment is now experienced as a movement from signifier to signifier, unable