On Lacan's meaning of the Phallus

 

 

From, " Lacan, the meaning of the phallus and the ‘sexed’ subject [online]".
Hook, Derek (2006)
London: LSE Research Online. 
Available at:http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/960
Available in LSE Research Online: July 2007

The human in language: an unnatural fit

....The role of language in all of this, we should emphasise, is pivotal; as Freudian psychoanalysis had initially borrowed notions from medicine and biology to strengthen its conceptual purchase on the human psyche and sexuality, so Lacanian psychoanalysis borrows from (and extends) the study of structural linguistics so as to further its engagement with the unconscious processes of subject formation. In investigating the structure and operations of language, Lacan is also intrigued more generally with the power and structuring principles of the larger category of the Symbolic, which is the pre-existing domain of language and law, the social and cultural structure into which the child is born.

So, importantly, for Lacan, masculinity and femininity are not biological essences but are instead symbolic positions. The assumption of one of these two positions is an obligatory component of human subjectivity. Each sex, furthermore, is defi ned separately with respect to a third term. In the words of Fink (1995: 105): ‘Men and women are defi ned differently with respect to language, that is, with respect to the Symbolic order.’

There is an entire ‘world of language’ which pre-exists the infant; it is into this world of symbolic exchanges and meaning that the ‘human animal’ of the infant is born. As Mitchell (1982: 5) states:

Language does not arise from within ... [it] always ‘belongs’ to another person. The human subject is created from a general law that comes to it from outside itself and through the speech of other people, though this speech in its turn must relate to the general law.

Being in the Imaginary

We can emphasise the ‘unnaturalness’ of language (along with the forced imposition of sexual identity to which it is related) with reference to the state of being which precedes the child’s acquisition of language. This is where Lacan introduces his concept of the Imaginary. The Imaginary is an order of experience, a ‘state of being’ that characterises the infant’s earliest pre-verbal and ‘pre-social’ interactions with the mother.

Here no clear distinction exists between the ‘self’ and other, between internal and external worlds. There is no clearly defi ned ‘I’ at this point, rather a loosely bounded and undifferentiated mass of sensations in which the body, much like the emerging ego, has not taken on a coherent form. We have here a ceaseless exchange where the ‘self’ seems to pass into objects, and objects into it. (Lacan is suspicious of all conceptualisations of a ‘self’ that imply that there is in fact some substantive or cohesive entity underlying the sense we have of what we are. He hence avoids this term altogether, preferring the notion of the ‘subject’ who is always divided, split, or barred.)

The Imaginary is thus an order based on the incorporation of sameness; there is no separation or gap between the experience of the child and the world it inhabits, with which, as Minsky asserts, it is fused:

Objects in the Imaginary repeatedly refl ect themselves in a kind of sealed unit where everything is an extension of the self which has been projected onto the external world so there are no apparent differences of divisions (Minsky 1996: 146).

This is the pre-Oedipal world of narcissistic identifications and mirror reflections. It is a world, as Wright (2000) explains, in which the child patterns its emerging ego on Imaginary counterparts that appear to offer the promise of unity, cohesion and integrity. It is also however a domain of rivalry and aggressivity. Not only does the child narcissistically identify with, fall in love with, its mirror image (or refl ection in others), it also experiences confl ict and hateful relations with these images, from which it is as yet not wholly differentiated.

The absent object

Despite the intensity of the mother–child bond, it is never an exclusively dyadic relationship; there is always, insists Lacan, a third term present, something beyond the child to which the mother’s desire is aimed: the phallus. To be clear: the child is situated within the ‘fi eld’ of the mother’s desire – the infant does, after all, represent a nodal point of love, investment and care (at least for most mothers) – but it does not exhaust this desire. We are in a position now to offer a fi rst tentative defi nition of what Lacan might mean by his understanding of the phallus: the phallus is the Imaginary object of the mother’s desire which remains outside of the child’s reach, something it can neither grasp nor bring into being, something quite ‘other’ than it.

Being the phallus

The child then must realise that, as important as it may be to the mother, it will never be the exclusive object of her desire. It experiences itself as marked by a lack by virtue of the fact that it does not possess the phallus. It is, in other words, not able to fully satisfy her desire. The mother, however, is also marked by lack; she is incomplete because she does not possess the phallus she desires. Indeed, she must be incomplete: why else does she desire? Both mother and child are hence bound to the phallus; as Benvenuto and Kennedy (1986) emphasise: ‘the infant is bound to the mother, who is herself bound to the phallus in so far as she does not have it’ (131)

We now begin to understand something of the quandary in which the child fi nds itself. It is situated within the fi eld of the mother’s desire, but is not able to fulfi l it. This attempt by the child to be the object it thinks the mother lacks/desires permits for an endless amount of variation; it takes no one form or given set of activities.

What might the attempt ‘to be’ the phallus entail? Well, it is an Imaginary position that would permit for as much variety as there are different mothers and children; it seems to be the child’s attempt to be everything for the mother. Leader (1996) gives some examples: it might mean to be a glowing, seductive child, or the effort to enchant or puzzle the mother, to impress or seduce the adults it comes into contact with – whatever form seems to interest the mother the most.

Phallus as signifier of lack

What we need to remain aware of here is the fact that, although the phallus is the signifier of the mother’s desire, it is also always the signifier of lack. It helps here to reiterate that the phallus (for the child) is both that which the mother desires, and that which she does not have, both a signifier of desire and a signifier of lack. Adams (1992) and Luepnitz both comment on this paradoxical aspect of the phallus. On the one hand the term ‘phallus’ refers to our wish for completeness, ‘the phallus is what no one can have but everyone wants: a belief in bodily unity, wholeness, perfect autonomy’ (Luepnitz 2002: 226). The phallus, in this respect, is a wishful means of defending ourselves against castration. However, given that the phallus is the ‘covering of lack par excellence’ (Adams 1992: 77) it also becomes the signifier of lack, of the fact that there is something that needs to be covered. The paradox here is that the very thing that promises an Imaginary completeness comes also to signify the very opposite of completion; it calls attention to the fact of a lack that needs to be attended to.

The phallus as it exists in the Imaginary and in the Symbolic

The phallus is not only an Imaginary object; it also exists in the domain of the Symbolic. The Symbolic of course is a very different order of existence. Unlike in the Imaginary, the phallus here is not an Imagined object locked into a succession of images with which the child is constantly attempting to identify itself. Here the phallus is a signifi er of the mother’s desire. A signifi er, as discussed above, is something capable of conveying meaning – such as a sound, a mark, a letter, a gesture. In speaking of the phallus as it exists in the Symbolic as a signifi er, we are reiterating the fact that there are a great many things that can stand in for ‘the mother’s desire’. Just as any number of words can stand in for a given concept, an infi nite number of activities and objects can stand in for ‘that which is worthy of mother/father’s desire’.

In Lacan’s reading of the Oedipus complex during the 1950s, the child comes gradually to recognise (not in a conscious way) that it cannot somehow ‘incarnate’ the phallus for the mother. It comes to understand this because the phallus is not an attribute of an individual, but instead a signifi er of sorts.

Indeed, the attempt to be the Imaginary object of the phallus gives way to the realisation that there are many, many different possible things, activities, relationships that seem to hold the desire and fascination of the parents. It is at this point when the child understands the phallus in a Symbolic capacity. Luepnitz (2002) is helpful here when she asserts that the phallus is here not so much a thing as a position through which different objects circulate:

Adults can use wealth, accomplishments, or their own children as phallic objects. In this way, the ‘objects’ are desired for their representative value, their capacity to make the subject feel complete [for how it places them in the eyes of others] (226).

 Here are the basic co-ordinates then of what the phallus means for Lacan: initially an Imaginary object that the child wishes to be, so as to secure the desire of the parents, to be that desire, yet, eventually, the phallus takes on a Symbolic signifi cance as a signifi er of what the mother or father desires, a token of what the child does not have. As such it is equally a signifi er of lack.

The phallus can thus be understood – in the dimension of the Symbolic – as a ‘signifi er of desire’, a ‘signifi er of the other’s desire’, a signifi er of overwhelming importance to the child. It is crucial we grasp the difference between these two different versions of the phallus: the Imaginary phallus is perceived by the child in the pre-Oedipal phase as the object of the mother’s desire, ‘as that which she desires beyond the child; the child thus seeks to identify with this object’ (Evans 1996: 142).

The Symbolic phallus is, by contrast, the signifi er of the other’s desire. So, whereas the castration complex and the Oedipus complex revolve around the Imaginary phallus, the question of sexual difference revolves around the Symbolic phallus (Evans 1996). This is explained in more detail as we continue.

It should be becoming clear that Lacan’s conceptualisation of the phallus means it never has to be identifi ed with a physical aspect of the body, or, indeed, with the penis. As an Imaginary object, the phallus is always something the child cannot reach, something it does not have, something it understands as lacking. As a Symbolic element, as the signifi er of the other’s desire, the phallus could potentially be an infi nite number of possible things.

Disavowal and the Fetish...

"The fetish is a substitute for the mother's penis." [1]

This may seem a particularly outlandish statement for Sigmund Freud to make, talking about the way an infant processes the dawning awareness of their parent's anatomy, he continues: "for a particular and quite special penis that had been extremely important in early childhood but had later been lost. That is to say, it should normally have been given up."

The realization of the absence of a Female phallus -knowledge which owing to castration anxiety the child disavows[2], results in a simultaneous belief and disbelief in the existence of the Female phallus, what one sees is not what one expected or desires to see.

Freud had met a number of 'Fetishists' in his psycho-analytic practice , he noticed in them all an aversion to the actual female genitalia, the natural curiosity one would normally experience being sublimated onto a number of other stimuli; body parts; objects and situations.

This traumatic perception of a lack persists, but "a very energetic action has been undertaken to maintain the disavowal", to deny the reality of it. This compromise, the antagonism between perception and counter-wish, results in the development of an ersatz fetish, which "remains a token of triumph over the threat of castration and a protection against it", and "inherits the interest formerly dedicated to it's predecessor."

 Much as in bygone epochs the lives we lead in this modern age, being so palpably deprived of pleasure --notwithstanding the all too fleeting glimpses we may catch in the attainment of a goal; the subjugation of an enemy; participation in a productive enterprise; the exhilarating intensity of sexual climax; in satiating our desires; or in one's favorite meal eaten in good company-- are filled with multifarious counterfeit joys; fetishized, frequently monetized outlets & forms of enjoyment[3], with which we numb our fear and trembling; acute, or general dissatisfaction with a real that is becoming increasingly unattainable.

Completely disabused of our illusions, what one does see may undermine the very tenuous stability of the infantile human psyche altogether, therefore, owing to "the portion of narcissism Nature, as precaution, attaches to that particular organ" the Fetishist retains the illusion in an altered form.
God, which is to say an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, divine master, is the substitute for the absence of a God, Hierarchically revealed Truth™  is the substitute for the absence of truth, resulting from the individuals inability to apprehend 'it'.

____

[1] S. Freud, Fetishism (1927) [paraphrased]
[2] The term "disavowal" (Verleugnung ), often translated as "denial," denotes a mental act that consists in rejecting the reality of a perception on account of its potentially traumatic associations.
"The process I would like to describe as denial [Verleugnung ] . . . appears to be neither rare nor very dangerous for the mental life of the child, but in adults it could lead to psychosis." S. Freud, Psychical Consequences of the Anatomical Distinction between the Sexes (1925)
[3] Sports here offers it's opium for a number of unfulfilled desires: the sense of community; identification with shining examples of vitality, prowess, ability etc; the vicarious thrill of competition;victory; the unifying sadness of defeat...Social media is another interesting example, in this case indicating the reality of social atomization, alienation; and irreconcilable antagonisms between everyday life, and the phantasmagorical portrayal of celebrity culture presented to us daily in the media, which so many use these platforms in attempts to emulate and reproduce, with themselves (portrayed particularly favourably) represented as the object of fascination.

Adverto Pervertum

The creation of the fetish is the manufacture of an object or concept purported to contain some desirable essence; an ascribed content capable of exerting an influence or similar effect upon the mind or 'spirit' of other people, endowing the object's possessor with a certain social power and through them contributing to that fetishes prestige, it is the endowment of natural or constructed objects with a value or content external to them.

The production of these objects is undertaken with a specific aim in mind, somebody might visit their local hierophant seeking a blessing, lucky charm, or similar tool to enhance their sexual prowess, protect them in battle or which will ward off evil spirits, in effect transferring their sense of inadequacy, apprehension or anxiety to the objects creator, an authoritarian vessel who absorbs this psychological energy then produces it's mediation in a tangible form.

During this process the object is fashioned so as best to convey it's ability to achieve it's particular purpose: a protection charm would be small, versatile and lightweight so as not to impede the wearer; a dream catcher woven with numerous interlaced strands as any net used for hunting or fishing; a figurine designed to root out a traitor or thief in the tribe, would represent a humanoid figure for potential suspects to more easily identify with it[1].

Employed alongside these more obvious requirements are: colours with their ascribed mystical properties; materials such as crystals or stones with their distinctive colouration and 'properties'; a representation like Rome's Imperial Eagle or part of an actual animal said to contain it's desirable properties, for instance a Rabbit foot, Eagle feather, Shark teeth, Rhinoceros horn or Tiger blood; objects of particular shape and form important to a culture; the inscription of symbols or runes upon an object and so on.

Every potential feature and device is employed to establish an object's credibility within a hieratic framework, the value of the fetish is dependent not only upon the certainty their fashioner can project to facilitate belief in it's efficacy, but also upon an underlying relation to the world and explanation of it's various phenomena, the rudimentary awareness of which is exploited in the construction of each particular fetish.

An 18^th century bard wrote “my love is like a red red rose”, a more contemporary bard stated “In every dream home a heartache”, needless to say in our fascination with the “nice” and revulsion toward the accurate, the former remains far more popularly known.

The explicit objects of identification in each religious ideology differ, the implicit truth of our submission to an oppressive external hierarchy permeates them all, as W. Mcgaffey states of the Congo ritual system: “Fetishism' is about relations among people, rather than the objects that mediate and disguise those relations.”

Even words such as truth, freedom, love, power, success, or knowledge; general concepts, slogans or phrases, through repetition become fetishized objects people feel and are encouraged to believe are essential, for the navigation of a world still steeped in no small amount of error.

Like the Congolese Warriors encountered by Che Guevara while combating Imperialist forces in Africa, who, being equipped only with Mulele Water (or Dawa Potion) from their castes of holy men; fetishes designed to deflect bullets; and no small measure of credulity, being thus convinced of their invulnerability ran blindly into battle towards their own destruction. A person clothing themselves in certain symbols, phrases, ideas or slogans; who believes they possess bravery, beauty, knowledge or truth; who has been convinced they are honest, pure, attractive, funny or pious; or who has obtained some object embodying one or more of these attributes, can derive from these symbolic forms no small measure of confidence in their efficacy.

These fetish objects are effective in proportion to the amount of certainty the individual selling them -the shaman, psychic, priest, salesman, seducer, teacher or political leader- can project. Their social prestige, the purely contingent validation of it's owners confidence in them, and perpetual affirmation of a range of fetishes' efficacy in hierarchical human culture throughout history. [1.1]

'Beautiful' feelings are taken as arguments in themselves; the 'sustaining breast' as the bellows of divinity, and mere conviction as the criterion of 'truth'.

By the puritanical preacher inspiring enough 'faith' amongst his congregation, even the convoluted doctrines of the New Testament can become, if not convincing then certainly emotionally rousing, this is why advertising companies and public image gurus are employed by corporations and individuals, to inspire confidence in certain products, ideas or marketable commodities for a considerable fee.

Taken at superficially appealing face value then eventually being adopted by multitudes, fetishized ideas, explanations, objects or factitiously constructed 'realities' become irresistible, particularly when the tension between their demonstration by one and absence for another, becomes unbearable to the unconscious of the latter.

This is due not only to the natural human desire to 'fit-in', our inherent susceptibility to persuasion, taste for novelty and fear of alienation, but is facilitated by coercive behaviour such as psychological or physical bullying and manipulation, often unconsciously seeking to enforce one's own adherence to cultural 'norms' by attacking those of others, or in the case of religious morality; attacking and debasing a people's very nature to coerce their conformity.

A concept, slogan or phrase general enough to superficially appeal to and be adopted by as many people as possible such as: “faith is good”; “doubt is bad”; “economic growth”; “technological progress”; “the poor are feckless and indolent”; or “the rich are greedy and ruthless”; “love is all you need”, like any material objects believed to be endowed with 'mystical' power, may create a perpetual feedback loop, becoming self referential 'truths'[2], first hierarchically bestowed then reinforced through repetition, they become socially enforced overtly and implicitly.

These reified concepts mediate and determine our social relations and interactions with the world, giving shape to the unconscious desires, drives and actions which constitute our activity, have you heard somebody say “I want happiness”, or “I want love”, then seen their life become a constant process of acquisition, an eternal recurrence of aspiration, attainment and disillusionment?

These are merely ways of expressing an otherwise undetermined urge through language, giving these deep, instinctual aspects of our nature an outlet in consciousness, the power lies in defining the content of these terms, determining what they actually represent or mean, their relevance to our individual lives.

One can be active about this process, or passively accept the multitudinous versions created, reproduced or marketed for consumers at considerable financial and 'spiritual' cost.

As Joseph Geobbals so adequately demonstrated in Germany during the 1930' and 40's;“[propaganda] must make use of painting in black-and-white, since otherwise it cannot be convincing to people”, an object's ease of availability, it's effortless adoption by the widest number of people is what matters, the confidence a particular fetish inspires, not it's factual accuracy, authenticity or ability to fulfil claims made about it, indeed many modern consumables are produced so as to be insufficient to requirements, thereby instituting not only a cycle of submission to the consumption of constantly emerging reproductions, but also an implicit justification for the unrelenting production of 'needs'.

Like the shipwrecked sailor driven to drink the sea water surrounding him to quench his thirst, these superficially appealing constructs merely exasperate our situation.

As this becomes ever more apparent; the gap between the attainment of our 'desires' and our inevitable dissatisfaction narrows, is it any surprise that religious fundamentalism; the conspiracy cult of easy answers; fetishism of nations, sovereignty, the economy; and other manifestations of black and white thinking are enjoying such a resurgence amidst this degeneration?

Advertising agencies as previously mentioned exist not only to appeal to, but also to produce human needs; utilizing the social technological mediums available, their audio-visual productions are designed to captivate and transfix the viewer upon certain things that they lack all the better if these are entirely non-existent: the need to get ahead of the curve; the need to be more connected; the need to go faster, be fitter, stronger, better looking; to be loved; to gain enlightenment; inner peace ad infinitum, thereby affirming the sense of inadequacy, apprehension or anxieties, which channel people towards perpetual passive consumption of various products designed to 'save' us.

Those skilled in the marketing of conceptual or physical objects, are fundamentally indebted to the advancements made in psychological research -which advanced our understanding of the unconscious nature of human beings- during the 20^th century, whether that knowledge was given freely, taken or earned, it is unfortunately overwhelmingly employed in manipulating and further enslaving, rather than empowering those who don't have it.

The theologians of the numerous cults of easy answers are well aware of the same techniques, “What's that, you lack understanding of an often incomprehensible world?

Here, have mine.... It will only cost you one mortal soul”.

Constructed fetish objects; the symbols, become mistaken for the things they are intended to signify, in the case of the dream catcher it is the owners subconscious temporarily convinced and put at rest, rather than the efficacy of the object itself, the consumer of a particular brand of deodorant, feeling confidence in his appeal to the olfactory nerves of the opposite sex may exude this confidence, which -rather than how an individual smells- is what appeals to the target audience.

The object or symbol in question, merely provides a framework or container in which various fears and desires can be expressed, it mediates the existence of these uncomfortable aspects of human consciousness, and temporarily allays them for as long as it takes for the next 'stop-gap' to arrive.

______

[1] In the Congolese system and what are known as Voodoo dolls this included sticking pins into the doll and gauging the response of potential suspects, demonstrating the painful torturous punishments they might experience when found out, the idea being that guilt would manifest in a wince, panic or even pain where the object representing the guilty party has been pierced.

[1.1] For example astrology, christianity, numerology, etc etc.

[2] This is a logical fallacy “appeal to popularity”: a thing widely valued becomes established as 'politically correct', can be considered right regardless of it's factual accuracy merely by the absence of criticism, sometimes, as in the case of Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany criticism being violently suppressed but more often drowned out by the infatuation of the masses.

[3]  'Joseph Goebbels' Principles of Propaganda', by Leonard W. Doob