02.07.2013 Views

Cultural Theory and Popular Culture

Cultural Theory and Popular Culture

Cultural Theory and Popular Culture

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

102<br />

Chapter 5 Psychoanalysis<br />

The Symbolic cuts up the Real into separate parts. If it were possible to get beyond the<br />

Symbolic, we would see the Real as everything merged into one mass. What we think<br />

of as a natural disaster is an irruption of the Real. However, how we categorize it is<br />

always from within the Symbolic; even when we call it a natural disaster, we have symbolized<br />

the Real. To put it another way, nature as Nature is always an articulation of<br />

culture: the Real exists, but always as a reality constituted (that is, brought into being)<br />

by culture – the Symbolic. As Lacan explains it, ‘the kingdom of culture’ is superimposed<br />

‘on that of nature’ (73): ‘the world of words . . . creates the world of things’ (72).<br />

In the realm of the Real, our union with the mother (or who is playing this symbolic<br />

role) is experienced as perfect <strong>and</strong> complete. We have no sense of a separate selfhood.<br />

Our sense of being a unique individual only begins to emerge in what Lacan (2009)<br />

calls ‘the mirror stage’. As Lacan points out, we are all born prematurely. It takes time<br />

to be able to control <strong>and</strong> coordinate our movements. This has not been fully accomplished<br />

when the infant first sees itself in a mirror (between the ages of 6 <strong>and</strong> 18<br />

months). 20 The infant, ‘still sunk in his motor incapacity <strong>and</strong> nursling dependence’<br />

(256), forms an identification with the image in the mirror. The mirror suggests control<br />

<strong>and</strong> coordination that as yet does not exist. Therefore, when the infant first sees itself<br />

in a mirror, it sees not only an image of its current self but also the promise of a more<br />

complete self; it is in this promise that the ego begins to emerge. According to Lacan,<br />

‘The mirror stage is a drama whose internal thrust is precipitated from insufficiency<br />

to anticipation – <strong>and</strong> which manufactures for the subject, caught up in the lure of<br />

spatial identification, the succession of phantasies that extends from a fragmented<br />

body-image to a form of its totality’ (257). On the basis of this recognition or, more<br />

properly, misrecognition (not the self, but an image of the self), we begin to see<br />

ourselves as separate individuals: that is, as both subject (self that looks) <strong>and</strong> object<br />

(self that is looked at). The ‘mirror phase’ heralds the moment of entry into an order<br />

of subjectivity Lacan calls the Imaginary:<br />

The imaginary for Lacan is precisely this realm of images in which we make<br />

identifications, but in the very act of doing so we are led to misperceive <strong>and</strong> misrecognize<br />

ourselves. As a child grows up, it will continue to make such imaginary<br />

identifications with objects, <strong>and</strong> this is how the ego will be built up. For Lacan, the<br />

ego is just this narcissistic process whereby we bolster up a fictive sense of unitary<br />

selfhood by finding something in the world with which we can identify (Eagleton,<br />

1983: 165).<br />

With each new image we will attempt to return to a time before ‘lack’, to find ourselves<br />

in what is not ourselves; <strong>and</strong> each time we will fail. ‘The subject . . . is the place of lack,<br />

an empty place that various attempts at identification try to fill’ (Laclau, 1993: 436).<br />

In other words, desire is the desire to find that which we lack, our selves whole again,<br />

as we were before we encountered the Imaginary <strong>and</strong> the Symbolic. All our acts of<br />

identification are always acts of misidentification; it is never our selves that we recognize<br />

but only ever another potential image of our selves. ‘[D]esire is a metonymy’<br />

(Lacan, 1989: 193): it allows us to discover another part, but never ever the whole.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!