initially enters through the image of the other or through what is the objets that the child wants to keep around him are no

longer so much objects of satisfaction, but are rather the mark of_the value of that power which can not-respond, and which is the mother's power.

I n o t h e r t e r m s , t h e p o s i t i o n . i s _ i e z e r s e _ d _ = ha s

real,and the object symbolic. The object is valued as evidence of the gift deriving from the maternal power. The object thence has two orders_of satisfying properties, it is twice Qui_a_gossiblesabje_ct Of_atjafActipti._-_:_as before, it satisfies a need, but it also symbolizes a favoral:21Lpower.

That is extremely importante to retain, if one recalls that one of the most cumbersome notions of theory since it has become, according to one formulation, a genetic psychoanalysis, is that of the omnipotence of thought, of omnipotence. It is easy to impute it to all that is farthest from us. But is it conceivable that the child has a notion of omnipotence? Perhaps in effect, he has the essential of it, but that does not mean that the omnipotence in question is his. That would be absurd. To think it is to end in impasses. The omnipotence in question is that of the mother.

At the moment that I am describing, )ten the mother becomes real, it is she who is omniRotenticl Itis_a_clecisive moment, in_

which the mother passes into reality from a symbolization that is

completely archaic. And at that moment, the mother can give anything at all. It is erroneous and completely unthinkable that the child could have a

notion of his omnipotence. Not only does nothing in his development indicate that he has, but almost everything that interests us in this

development and in the accidents that embellish it is there to show us that his so-called omnipotence, and the checks that it encounters, count for naught in the question. What caunts,_you will see, are the deficiencies, the disappointments, which touch upon the mother's omnipotence.

This investigation may seem a bit theoretical. It at least has the advantage of introducing some essential distinctions, and of preparing the way for openings which are not those that one currently takes. You will see now where they have already led us.

Here, then, is the child, in the presence of _something that_he has realized as .a ppwer. What had been situated up until then on the plane of the first connotation presence-absence, suddenly passes to another register, and b_e_comes something that can refuse itself, and which has in its

jsession all that _the_smtiect might need. And even if he has no need, frorri_the moment that it depends upon this power, it becomes symbolici .

3

Let us now pose the question by starting from a completely different point.

Freud tells us that in the world of objects, there is one_whose

function is paradoxically decisive, namely, the phallus. This object is

defineci_as_imaginary—lt is_ in_ no way possible to confound it with the penis in its reality. It is properlyspeakini(its form, its erected image,- phallus

has so decisive a role thatanostalgiaior it, like_its_pr_esence,oxitaAg_enc_y

in the imaginary, are, it seems, more important even for the members of

humanity who lack the real correlate, namely, women, than for those who can assure themselves of having it in reality, and whose whole sexual life is yet subordinated to the fact that they really assume its use imaginarily, that in the end, they assume it as licit, as permitted -- that is to say, men.

For us that is a given. Starting there, let us consider our mother and child who, according to Michael and Alice Balint, form only a single totality of needs, just as the Mortimer couple in Jean Cocteau have only a single heart. Nevertheless, I will keep them on the blackboard as two circles exterior to one another.

Freud, for his part, says that the. woman-counts the phallus_.among. her essential object lacks, and that this has the strictest rapport with her relatlaraa.the_child. For a simple reason -- if the_w_ornan

satisfaction in the child/it is precisely in_as_much as she finds in him something_that calms, more or less well,..her„need-for the phallus, and aiu_zatait. By not taking that into account, we misconstrue [rneconnaitrej

not only Freud's teaching, but the phenomena that are manifest at every moment in experience.

So we have the mother and the child in a certain dialectical relation. The child expects something from the mother, and he also receives something from her. We cannot not introduce that here. Let us say, in a way that is approximate, in the style of the Balints, that the child can believe that he is loved for himself,

The question is then — what_happen.s to the extente of the phallasis notcompletely_absorbed_for_the_mather_by theigigmoLthe child? Where there is a diplopie, a _division_oLthe so,callecLptim.o_rshal

desired object? Far harmonious,.- th_e_relation. of_themother and

child is doubled on one side by the need for a certain imaginary saturation, and on.the other, by what_there might be of _effective_real. relations with the child, at a primordial,instinctuallevd_which remains, definitivelyrnythical. Thereis_always for the mothersomelbing that reinainsirred_u_c_ible in what is at stake. In the end, if we follow .Q,p-pu(i. we

will say that teslail.ci jaken_as_reaL-spitholizes thejrnale More precisely --

the-chackas_real takes.on-for-the-mather-the_syzibolic function of hez. ,eta ina~eed — the three terms are there.

Every sort of variant can be introduced here. All sorts of situations that are already structured exist between the mother and the child. From the moment when the mother is introduced_into_the real as a pawerJor the child there opens thsp_osibility_of.an object which as such is

intermediary, the objectof_the-gift. The question is to know at what moment, and how, the child can be introduced directly into the structure of the symbolic-imaginary-real, as it is produced for the mother. In other words, atwhat mornents_m_thechgclenter into -- and assumein a way, as we will see, that is more or less symbolized -- the imag,irtary,_real, situation of the relation to wb.at—th_e_p_hallus is for the mother? At what moment can the child, to some extentle_d_himself dispossessed_of, something,that he demands from the mother, in perceiving that it is not he_slome.d,b_ut_a-cestaizipaage.,

There is something here that goes much further. The child realize this phallic image on himself,,ind it is there that the rwciss.is_ticselatigi► propeaspeakinginterveries.At_ the__moment when the child learns the difference between the sexes, to what degree does this experience fit in with what is given him in the presence of his mother and in her actions? How is the recognition_oLthis_third, Irna.ginary term, whickikthe..phallus_ ipr'41,ematlierjascribed? Even more, the notion that the mother lacks the_phalius, tha_s_he..is...herself_desirousitcd_o_nLy_cd something...other...than._ himself, but that sheiss_imyly_desiripg,Ahatis to_say, islimjte443.1errt Rower -- this will be for

the

subject more decisjve„tban everything_else.

The last time I introduced the observation of a phobia talittlezirl, and I shall indicate its interest right away.

Because it was during the war, and because it is one of Anna Freud's students who made the observation, all sorts of fortunate conditions were present. The child is observed from one end to the other, and by a good observer. In fact, she understands nothing. She understands nothing because the theory of Anna Freud is false. As a consequence, the facts put her into a state of astonishment which produces all the precision of the observation -- everything is noted day by day --, and its fecundity.

The littlegirl, who-is two

yeasa_aacUlve

-

raorahLalst

-

hak1g.

perceived thatbays have apee-pee maker, as Little Hans exa.essesit, begins to function in a position of rivalry. She does everything to do as the little boys do. This child was separated_froilkheunothey_notonly because of

theavar,...b_ut_begause

the. mother had lost tLer_husband at the beginning of the war. She comes to see her daughter, the presencec_ejs

regular,

and when she comes, she plays little games of approach -- she comes on tiptoe, and distills her arrival. In short, one sees her function as symb_otic mother. So all goes very well, the child jlasigalszbiecshe....wants when the mother is not

thete,anii.when_the_rhather.

is_there,the..latter _plays her role as symbolic_rnother,...Thislittle_girLha.ving...made_the discoiery that boys have a pee-peeinak w ants-to imita.teAtit.L1 4.n.d

alsa

to manipulate theirs. A drama is produced around this issue, but does not_ entaiLany_consequen.ces.

The observation is given as being that of a phobia, and in fact, one

fine night the little girl_wakes up, seized_by a holy terror.A dog is there, anclit wants to bite her. She wants to get out of her bed, she has to be put into another, and the phobia evolves over a certain time.

Is the phobia a consequence of the discovery of the absence of the

penis? Why do we ask the question? Because the dog is clearly a dog_which bites, and which bites thesex,That we know to the degree that we analyze

the child, that is, in so far as we follow and understand what she says. The first really long and articulate sentence that she pronounces -- she is a bit

4

behind in her development -- is to say that the dog bites the leg of the naughty boy, and this is a plain acting3 o f

You also see te_relation-that-is-there_betweealtg symbolization and the object of_the...phobia. Why the dog? We will talk about that later.

But what I want you to note is that the objgc41...theAahobials_there as the

aientthairipAyeswhghaLiritlegarnm9sles%acepted_asabsent._,

Are we going to make a short-circuit in things and say that in

1921aiLissimply-a..matter....of_a_paslaggi9„,t13.thw? -- that is to say, the intervention of an element which is,as I toldyou _just before, .provided

der in ord ro j_ustify_what is absent as beingabserit, because it

was bitten off, taken away?

The schema that I have tried to articulate today certainly goes in that_ direction. One clears this obstacle at every moment. Mrgo-r-te-'s) for

example, says very clearly -- after all, the_supexegodsp_erhap&fot..thesilikl

only an imaginary_alibi, whereas anxieties, on the other hand, are

primordial, primitive. In other words,_ culture, with all of the prohibitions that it implies, is something in decline, in whose shelter there will come

to repose what is fundamental, narnFly, the anxieties in their

unconstituted state. There is something justin_tonception--_thatis_ really the mechanism of phobia. But the mechanism of phobia is the

mechanism of phobia, and to understand it as does M. Pasche at the end of the article of which I have spoken, to the point of saying that it

fundamentally explains the death instinct, for example, or again that the images of the dream are only a way for the subject to garb his anxieties, to personalize them as one might say, that is to come back again to the same idea, namely the misrecognition [meconnaissance I ofthssp_ribolic order,

which would then be only a sort of apparel and_pfetextcovering somethi ngmatet. .ndamental. Is that what Iwaritto_tell you, when I bring in this observation Ql_a_phobiaLL\to.

TheinteTftst of the observation is that itjadkateamith_precision the.. mother's absences over ithe_course.of.theirionth_that.pxecedeLthe_

_blossoming of the phobia. Certainly, the time needed for the phobia to

3 English, as such, in the original.

break out is much longer, fourmonths roll by between the child's discovery of her aphallicism and the blossoming of the phobia,but something had to happen during. that interval. First, the mother ceased corning to visit,

because she had fallen ill, and an operation was necessary. The mother is no longer the ,y.m.12.olic_rno.ther, she has been missing, but nothing glaperhe comes back, she plays again with_the_child„and still

nothing happeiliecomesback leaning_on a_cane,_weakened, she_has,.flo on er either the same presence or the sarne_gaiety,_or_the,sarne-weekly elation of approach and going away thatmake_her_a_sufficient point of

nchora•e f• e child And it is at this rnoment,_thus_at_a_third,_ver_y_ distantdiat the pholliaarises,

We will thus discover thanks to the observation that the aphallicism was

-

not enough, that there had to_be this secongthipture in the

alternatingrb,yllarn_of_the mother's corning=coming.back. The mother

ctb - - -

at first appeared as someone who could be , and this -laelt is

inscribed in the child's reaction and behavior -- the child is very sad, she must be encouraged, yet there is no phobia. The child then sees _her_ mother in a weakened form, leaning on a cane, sick, tired

.=

an_d_the_next_ day the dream of the dog breaks forth, and the phobia installs itself. Nothing is more

significant and paradoxical in the observation, unless it is one other point, which I am going to tell you.

We shall speak again of this phobia, and of the way that therapists have attacked it, and have thought that it could be understood. I simply want to point out the question that arises concerning the antecedents of the phobia. From what moment does the phobia become necessary? From the moment when the_mather_lacks_thephallus What thus determines the phobia? What finds an equilibrium in it? Ilr_h_y isit-sufficient? We shall tackle that the next time.

There is another point that is no less striking. After the phobia, the

Blitz ends, the mother takes the child back, and she remarries. The little girl

finds that she has a new father and a new brother, the son of the stepfather. This brother that she acquires all of a sudden and who is about five years older than she, begins to play all sorts of games with her that are both

adoring and violent. He asks her to show herself nude, and clearly gives himself up to an activity which is entirely linked to th.e_interg_silhAtile takes in her as being without aS And the psychotherapist is

astonished -- that would have been a fine occasion for the phobia to break out again.

In effect, the fundamental theory on which the whole therapeutics of Anna Freud is founded indicates that it is to the extent that the ego is more or less well informed of reality that discordances are established. The presence of the man-brother, a personage who is not only phallic but who also bears a penis, who presentifies her lack to her, should this not be the occasion for the little girl to fall ill again? Far from it, there is not a trace of mental disturbance, she has never been better.

In addition, we are told why -- it is that she is clearly preferred to this boy by her mother. Nevertheless, thefath.erdamfficiently present to aducepacisely_kne.pLeleramt, of which we have not yet spoken, but which isessgatially_liracesi_to_theltmetion_of_phgbia, narnely.A,s,vmbolig element, situated beyord_the relations with the mother, bexpmc...11 .power o_r_imppleir,e, and by implication .disengaging from the mother th_eidea.of power as such. In short„AU a substitulejoywhat appears to us to have been saturated by the phobia, the fear of the castratin animal as such,

, which is said to have been the essential element of articulation allowing the child to pass through the grave crisis she entered when faced with the maternal impotence. The child now finds her needrated_by the maternal presence, by that of the father, and in addition by her relation with the brother.

But does the therapist see as clearly as that? This relation in which she is alreadyth the brother, is pregnant with all sorts of

pathological possibilities. We can perceive in another respect that at this momentshedias_becoalrne_tgatire..s.ormethin.g. which is worth more than the brother. She will surely become that_ lirt-phalius5 about which so

much is said. It is a matter of knowing to what degree she will not later be

4 English in the original.

Implicated in this imaginary function. But for the moment, there is no essential need to be filled by_theile_veloprnent of theThallic fantasy, because the father is_there-an.d_heis_s_ufficient. He is sufficierdlor gvaintainingasufficieka distance between the three terms of the relation mother-child-pkallus,_so that the subject does not have to maintain it by giving of herself, by_putting_ there something_of herself.

How is this separation maintained, by what way, by what

identification, by what artifice? That is what we shall begin to attack the next time in taking up this observation again. We shall thus be introduced to what is most characteristic in the pre-Oedipal object relation, namely, the birth of the object as fetish.

12 December 1956

V

ON ANALYSIS AS BUNDLING AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

The drive under the naked eye.

The true nature of the anaclitic relation. The fetishist solution.

The paroxysm of perversion.

The transitory perversion of a phobic patient.

The analytic conception of the object relation has already known a certain historical realization. What I am trying to demonstrate takes it in a direction that partly differs, and partly remains the same -- but the sole fact that it is inserted here in a different constellation gives it in every respect a signification that is different.

At the point at which we have arrived, it would be well to punctuate the signification that the object relation takes when it is put at the center of their conception of analysis by the group of those who make more and more of it. In recently rereading certain of their articles, I could see that this formulation, which has been affirmed over the course of years, is now gathering pace, and ends in a conception that is very firmly articulated.

Not long ago, I wished ironically that someone, in some text, truly present the concept of the object relation as it is conceptualized in a certain orientation. My wish has been amply fulfilled by more than one, and if the formulation was rather an enfeebling of it by the one who had introduced this concept with regard to obsessional neurosis, Bouvet, others have made an effort at precision.

In document The Seminar of Jacques Lacan: Book 4 The Object Relation (Page 73-140)