Wow, I've never heard the concept explicated so clearly - in such a short time! Thank you for making my enjoyable drudging through many an Intro to Lacan's thinking actually worth it in the end. Please write a book introducing Lacan in exactly this way - your other books are amazing - but this kind elucidation of the "basics" of Lacan in such a condensed and lively way is making everything crystal clear for me - with so many cascading thoughts on where this applies!
Being entirely naive, I wonder if this confirms my suspicion about the gaze. When one looks at the cinema screen, the screen acts as the Other, however at a point the Other's 'mastery' breaks down, where the objet a becomes evident. Can one -then- say that the gaze is the signifier of the barred Other? As in, the point of failure in the visual field of supposed mastery? Is there a meaningful difference between signifer-of-the-barred-Other and the Gaze? Is it simply that the Gaze is an object, and a signifier is not? Thanks for the great lecture, you're doing the Lord's work!
Thanks. I think that it is important to distinguish gaze and signifier of the barred Other. You're right, one is an object, and the other isn't. But even more, the signifier of the barred Other is a blank space within the symbolic structure, while the gaze is the curvature of space of that structure. That distinction seems significant to me, but I of course see how they do seem to run together.
The central paradox of some of these dynamics as I see it is this: there is a new knowledge to be gained simply in order to know that there is nothing more to be gained which itself reproduces this hindrance at the level of theorizing about it since the purchase one gets on it becomes simultaneously new in a way that reproduces a hinderance at the level of what was already there that retroactively ungrounds the possibility of something new. Its like a way of overcoming the split between a vangaurd of theorists who know and laiety who passively experience what the theorists (also passively) know.
Also, I'm not exactly sure I agree about the fundamental gap between desire in Lacan and wish in Freud. I guess the issue in Freud is that even though he arrives at a wish theory of dreams what that wish actually consists of comes from the unconscious and requires at least a minimum level of mediation and interpretation to arrive at. Presenting the wish as the crowning moment of the dream theory would have no radicality if it was immediately present and clear that it was there, in other words it is only identifiable as one's wish via a gap which isn't erased simply and even when we have a dream and we have the theory on hand that tells us that a wish is there. It still takes analysis and uncovering repression to find out what that wish is. Even in the simplest case like when Freud's daughter dreams about eating chocolate bars which her mother denied her during the day it is not clear that she wants the chocolate bars until she has done an action in real life (obeying her mother) indicating that she cannot want them so unconditionally. Perhaps she didn't want the chocolate bar and her dream wish actually cuts against her wish to be obedient which in a sense seems the more transparent wish since this is what she actually acts on (which in turn suggests that it is really the conscious act that is the wish and the dream esprit d'escalier that is something else). In any case in the actual context in which the wishes are presented and disclosed despite the word 'wish' it often seems like things often actually approximate the hanibal lecter scenario of finding ourselves wanting something we don't think we want. Maybe the issue is just that Freud actually theorizes the wish in a simpler way than what is actually presented in his own work, if he had just reflected more on what was already there in his own work he could have seen it.
I honestly think a lot of this would be further clarified through a genealogy of the concept, especially in the form of Winnicott’s compensatory objects and the Z graph from Seminar IV - the Objet a is, after all, the compensatory phantasy for the lack of an object
Thank you for a good talk. It helped me think about it again. My main concern would be Cartesian dualism rather than Peirces' triadic formulation. Is the "sign" part of this? Forbidden fruit tastes sweet? It is interesting to contemplate an "object a" as the singular "engine of desire" or cause of lust? Or as the sine qua non of "desire"? Not libido and id? Not a natural desire for procreation?Or for creativity (often linked to procreation especially for those not inclined to have babies, or not able to, etc.) What blocks or hinders the subject's access to the object of desire would imply that an "object" of desire exists for a singular, individual "subject." (But desirability is a product of cultural norms, is it not? e.g, a "beautiful woman" in Japan may not be considered as desirable in Korea, etc.) The "object a" as the CAUSE of desire is complex. It may be subliminal perhaps, but it is also a product of being "exchangeable" or "hidden" or "obfuscated" by the "wrapping"? Wouldn't a drink of water be desirable if one is thirsty? If an "object" is no longer desired, then is it no longer an "object a"? OK, but can it again become exceptional? Walter Benjamin's elusive way of discussing the "aura" of a singular (not reproduced) work of art seems to be linked to this. The "object a" part of Benjamin's idea could be part of why art is worth more when an artist is dead and therefore no longer able to produce more (or make copies). There is also a literature on the semiotics of "brand names" (like Nike) and a "Discourse Analysis" of brands (like "Bali" as an island considered exotic, etc.). Your talk helped me to brainstorm a bit. One "brand" that boys of my generation found very desirable was "Playboy." It is fascinating to me to see how Playmates varied over time and also how now that way of desire has become pretty much obsolete for most young American men.
Thanks again for the great videos. I'm wondering about your position about the Zizek and Boothby discussion about the différence between objet a and Das Ding, the ontic and ontological character of each one. I'm referring specifically to the last chapter of the Zizek Responds book. Thx again
I would say that my position is somewhat between them. I see objet a as what makes das Ding evident and able to be experienced through the distortion of the perceptual field that it creates. Through this distortion, a fundamental absence--das Ding--opens up.
Hey, McGowan! How are you? May I translate your book "the end of dissastisfaction" to brazilian portuguese? We are lacking of good works about social theory pitted with a lacanian view.
Hi. I wouldn't mind a translation into Portuguese, but maybe a later book, like Capitalism and Desire or Racist Fantasy or Enjoyment Right and Left. I'm a little embarrassed by End of Dissatisfaction
What exactly did Petit-Jean mean when he said "It doesn't see you"? Was it simply a nonsensical joke based on the fact that inanimate objects can't see? Was it some sort of commentary on how Lacan was out of place among the fishermen? If the latter, how so? Every source I've read on the anecdote treat the joke's intended logic as self-evident. I really feel like I'm missing something.
My interpretation is that the P-J is saying 'you don't belong here - even your ability to "meet" the objects in this environment (like the sardine can) and strike up a relationship with it will be rejected'. In other words, 'you are unwelcome here by everyone and thing - that's how alien you are here. '
It means that Lacan doesn't fit in this world and has no symbolic place in it. He thinks that he's someone, according to Petit Jean, but the can doesn't care.
@@toddmcgowan8233 Dr. McGowan, thank you for your videos. Like some others, I have struggled to wrap my head around why it should be called, "the gaze"...is it that the "gaze" is that one which we imagine or which we unconsciously posit looks at us in recognition in a given scene? If it's not this, I'm baffled.
@@lacanian_lifter Not exactly, the gaze is the point where the image includes me in it, not where it looks back at me. Those two things are slightly different. Really, it's the difference between gaze in Lacan's sense and the Panopticon of Foucault.
So the objet "a" is a perceptual mediator, in the sense that it both enables us to see the object, e.g., by making it notable, but in so doing distorts our perception of the object. Isn't this what language does vis a vis the Real? Language as part of the symbolic enables us to engage with then Real symbolically, but also removes us irrevocably from the Real. Would that be a fair statement?
I’m drinking a zevia right now… Great lecture! I saw you give a talk at Lacan Toronto. I was the guy who asked about Kant. I’m kicking myself I didn’t make a “long time listener, first time caller joke” LOL
For me, among the many challenges of objet a was the incredibly alienating and counterintuitive, seemingly counterfactual notion that the presence of the Gaze or the Voice-here understood to be the nearly ineffable *way* the other gazes at an object or at you-even if only for a moment-or that particular grain of a voice or expressive or auditory quality of a voice and specially NOT the content/words expressed by it that, attached to literally any other, can cause desire or cause one to fall in love on sight. After which we industriously enhance, amplify, or manufacture all the things we have in common with the beloved or learn from them, which feel entirely real and organic, but are at the service of this nearly contentless, amoral, asocial signal you could not help but be affected by, or perhaps resist, because it’s not that object a has no history or mis/recognition as repetition but that it is unconscious. I’m turning 55 this year and I have been able to give shape to some relationships and their inexplicable instant power using this merciless and impassive, unintentional, contentless, empty understanding of the object cause of desire, unmoored from personality or conscious experience, like significance without signification. It took a long time to be able to see that at all.
Excellent. Question: if I interpret my GF's request to tell all about my old partners, as really a desire for confirmation of her unique status in my erotic life, doesn't that mean I have interpreted her unconscious wish - her desire - correctly? If so one's interpretation of the desire of the other can be spot on if, as in that example, one intuits the unconscious desire correctly. Not that this would always happen: plenty of guys might then produce a list to rival Don Juan and then wonder why she's not talking to them any more.
Yes, but it always misses because the girlfriend has an unconscious. You can correctly interpret the conscious wish, but in that way, one misses the unconscious desire.
@@toddmcgowan8233 i don't understand your reply here. Surely one can correctly guess the unconscious desire behind the conscious wish to know about other partners?? ie if you guess someone's object a from their conscious wish, you have access to their unconscious desire?
Tell me if I’m off base here but the object of desire for bengals and bills fans is the Lombardi Trophy and Patrick Mahomes is the objet a? Sorry it’s just a hard concept to grasp as a chiefs fan!
I'm diagnosed with autism spectrum d , and your description of objet a, drive & repetition reminds me of my behavioral autistic traits. Gazing upon and grasping for parts of objects instead of the object's practical implications, and then arranging entire objects in front of me (to interact with them & keep them in my gaze), purely for fun and satisfaction, is something I still do at age 32, and it's more repetitiously satisfying than most activities. This repetition is nearly impossible with ppl unless we plan it out beforehand, so I find that desiring a part of a person becomes so frustrating (due to lack of access to repetition to kind of "needle" at what exactly I'm driven to discover with that person) that i end up losing my capacity to speak to them bc it constantly misses the mark of expressing what i want or how i'd like to get to know them. I'm not really sure if this describes objet a, but it does describe how frustration "collapses" my "rim" of interpretation (therefore desire?) & can even shut down my speech capacity. I also know that touch, but moreso the aspect of skin that separates interoception from proprioception, as a way to not only spatially orient myself during movement, but anticipate incoming objects & regulate myself internally (interoception) upon the approach, is extremely pivotal to what leads me to behave autistically and also why i "miss" so much one‐on‐one context bc my sense of salience (and how that collides with spoken language) makes my interpretations of social events so much different as to create a disabling experience for me. It could also explain why social(‐pragmatic) communication disorder manifests differently from autism: S(P)CD operates at the level of voice & possibly gaze, while autism operates at the level of interoception‐tissue‐proprioception AND voice/gaze, and this combination makes Autistic social pragmatics slightly different from SPCD. When people only have the former aspect (tissue, etc) and not the latter (voice/gaze/social pragmatics), they're usually diagnosed with either specific learning disability, or global development delay, not autism.
You might be interested in Leon Brenners work on autism. Part of his thesis is that the voice is the object forclosed in autism and makes some interesting conections between what he calls the skin function and the rim.
The idea that the 4 concepts in Seminar XI are all oriented around objet a was wonderfully illuminating.
Absolutely! I second that!
Love your videos on Husserl by the way
Wow, I've never heard the concept explicated so clearly - in such a short time! Thank you for making my enjoyable drudging through many an Intro to Lacan's thinking actually worth it in the end. Please write a book introducing Lacan in exactly this way - your other books are amazing - but this kind elucidation of the "basics" of Lacan in such a condensed and lively way is making everything crystal clear for me - with so many cascading thoughts on where this applies!
coming from philosophy of science, mcgowan is my most trusted psychoanalytic resource. always very clarifying, and with so much content online.
I discovered you by happy accident and very much appreciate your teaching. Thank you
There are some interesting connections between Lacan's objet a and the works of Alexander Grothendieck. Very cool stuff.
amazing! do you have some hints in this direction? Thanks!
That's easily one of your best Lacan jokes! Ha!
I love your videos, you do such a great job of explaining these concepts! I really loved your video on Hegel, please make more Plotagon vids!
Incredibly helpful. Thank you. And enjoyed the Lacan joke.
I was just thinking about brushing up on this topic today :0
Being entirely naive, I wonder if this confirms my suspicion about the gaze. When one looks at the cinema screen, the screen acts as the Other, however at a point the Other's 'mastery' breaks down, where the objet a becomes evident.
Can one -then- say that the gaze is the signifier of the barred Other? As in, the point of failure in the visual field of supposed mastery?
Is there a meaningful difference between signifer-of-the-barred-Other and the Gaze? Is it simply that the Gaze is an object, and a signifier is not?
Thanks for the great lecture, you're doing the Lord's work!
Thanks. I think that it is important to distinguish gaze and signifier of the barred Other. You're right, one is an object, and the other isn't. But even more, the signifier of the barred Other is a blank space within the symbolic structure, while the gaze is the curvature of space of that structure. That distinction seems significant to me, but I of course see how they do seem to run together.
The central paradox of some of these dynamics as I see it is this: there is a new knowledge to be gained simply in order to know that there is nothing more to be gained which itself reproduces this hindrance at the level of theorizing about it since the purchase one gets on it becomes simultaneously new in a way that reproduces a hinderance at the level of what was already there that retroactively ungrounds the possibility of something new. Its like a way of overcoming the split between a vangaurd of theorists who know and laiety who passively experience what the theorists (also passively) know.
Also, I'm not exactly sure I agree about the fundamental gap between desire in Lacan and wish in Freud. I guess the issue in Freud is that even though he arrives at a wish theory of dreams what that wish actually consists of comes from the unconscious and requires at least a minimum level of mediation and interpretation to arrive at. Presenting the wish as the crowning moment of the dream theory would have no radicality if it was immediately present and clear that it was there, in other words it is only identifiable as one's wish via a gap which isn't erased simply and even when we have a dream and we have the theory on hand that tells us that a wish is there. It still takes analysis and uncovering repression to find out what that wish is. Even in the simplest case like when Freud's daughter dreams about eating chocolate bars which her mother denied her during the day it is not clear that she wants the chocolate bars until she has done an action in real life (obeying her mother) indicating that she cannot want them so unconditionally. Perhaps she didn't want the chocolate bar and her dream wish actually cuts against her wish to be obedient which in a sense seems the more transparent wish since this is what she actually acts on (which in turn suggests that it is really the conscious act that is the wish and the dream esprit d'escalier that is something else). In any case in the actual context in which the wishes are presented and disclosed despite the word 'wish' it often seems like things often actually approximate the hanibal lecter scenario of finding ourselves wanting something we don't think we want. Maybe the issue is just that Freud actually theorizes the wish in a simpler way than what is actually presented in his own work, if he had just reflected more on what was already there in his own work he could have seen it.
Starting to click. Thank you!
Thank you so much for this!
29:44 Why do MNCs need so much user generated ("Prosumer") input...?
I honestly think a lot of this would be further clarified through a genealogy of the concept, especially in the form of Winnicott’s compensatory objects and the Z graph from Seminar IV - the Objet a is, after all, the compensatory phantasy for the lack of an object
The automatic subtitles give, at 42:50: "Lecter eating children" instead of "Lecter eating Chilton". A nice slip there by the robot.
Thank you for a good talk. It helped me think about it again. My main concern would be Cartesian dualism rather than Peirces' triadic formulation. Is the "sign" part of this? Forbidden fruit tastes sweet? It is interesting to contemplate an "object a" as the singular "engine of desire" or cause of lust? Or as the sine qua non of "desire"? Not libido and id? Not a natural desire for procreation?Or for creativity (often linked to procreation especially for those not inclined to have babies, or not able to, etc.) What blocks or hinders the subject's access to the object of desire would imply that an "object" of desire exists for a singular, individual "subject." (But desirability is a product of cultural norms, is it not? e.g, a "beautiful woman" in Japan may not be considered as desirable in Korea, etc.) The "object a" as the CAUSE of desire is complex. It may be subliminal perhaps, but it is also a product of being "exchangeable" or "hidden" or "obfuscated" by the "wrapping"? Wouldn't a drink of water be desirable if one is thirsty? If an "object" is no longer desired, then is it no longer an "object a"? OK, but can it again become exceptional? Walter Benjamin's elusive way of discussing the "aura" of a singular (not reproduced) work of art seems to be linked to this. The "object a" part of Benjamin's idea could be part of why art is worth more when an artist is dead and therefore no longer able to produce more (or make copies). There is also a literature on the semiotics of "brand names" (like Nike) and a "Discourse Analysis" of brands (like "Bali" as an island considered exotic, etc.). Your talk helped me to brainstorm a bit. One "brand" that boys of my generation found very desirable was "Playboy." It is fascinating to me to see how Playmates varied over time and also how now that way of desire has become pretty much obsolete for most young American men.
Thanks again for the great videos. I'm wondering about your position about the Zizek and Boothby discussion about the différence between objet a and Das Ding, the ontic and ontological character of each one. I'm referring specifically to the last chapter of the Zizek Responds book. Thx again
I would say that my position is somewhat between them. I see objet a as what makes das Ding evident and able to be experienced through the distortion of the perceptual field that it creates. Through this distortion, a fundamental absence--das Ding--opens up.
brilliant.
very interesting, and very well explained, but it is Zizek's version of the concept, not Lacan's
Could you say more about this?
Object a reminds me of Heidegger's alethea.
There goes the unconscious structured like a language !
Silence of the LA(mbs) + (petit Pierre's)CAN = LACAN
Haha😂
Makes me think of trading card booster packs, video game loot boxes, lottery scratch cards, & also panties 🐱
Is “objet a” also an object of desire?
Not really. The objet a is what makes the object of desire desirable, but it isn't the object of desire itself.
@@toddmcgowan8233 Pardon me. Let me rephrase: can the objet a be an object of desire?
@@rossmckie1No, it's more the mark that distorts and blocks the object of desire
I dont get the Lacan joke
Someone send a link for this to Larry David
"just dessert(s)" lol
Todd has such 50-year-old-todler eyes. Big fan of why theory and your too cute eyes though
That joke made me laugh.
Hey, McGowan! How are you?
May I translate your book "the end of dissastisfaction" to brazilian portuguese? We are lacking of good works about social theory pitted with a lacanian view.
Hi. I wouldn't mind a translation into Portuguese, but maybe a later book, like Capitalism and Desire or Racist Fantasy or Enjoyment Right and Left. I'm a little embarrassed by End of Dissatisfaction
The Lacan joke is elite 😂😂
What exactly did Petit-Jean mean when he said "It doesn't see you"? Was it simply a nonsensical joke based on the fact that inanimate objects can't see? Was it some sort of commentary on how Lacan was out of place among the fishermen? If the latter, how so? Every source I've read on the anecdote treat the joke's intended logic as self-evident. I really feel like I'm missing something.
My interpretation is that the P-J is saying 'you don't belong here - even your ability to "meet" the objects in this environment (like the sardine can) and strike up a relationship with it will be rejected'. In other words, 'you are unwelcome here by everyone and thing - that's how alien you are here. '
It means that Lacan doesn't fit in this world and has no symbolic place in it. He thinks that he's someone, according to Petit Jean, but the can doesn't care.
@@toddmcgowan8233 Now I get it-thank you!
@@toddmcgowan8233 Dr. McGowan, thank you for your videos. Like some others, I have struggled to wrap my head around why it should be called, "the gaze"...is it that the "gaze" is that one which we imagine or which we unconsciously posit looks at us in recognition in a given scene? If it's not this, I'm baffled.
@@lacanian_lifter Not exactly, the gaze is the point where the image includes me in it, not where it looks back at me. Those two things are slightly different. Really, it's the difference between gaze in Lacan's sense and the Panopticon of Foucault.
i missheard there around minute 20: you said: "Justice served" I heard: "just desert" =) Lecters object a bait worked for me haha
So the objet "a" is a perceptual mediator, in the sense that it both enables us to see the object, e.g., by making it notable, but in so doing distorts our perception of the object. Isn't this what language does vis a vis the Real? Language as part of the symbolic enables us to engage with then Real symbolically, but also removes us irrevocably from the Real. Would that be a fair statement?
Yes, I think that works. The way that language distorts is through the distortion of the objet a.
@@toddmcgowan8233 Great, thank you.
I sometimes get lost listening to Why Theory so these lectures on specific terms have been amazingly helpful. Thanks!
I’m drinking a zevia right now…
Great lecture! I saw you give a talk at Lacan Toronto. I was the guy who asked about Kant. I’m kicking myself I didn’t make a “long time listener, first time caller joke” LOL
Thanks so much. I do get a product placement fee from Zevia, so that's good to hear about your drinking choice. Ha.
For me, among the many challenges of objet a was the incredibly alienating and counterintuitive, seemingly counterfactual notion that the presence of the Gaze or the Voice-here understood to be the nearly ineffable *way* the other gazes at an object or at you-even if only for a moment-or that particular grain of a voice or expressive or auditory quality of a voice and specially NOT the content/words expressed by it that, attached to literally any other, can cause desire or cause one to fall in love on sight. After which we industriously enhance, amplify, or manufacture all the things we have in common with the beloved or learn from them, which feel entirely real and organic, but are at the service of this nearly contentless, amoral, asocial signal you could not help but be affected by, or perhaps resist, because it’s not that object a has no history or mis/recognition as repetition but that it is unconscious. I’m turning 55 this year and I have been able to give shape to some relationships and their inexplicable instant power using this merciless and impassive, unintentional, contentless, empty understanding of the object cause of desire, unmoored from personality or conscious experience, like significance without signification. It took a long time to be able to see that at all.
Excellent. Question: if I interpret my GF's request to tell all about my old partners, as really a desire for confirmation of her unique status in my erotic life, doesn't that mean I have interpreted her unconscious wish - her desire - correctly? If so one's interpretation of the desire of the other can be spot on if, as in that example, one intuits the unconscious desire correctly. Not that this would always happen: plenty of guys might then produce a list to rival Don Juan and then wonder why she's not talking to them any more.
Yes, but it always misses because the girlfriend has an unconscious. You can correctly interpret the conscious wish, but in that way, one misses the unconscious desire.
@@toddmcgowan8233 i don't understand your reply here. Surely one can correctly guess the unconscious desire behind the conscious wish to know about other partners?? ie if you guess someone's object a from their conscious wish, you have access to their unconscious desire?
Tell me if I’m off base here but the object of desire for bengals and bills fans is the Lombardi Trophy and Patrick Mahomes is the objet a? Sorry it’s just a hard concept to grasp as a chiefs fan!
That works!!!
I'm diagnosed with autism spectrum d , and your description of objet a, drive & repetition reminds me of my behavioral autistic traits.
Gazing upon and grasping for parts of objects instead of the object's practical implications, and then arranging entire objects in front of me (to interact with them & keep them in my gaze), purely for fun and satisfaction, is something I still do at age 32, and it's more repetitiously satisfying than most activities.
This repetition is nearly impossible with ppl unless we plan it out beforehand, so I find that desiring a part of a person becomes so frustrating (due to lack of access to repetition to kind of "needle" at what exactly I'm driven to discover with that person) that i end up losing my capacity to speak to them bc it constantly misses the mark of expressing what i want or how i'd like to get to know them.
I'm not really sure if this describes objet a, but it does describe how frustration "collapses" my "rim" of interpretation (therefore desire?) & can even shut down my speech capacity.
I also know that touch, but moreso the aspect of skin that separates interoception from proprioception, as a way to not only spatially orient myself during movement, but anticipate incoming objects & regulate myself internally (interoception) upon the approach, is extremely pivotal to what leads me to behave autistically and also why i "miss" so much one‐on‐one context bc my sense of salience (and how that collides with spoken language) makes my interpretations of social events so much different as to create a disabling experience for me. It could also explain why social(‐pragmatic) communication disorder manifests differently from autism:
S(P)CD operates at the level of voice & possibly gaze, while autism operates at the level of interoception‐tissue‐proprioception AND voice/gaze, and this combination makes Autistic social pragmatics slightly different from SPCD.
When people only have the former aspect (tissue, etc) and not the latter (voice/gaze/social pragmatics), they're usually diagnosed with either specific learning disability, or global development delay, not autism.
Thanks for laying out that connection.
You might be interested in Leon Brenners work on autism. Part of his thesis is that the voice is the object forclosed in autism and makes some interesting conections between what he calls the skin function and the rim.
@@eanji36 Yes, I know it