In Lacan's Seminar XVII, in 1969, we come upon "The Four Discourses". We can think of the discourses as different ways that people relate to each other. As we noted in the Mirror Stage (check out this link for an explanation), subjectivity is born in the other - even self-consciousness is born in our relation to our own mirror image - a reflection, an other. The four discourses are four different ways that a Subject relates to an Other (this Other could be another person, an institution, an analyst, a doctor, a lawyer, a law, a teacher, a friend, a parent, etc.).
The first discourse is that of the Master. In this type of Subject/Other relationship the Other addresses the Subject with regard to their knowledge or talents. The Subject is addressed according to his/her functional role. I think about my days rowing for Humboldt State University. When we would gather prior to a race and the coach would give us a pep talk, the coach would address us according to our function in the boat - according to our Strength, our Endurance, our Will. These words are what Lacan would call Master Signifiers. Pep talks inspire us because, as members of a collective, we understand ourselves within that collective according to certain Signifiers (words which are embedded in a network of meanings). After the hours and hours of exercise and waking up early and pushing our physical limits, we rowers self-identified with such Signifiers as "Strong," "Determined," "Crazy," etc. The pep talk is used to address those Signifiers within us to motivate our actions. The Master (the coach), upon addressing that embedded "knowledge" within us, can then sit back, watch the race, and enjoy the fight we put up for him/her. The Discourse of the Master is a common type of discourse. When a boss orders work to be done, she is not addressing the worker, but his expertise - his embedded knowledge. When military leaders order their soldiers, it is again with regard to their embedded training. In the Discourse of the Master, social hierarchies are also exploited. The Subject's embedded 'knowledge' is in service to the Master, which is exploited in the way the Master addresses the Subject. The Signifiers are addressed by the Master and the subject is considered, in Lacanian terms, barred.
The second discourse is that of the University. This type of discourse is not unique to schools, it can be found any time the Master Signifiers of an Institution are addressed. The embedded knowledge is not found in the subject being addressed, as with the Discourse of the Master. The embedded knowledge is supposedly embodied by the Institution. As the Subject searches for that hidden piece of truth or knowledge - that objet petit a (that object cause of desire - it is our desire that we find that elusive something that will make us happier, better, respected, enlightened, healthy...), the Institution represents that place where that object of our desire exists. So, relevant Master Signifiers in this context are "Honor," "Prestige," "Distinction," and "Success." As the Subject is lacking in these and/or other Signifiers (self-identifications), the "University" (or Institution) will step up and say, "If you walk through these doors, your lack will be filled." The mystique of the University is that, upon graduating, a void in your life will be filled. Consider the most prestigious schools - Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, etc. If you were to meet a graduate of one of these institutions, you would be awed before sitting down and having an intellectual conversation with them. The mystique of their graduating from a distinguished university gives the impression that they are themselves distinguished. But look at the case of Steve Jobs. He did not graduate from a university, and yet he made a profound impact on the world through his genius. This is not to say that universities are not important in helping people learn and in helping people specialize in subjects, but as a form of discourse in which the unfulfilled 'student' seeks fulfillment, it is essential to the legitimacy of the school that it not only teach, but that it retain a mystique about it - that it retains these Master Signifiers. Consider a University brochure. It will address the prospective student with regard to certain important words that give it an aura of honor and prestige. The more expensive the school, the more publicly accepted is the prestige it advertises. Governmental institutions also work from within this discourse. Obama is currently reducing the US military significantly. Debates are now raging. Why is it so important that the United States remain the world's leading military might? Because, as an institution, the US government has a stake in its being understood as holding certain signifiers, including "Strong," "Powerful," "World Leader." US subjects look to their institutions to fill those gaps in themselves when involved in this discourse of the University. They will not vote for a politician that doesn't emphasize them because in their relationships with the institutions that rule them, they need to feel powerful. The Other represents that power for them.
The third discourse is that of the Analyst. In this relationship, the Analyst him/herself becomes the symbolized objet petit a. The patient, sitting across from the Analyst, sees the Analyst as having an answer to their problem, or an explanation to their feelings of lack. In psychoanalysis there is a phenomenon called Transference. That is, the Analyst, if they are good, will not bring their own ego into the treatment. They will act as a mirror for the Analysand (the patient). When there is a full transference (the Analyst acts as a perfect mirror), the Analysand, believing that the Analyst has an answer for him, will produce those important Signifiers (those words, embedded in meanings, that are at the root of the reason they seek treatment) and they will be mirrored right back to him. This is a difficult discourse to wrap your mind around, but just consider that a good Analyst will not be a Master and wield power, nor will they be a University and wield knowledge. A good Analyst will become a mirror through which the patient can work out answers for him/herself. The Analyst, then, takes on all sorts of projections produced by the patient. They become a symbolic object of desire for the patient. As treatment progresses, the patient will come to understand that the Analyst does not have an answer for him/her, and the Signifiers (important words/meanings) themselves unlock potential answers. Just think of a friend or family member who, when you confide in him/her, does not provide an answer ("Oh, everything will work itself out" or "It's meant to be"). The friend or family member who listens and does not provide an answer, plays the role of the Analyst. They act as a mirror - a sounding board - so you can come to your own resolution or course of action.
The fourth discourse is that of the Hysteric. This is the relationship that Lacan argues makes possible true learning. In this discourse, the Other produces Master Signifiers (important meaningful words) and the Subject responds through 'hysterical questioning' - pushing those Signifiers up to the limits of knowledge, ultimately frustrated when that limit is reached. Socrates worked within this discourse. He would reach out to people and hear them talk of "Piety" and "Justice" - Master Signifiers that held a special place for them and for Athenian Society. He would respond through a series of questions that would unearth inconsistencies and problems in their reasoning. Socratic dialogues typically end with these Master Signifiers held up to their limits, and we know that we do not know. Socrates did not address his friends as a Master, trying to provide an answer. He would address his friends as one seeking knowledge, providing a question. Curiosity is the position of the Hysteric. She questions the Master, and thereby acquires knowledge. This is the one and only discourse in which the Master Signifiers of the Other are addressed and put to the test.
Any comments are more than welcomed! Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment