Oh my - I have dreaded writing this review.
Upon completing Lacan's first seminar, I found myself at a loss for words, my initial reaction being simply, "WTF?”
As a matter of fact, I postponed writing it as much as I could - I am at the moment deep into Lacan’s seminar I have chosen to read next, “The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis” (Seminar XI).
Lacan is some kind of a sorcerer of words - every sentence makes sense, some paragraphs do and some don't. Yet reading a whole bunch of them together, there appears to be no sense at all, no unifying theme on a first inspection. However, I found myself clearly enjoying this borderline nonsense quite intensely, and having finished reading it - I feel as if I have learned a lot, even though I cannot describe what it is that I have learned at all.
It seems like the general recommendation is to start with Lacan’s 11th and 7th seminars, and to read this first seminar only later - too bad I encountered this advice only when I was more than 100 pages into this one! No harm done - I plan to continue reading Lacan’s seminars as I have enjoyed reading this one quite a lot, taking this beautiful chaos in.
It is quite certain I have missed a lot of what Lacan has to say, and would probably re-read this seminar again at a later date, armed with a better understanding of Lacan, better reading comprehension - especially of his unique style, and a better grasp of the history of psychoanalysis around this period.
Lacan is probably the most chaotic “serious” author I have encountered, at least in this seminar. He never states his points clearly, instead using allegories, examples, wordplay, and optical schemas, “commenting on his own ideas". The following quote might shed some light on his aims:
Yes... You see, there are two ways of applying a discipline which is structured as a teaching. There's what you hear, and then what you make of it. These two planes do not overlap, but they can be made to join up in a certain number of secondary signs. It is from this angle that I see the fertility of every truly didactic action. It is not so much a question of transmitting concepts to you, as of explaining them to you leaving you the task, and the responsibility, of filling them in. But something else is perhaps even more imperative, which is to point out to you those concepts which should never be made use of.
- Chapter XXII, The concept of analysis
Lacan's associative writing jumps from topic to topic without clear demarcation, never stating his claims explicitly. The text disguises itself as an intertextual commentary and an interpretation of cultural phenomena and works - mostly by Freud. I say “disguises itself” as Lacan’s interpretations are definitely not the intention of the original authors commented on by him. A good example is Freud’s use of Ich-ideal (”ego-ideal”) and Idealich (”ideal ego”), which are - according to most Freud scholars - used interchangeably, and were replaced by “Über-Ich” (”superego”) in “The Ego and the Id” and subsequent writing.
The origin of the distinction is Freud’s short paper “On Narcissism: An Introduction”. I went ahead and read the English translation, and given Freud’s generally readable style and stating of newly defined terms, I would find it extremely unlikely that such a distinction was intended by Freud. The term ”ideal ego” is mentioned twice on page 24, upon the introduction of the idealization process, and is never repeated again. “Ideal ego” is used as the syntax of common language would dictate prior to coining the “ego-ideal” term (and Freud, unlike Lacan, follows syntactical rules and does not attempt to break them). Of course, stating this claim with confidence would require learning German and reading the original which I do not intend to do, but I am content with my conclusion.
Lacan distinguishes these three different constructions dealing with the self-perception of the human being:
Let us say that, in the animal world, the entire cycle of sexual behaviour is dominated by the imaginary. On the other hand, it is in sexual behaviour that we find the greatest possibilities of displacement occurring, even in animals. We already make use of it for experimental purposes when we present the animal with a lure, a false image, a male partner which is only a shadow bearing the dominant characteristics of the said animal. At the time of the manifestations of the phenotype that, in many species, occur at this biological moment which calls for sexual behaviour, the offering of this lure is sufficient to release the sexual behaviour. The possibility of displacement, the illusory, imaginary dimension, is essential to everything pertaining to the order of sexual behaviour. Is this true for man, yes or no? This image could be it, this Idealich we've just been talking about. Why not? Still, it wouldn't occur to us to call this lure the Idealich. So where are we going to put it? Here my little apparatus reveals its virtues. What are its implications? I've already explained to you the physical phenomenon of the real image, which can be produced by the spherical mirror, be seen in its place, be inserted into the world of real objects, be accommodated in it at the same time as real objects, even bringing to these real objects an imaginary disposition, namely by including, excluding, locating and completing them.
Lacan uses an optical allegory next to help explain his distinction:
For Lacan, the ego-ideal is the process of the ego viewing itself from the perspective of its own ideal standard (often judging itself as currently insufficient), while the ideal ego is the ego identifying with and striving for this perfect ideal (Similar points were made independently by Karen Horney in her explanation of the neurotic process in Neurosis and Human Growth).
I do not think Lacan was wrong to make this distinction, but attributing it to Freud is completely unsound.