the seminar of jacques lacan

213 Pages·2009·14.19 MB·English

THE SEMINAR OF JACQUES LACAN
BOOK XV
Thepsychoanalytic act
1967-1968
Translated by Connac Gallagher from unedited French manuscnpts
FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY
15.11.67 I 1
Semmar 1. Wednesday 15 November 1967
Tlusyear Ichose as subject the psychoanalytic act. It IS astrange couple of
words, which, to tell the truth. has not been cornman up to now. Assuredly.
those who have followed',for acertaIn time what Iamstatmghere. may not be
astonIshed at \vhat Iam'introducmg under these two terms.
What my discourse oflastyearclosed on wlthm tills lOgIC ofphantasy. all of
whose lineaments ItrIed to brmg here. those who heard me speakmg macertam
tone and mtwo regIsters aboutwhatthe equallycoupledterm ofthe sexual act
can and ought to mean. these people may feel themselves Insome way already
rntroduced to thIS dimensIon that the psychoanalyuc act represents.
Nevertheless. Ihave to behave as ifapartofthIS assemblyknew nothIngabout
It and Introduce today what IS Involved In thIS usage that Iam propOSIng.
PsychoanalysIs. It IS understood as least InpnncIple. It IS supposed, at least by
the fact that you are here to listen to me, thatpsychoanalysIs does somethIng. It
does. that IS not enough. tills IS the essentIal, It IS at the centralpOInt. It IS
properly speakIng the poetic VIewpomt ofthe tillng, poetryalso does somethIng.
Iremarked moreover In paSSIng, haVIng Interested myselfalittle recently In tills
field ofpoetry. that people havepaId very little attentIon to what Itdoes and to
whom, and more espeCIally. why not. to the poets.
Perhaps to ask oneselfthat would be akInd ofintroductIOnto what IS myoh'ed
the act In poetry. ButthIS IS notour bUSIness today smce what IS at stake IS
In
psychoanalysIs. WhICh does somethmg, but certaInly not at the level. on the
plane. In the sense ofpoetry.
(10) Ifwe have to mtroduce and very necessarily at the level ofpsychoanalYsIs
the functlOn ofthe act. It IS 10 as much as thIS psychoanalytic domg profoundly
Implicates the Subject. That to tell the truth. and thanks to thIS dimenSIon ofthe
subject which completely renews for us what can be stated about the subJj:ct as
such and whIch IS called the unconSCIOUS. thIS subject. In psychoanalysIs. IS as I
already fonnulated. actIvated (mls en acte) In It.
I recall that Ialready put fOf\vard thIS formula connectIonWIth transference.
In
Saylng at a time already long past. and at alevel offormulatIon that was still
apprOXImate. that transference was nothIng othe::- than the actIvationofthe
unconsclOUS. Irepeat that thIS IS only an approach and what we will ha\'e to put
15.11.67 I 2
forward this year about thiS function ofthe act ofpsychoanalysIs will allow us to
bnng to it aspecificity worthy ofthe numerous steps -some declSlve Ihope
that we have been able to take smce then.
Let us approach simply along the path ofa certaIn obViOusness. ifwe keep to
thiS sense that the word act has which can be constituted wIth respect to what
let us leave that to one side -can constItute abreakthrough.- It IS sure that we
encounter the act on entermg analysis. It IS all the same somethmg that ments
the name ofact to decIde. WIth everythmg that this mvolves. to decide to do
what is called apsychoanalysIs. ThiS deCISiOn Involves acertam comnutment.
We encounter there all the dimensions that ordinarily. are accepted. mcommon
usage. m the common use ofthis wordact. There IS also anact whichcan be
described,the act bywhich the psychoanalyst sets himselfup as such. here
IS
somethmg which merits.:the name ofact. up to and mcluding the fact that thls act
can be mscribed somewhere: Mr So-and-so, psychoanalyst.
In truth. Itdoes not appearfoolish. mordinate. out ofplace. to speakabout the
psychoanalytic act Inthe same way that one speaks about the medical act. In
thiS sense what IS the psychoanalytic act? One could say thafitcould be
mscribed under thIS rubnc mthe regIster ofSOCial Secunty. Is the
psychoanalytiC act the seSSiOn. for example? Ican ask whatitconSIsts of. What
sort ofinterventiOn is mvolved? Because afterall one does notwnte out a
prescnptiOn. \\!hat IS the actproperly speakmg? Is It mterpretatIOn? OrIS It
silence? Oranythmg whatsoever that youwant to deSignate In the mstruments
ofthe functiOn.
But mtruth. these are illummatIOns whIch scarcely make us advance and to go
to the other end ofthe supportmgpomt that we can choose. to present. to
(11) mtroduce the analytIC act we will pomt out that In psychoanalytic theory,
preCisely. people speak about It. We are moreover not yet mapOSItIonto
specify thIS act In such away that 'vve are able many wayto establish ItS
boundaryW1th what is called In ageneral term. not current. faith. mthIS
psychoanalytiC theory' actiOn.
People speak alot about actiOn and It plays a role as areference. A rather
cunous reference role SInce. moreover. to take the case. It IS made use OfVr"1th
great emphaSiS. namely. when It IS amatter ofaccounting. Imean theoretlcally.
and for a rather large field oftheoretlcIans who express themselves In analy1.lc
tenns. to explaIn thmklng. Through aSOrt ofneed ofsecunty. as It 'vvere. this
thmkmg, which for reasons that we will hav~ to deal With. people do not want to
make mto an entlty whIch appears too metaphysIcal. people try to account for
thiS thmkmg on afoundatlon that on thiS occaSlOn they hope IS more real. And
thlhk:lng will be explamed to us as representmg somethIng that is mottvated. that
ISJustified by itsrelatIon to action. for example In the form that it is amore
reduced action. an Inhibited action. an inCipient acnon. alittle model ofacnan.
Inde~dthat mthmkmg there IS somethmg like asort oftaste ofwhat the actlon
that itsupposes. or that It renders Immanent maybe.
15.11.67 I 3
These discourses are kno'v'vTI to all. I have no need to illustrate them by
r
quotatlons, but ifsomeone wants to look more closely at what am kavmg
understood. I would evoke notJust a famous artIcle. but awhole volume \.\'Tltten
on thiS by Mr Rappaport, apsychoanalystofthe New York Society. What IS
strikmg, IS that assuredly for someone who IS mtroduced Without prejudice mto
thIS dimenSIon ofactlon, the reference mthIS case does notappear any clearer to
me than what IS referred to. And that to ilIummate thmkmg by actIon might pre
suppose. perhaps. that first ofall one shouldhave aless confused Idea than the
ones which are manifested on these occasIOns about whatconstitutes an actIOn.
m as much as an actIOn seems mdeed. ifwe meditate for an mstant, to
presuppose at ItS centre the notIOnofact.
I know well that thereISafashIOn. wluch IS moreoverthe oneto wluch those
who try to formulate thmgsm the regIsterthat I haveJust spoken ofcling onto, I
meanenergeticallysupport themselves WIth. whIch IS toIdeI1tifyactlOnto motor
(12)actlvity Here mdeed we have to carryoutat the begmrung ofwhat we are
mtroducmg an operatIon. call Itwhatyou will. ofSImple elUCIdatIOn orof
clarificatIOn. but It IS very essentIal. Ineffect, It IS well kno\'<n and, after all. my
God. why not, acceptable, that people want here to apply mawaythat IS
admIssible, quae routme, to obey or even sImplypretendto obeythe rule ofnot
explammgwhatpeople contmue to call, notalways moreoverWIth alot of
Justi±1catlOn. the supenorand the mfenor. Ofnot I amsayIng, explammg the
mfenor by the supenorbut. as It IS said -people now no longer knowvery well
from
why -that tlunkmg IS supenor.rostart thIS t.nfertbrWIDehIS supposed to
be the mostelementaryform ofresponse ofthe organIsm.namely, thIS fanl0US
CIrclewhose model I have gIVenyou under the name ofthe reflex arc. Namely.
the CIrCUIt that IS called. according to the case.stlIIl1.l.lus"response. when you are
prudent and when you Identifyto the sensory-excItatIon couple. whatever It may
be. and the motor release whIchhere plays the role ofresponse. BeSides the fact
that In thIS famous arc It IS not too sure that the response IS atall necessarily and
obligatorily motor. Butthat when. for example. ifit IS excretory. mdeedeven
secretory, the response IS that It becomes wet, well then the reference to thiS
model, to SItuate m It. to take as astamng pomt In It the foundatlOn ofthe
function we can call actIon. assuredlyappears much more precarIOUS. BeSides
one can remark that the motor response. if\ve only pinpOint It from the link
defined by the reflex arc. has truly onh' very little nght to give us the model of
what can be called actIOn. Because I,vhatIS motor. once you InsertIt Into the
reflex arc. appears qUlte Simply as apassive effect. as apure and SImple
response to stImuli. aresponse which mvolves nothmg other than apasSlVlty
effect.
The dimenSIOn which IS expressed In acertam way ofconceivmgthe response
as adisthargeoftenslon •aterm \vhlch 15 also current mpsychoanalytlc
energetICS -will then present actIOn to us here as nothmg otherthana
consequence, Indeed aflight. fotlo\vmg on a more or less Intolerable sensation,
let us say mthe broadest sense ofstimulus In as much as we bnng Into It
15.11.67 I 4
elements other than those that psychoanalytIC theory mtroduces under the name
ofintermIttentstImulatIOn.
Here we are then. assuredly. Inthe posmon ofnot bemg able to SItuate the act
(13) tram thIS reference to eIthermotor actIVIty or discharge. We must now on
the contrary ask ourselves why the theory still has. and manifests. such astrong
penchant for makIng use ofthem as support and tinding mthem the ongmal
order In whIch there IS supposed to be established. from WhICh there IS supposed
to begm. mwhIch there IS supposed to be mstalled as alinmg. that ofthmkmg.
It IS clearthat Iam only gl\:mg thIS remInder because we are gomg to haye to
make use ofit. Nothmg produced mthe order ofthese elaboratIOns, however
paradoxicCiI thIS appears when seenfrom acertam pomt, canfail to leave us.
nevertheless, WIth the:idea that there IS some motIvatIon for sustammg tills
paradox, and thatfrom tills very motIvatIOn, thIS IS the method that
psychoanalySIS neverfails to use, from thls very motivatIOn we can drav,' certam
fruIt.
That the theoryoccaSIOnallytakes support then from someth1ngthat, preCIsely,
analytIC theory IS ma betterpOSItIOn to knowto be only ashort CIrCUIt as
compared to whatItmust mdeed establish as the status ofthe pSYChIC apparatus.
that11.otonlythet~xts ofFreUd but all/psychoanalyttc thlnk.mgcan only be
sustcllrted 1soHltIIlg, the Irtterval betweenthe<ctff'¢r¢Iltelementofthetet1ex arc
In
and Itsefferente.lement. thts famOl-iS pSI~system ofthe first Freudian wrmngs.
But that nevertheless It feels the need to maIntam the emphasIS on these two
elements, assuredly here testifies to somethIng whIch urges us to mark ItS place.
(I mean for analytIC theory), WIth respect to what \ve call, Inamore
comprehenSIve waythe phYSIOlogIsmgtheoryofthe pSYChIC apparatus. ItIS
clear that we see there beIngmanifested here acertaIn numberofmental editices
founded In pnnciple on recourseto the expenment. These try to use. to make
use ofthIS first model gIven as the most elementary. whether we conSIder Itat
the level ofthe totality ofamIcro-organIsm, the stlmulus-responseprocess at the
level ofthe amoeba, for example. and to make ofitIna wayahomologue. the
specificatIon for an systemWhICh IS supposed to concentrate. at least on a
certmn powerfullyorgarllsmg pomt. Its reality on the organIsm. namely. at the
level ofthIS reflex arc once It has been differentIated mthe nervous system.
Here IS what we have to account for In thIS perspectlve, that this difference
perSIsts at alevel. matechmque- psychoanalySIS -whIch seems to be. properly
speakmg, the least appropnate to have recourse to It, gIven what It Implies In
terms ofacompletely different dimenSIOn. meffect. radicalh' opposed to thIS
(14) reference \.'vhICh results from an ObVIOuslv lame conceptIOn ofwhat 1S
mvolved In the act. not satlsfactory In an Internal rashIOn. completely opposed In
effect to what \Ve have to do. to thIS pOSItIOn ofthe functIon ofthe act that I
evoked at first Its purely obvIOUS aspects. and whIch, It IS \vell knO\Yn. IS the
In
one that Interests us psychoanalySIS. Ispoke earlier about commItment.
In
whether It IS that ofthe analysand orofthe analyst. But, afterall, why not pose
15.11.67 I 5
the question ofthe act ofthe bIrth(l'acte de naIssance, bIrth certificate) of
psychoanalysIs. Because In the dimensIOn ofthe act. there Immediatelycomes
to light thIS somethIng that atenn like the one that I haveJustspoken about
Implies. Namely. th¢ lIlscnptlOn somewhere. the correlatIve sIgnifierwhIch. m
truth. IS neverlackmg mwhatconstItutes an act. IfIwalk up apddown here
whilespeaklhg to you. that does not constitute an act. but ifone day It IS to cross
acertam threshold by whIch Iput myselfoutsIde the law. thatdav my motor
actIVIty will have the value ofan act.
I putforward here. In thIS very room. that It IS SImply to have recourse to an
admltted orderofObVIousness. ofproperly speakIng languagedimensIons about
what IS mvolved In an act. ThIS allows there to be gathered together ma
satIsfymg fashIon all the ambIgUIty that thIS tenn may present. gomg from one
to the otherend ofthe-scale that I first evoked. Including In It not SImply.
beyond what Icalledon thIS occaSIOn anotarIsed act, I mentIOned tills tenn: the
actofthe bIrth ofpsychoanalysIs. Why not? thIS IS how Itemerged at a
partIcularturmng POInt ofmy discourse. But, In fact, ifwe dwell alittle on It.
we are gomg to seethere bemg easilyopened up the dimensIOn ofthe act WIth
respect to the verystatus ofpsychoanalYSIS. Because after all. ifIspokeabout
mscnptIOn, whatdoes that mean? Let us not remaIn too close to thIS metaphor.
Nevertheless, the one whose eXIstence IS recorded In an act whenhe comes mto
j
the world IS there before the act. PsychoanalysIs IS nota nurseling. When one
speaks about the actofthe bIrth ofpsychoanalYSIS, whIch mdeed has asense,
smce. preCIsely. It appeared one day, It IS the questlOn that IS evoked. Did thIS
field that ItorganIses. over whIch It reIgns mmore orless governmg them. did
thIS field eXist before? It IS aquestlon that It IS \vell worthwhile evokmgwhen
such an act IS at stake. It IS aquestlon that IS essentIal to pose at thIS turnmg
pomt. Ofcourse. there IS everY chance that thIS tield eXIsted before. We are
certamly not gomg to contest that the unconSCIOUS made ItS effects felt before
(15) the act ofthe birth ofpsychoanah·sIs. But all the same ifwe payvery
careful attentIon. we can see that the questIOn of'vvho knew It. IS perhaps not
WIthout Import here.
Ineffect, does thIS question have any other Import than the epoche, the Idealist
sllspensIOn. theone founded on the Idea. taken as radical, ofrepresentatIon as
founding all knowledge and whIch then demands where reality IS, outSIde ofthIS
representatIOn.
It IS absolutely certam that the questIOn that Iam raIsmg mthe form of. who
knew thIS field ofpsychoanalYSIS. has absolutely nothIng to do WIth the
fallaCIOUS antInomy on whIch Idealism IS founded. It IS clearthat there IS no
questlon ofcontestmg that reality IS prIor to knowledge. Reality, yes! But
knO\\iledge'7 Knowledge (Ie saVOlr) IS not knOWIng (fa connmssance). .And to
touch the mmds that are least preparea to suspect thIS difference Ihave only to
make an allUSIon tosaVOIr-Vlvre. or to saVOIr-faire [art oflhmg, know-how].
There. the question ofwhat IS there before takes on all ItS sense. SaVOII'-v/vre or
savolr-fazre can emerge at agiven moment. And then. prOVIded the accent that I
15.11.67 I 6
have always puton language has ended up by taking on Its Import for acertain
numberofyou. It IS clear that here the question takes on allns weight. That of
knOWing precIsely what was Involved something that we can call the
In
mampulatIOn ofthe letter. according to aformalisatIOn described as logIcal. for
example. before It was tackled. The field ofalgebra beforethe InventIon of
algebra IS aquestIOn that takes on all as Impon.
Before people knew how to manipulate somethmg that must be called by Its
name. figures (chifJres), and notSImply numbers. Iam saymg figures -\\lthout
bemg able to go Into It here. Iappeal to the few that Isuppose eXist among you.
who have sufficiently read somewhere majournal or mpopular books. how Mr
Cantorproceeded In orderto demonstrate to you that the transfimte dimenSion
m numbers IS absolutely not reducible to that ofthe Infimtyofthe senes of
whole numbers, namely;that one can always fabncate anew number whIch had
not been Included In pnnclple In thiS senes ofwhole numbers. however
astomshIng thIS may appear to you. and thIS, 'Wlth nothmg more than acertam
way ofoperatIng on the senes offigures In accordance WIth the method that IS
called diagonal. Inshort,the opemng to thiS undoubtedlytestable orderwhich
has a nght, qUiteSimplyjustas much as anyotherterm to the qualificatIOnof
truthful. was trus orderthere, awaitmg MrCantor's operatIOn from alleternity?
Here IS aquestIOn thathas itS valueand whichhas nothmg to do WIth that ofthe
(16) pnontyofreality 'N1th respect to itS representatiOn. AquestIOn wruch has
all its weIght. ItIS acombmatonal and the dimenSIOn oftruth that IS deployed
it IS what allows there to emerge mthe most authentiC waywhat is Involved
In
m the truth that Itdetermmes before knowledge (sava/r) IS born from It.
ThIS mdeed IS why anelement ofthIS combmatorIal can come to play the role of
representatIve ofrepresentatIon andJustifies the InSIstence that Iputon the fact
that thIS IS how there ought to be translated the German term In Freud of
Vorstellungreprasentan::. That it IS not because ofaSimple personal SenSltlVIty
that every tIme that Isee emergIng In one or othermargmal note the translatlOn
Ideational-representatIve, Ionly denounce In It. Ionly deSIgnate InIt. In aqUIte
valid way, an IntentIOn. preCIsely thIS confuSIng IntentIOn. And It IS amatter of
knowmg why such and such become the holders ofit In acertam place In the
anal;tIc field. InthIS order. formal quarrels are not vaIn because they bnng
along WIth them awhole sUbjectIve presumption whIch IS properly speakIng
In
question. We will subsequently have to bnng In one or otherpInpOintIng wruch
will allow us to onentate ourselves on tms POInt. It IS not myobject today
when. as Itoldyou, It IS amatter onlyofintrodUCIng the functlon that Ihave to
de\'e[op before you. But already. IIndicate that mSImply markmg \VIth three.
reference pOInts somethmg that has the functlon ofaterm like that ofset.
In
mathematical theory, to show In It the distance. the distmctlOn from that ofclass
In use for amuch longertIme. and to hook onto It In arelation ofartIculation
WhICh shows thatwhatI am gOIng to say IS Insened there by acertaIn articulated
difference. and whIch Implicates It In the same order. thIS order ofthe subjectIve
posltlons ofbeIng whIch was the true subject. the secret title ofthe second year
ofteachmg that Igave here under the name ofCruczal Problems, to refer to the
15.11.67 I 7
distinctIon benveen set and class, the function ofthe object insofaras the 0 takes
on ItS whole value ofsubjective 0pposltlon. This IS what we will have to do at
the rIght tIme, Iam only markmg It here as aboundary stone whose mdicatlOn
and at the same tlme whose essence you will rediscover when we shall have to
start from It agam. Fortoday. havmg marked then what IS at stake. I\-vant to
start agam from the physlOloglsmg reference morder to showthIS somethmg
whIch. perhaps IS gomg to illummate mthe most efficacIOus way possible. what
(17) rmean by the term ofpsychoanaly11c act. And smce \ve have so easily
cntlclzed the aSSimilatIon ofthe term actIOn to motoractlVlty. It will perhaps be
easier. more comfortable for US, to grasp what IS mvolved mthIS fallacIOUS
model. Forto support It wuhsomethmgwhIch comes from everyday
expenence. for example the tnggenng ofatendon reflex. Ibelieve that from
now on. It will perhaps be eaSIerfor youto see that It constitutes afunctlOnmg
whIch, Ido not see wby; is called automatic, smce automation has well and truly
m Its essence areference to chance. while what IS Implied mthe dimension of
the reflex, IS preciselythe contrary. But letus leave that.
Is It not ObVIOUS that we cannot conceive maratIOnal fashlOn ofwhat IS
mvolved the reflex arc. except as somethmg mwhIch the motorelementIS
In
nothmg otherthan what IS situated mthe little mstrument. the hammer \V1th
whIch one tnggers It. And that what IS picked up is nothmg otherthan aSign. a
SIgn mthIS case ofwhat we cancall the mtegntyofacertam level ofthe
medullarsystem, And mthiS sense aSIgn ofwhichIt must mdeedbeS8.ldthat
what IS most mdicatIve about It IS preciselywhen It IS absent, namely. when It
condemns the non-mtegnty ofthIs system. Foron the subject ofwhat IS
mvolved m thiS mtegnty. it does notgive us very much. On the contrary. ItS
value as aSign oflack. ofleSIOn, wluch has apOSitIve value. yes, there IS takes
on ItS whole value.
To make ofthis somethmg whIch has onlythe entIty and the meanIng ofbemg
somethmg Isolated mthe functlOmng ofthe orgamsm. Isolated mfunctIon ofa
cel1am questlonmg that we cancall climcal questlOmng, who knows. we can
push It further. mdeed. eventhe deSIre ofthe climcian. 1S somethmg whIch does
not give to thIS totality that we call the reflex arc. anyspecial tltle to sen'e as a
conceptual model for anythIng whatsoever that CaJ1!J~GQn~lderedas
fundamental. elementary, an ongmal reductIon ofaresponse ofthe livmg
orgamsm.
But let us go further. let us go to somethmg whIch IS Infimtely more subtle than
thIS elementary model. namely. the conceptIOn'Ofthe reflex at the level ofwhat
you will Indeed allow me to call. because thIS IS \vhat Iam gOing to Interest
myselfin: PavlOVIan Ideology
,~~,;",." " '"'',-"'-,, .~,,-,--- ~"'''_'0
ThIS IS to say that Imtend here to questIon. not at all cel1amly from the pamt of
- - -
Yle\v ofany absolute crItique. but for \vhat. as are !2:om!2: to see, It bnnl2:s us
yOU
., ~
as asuggestlon about what IS mvolved In the analytIC pOSitIOn. Icertamly do not
(18) dream ofdepreCiating the totalityofthe works that have been mscribed III
15.11.67 I 8
this Ideology Iam not saymg anythmg either whIch goes too far. msaymg that
It proceeds from aprojectofmatenalist development -and Itavows It - from
somethmg \vhlch IS afunction mwhich It IS amatter precisely ofreducing the
reference whIch might be made - as ifwhat was at stake here agam IS aterram
where It would be necessaryto fight -to some entity ofthe orderofthe spmt.
The perspective ofPavlovian Ideology. In this sense. IS much better
r
accommodated. for ItS part. than thIS tirst order ofreference that mdicated wUh
the reflex arc and that we could call the organo-dvnamlc reference. ThIs
perspective IS much betteraccommodated meffect because It IS organIsed from
the gnp ofasign on afunctIOn that. for ItS part. IS always organised around a
need. I have no need. Ithmk, you have all done enough secondary studies to
know that the usual model bywhIch ItIS mtroduced mto the manuals. and whIch
we can also make use'ofnowto supportwhat we are gomg to say. ofthe
asSOCiatIOn ofthe fact ofthe sound ofatrumpet for example. to the presentatIOn
ofapiece ofmeat before an anImal. acarrnvorous one ofcourse. IS supposedto
obtam after acertam numberofrepetmons the tnggenng ofagastnc secretIOn.
prOVided that the arnmal mquestion has In effectastomach, and thIS, even, after
the untyIng, the freeIng ofthe assoCiatIon. whIch IS ofcourse earned.outmthe
sense ofmamtammg only the sOUfld ofthe trumpet. The effectbemg easily
demonstrated by the fittmg ofastomach fistula. Imean that one collects It
In
theJUIce emItted. afteracertaInnumber ofrepetItIOnS, from the SImple
productIOnofthe soundofthe trumpet.
Iwould dare to qualify th..ts PavlOVian enterpnse as extraordinarilycorrect as
regards Its perspectIve. Formeffect\vhat It IS amatter ofgrounding, whenIt IS
amatter ofaccountIng for the possibility ofhigher forms ofsuch and such a
functlorung ofthe mmd. It IS obViouslyfrom thIs grasp on the livmg orgarusrn of
somethmg, whIch here. only takes on Its illustratlve value, from the fact ofnot
bemg an adequate stImulus for the needthat IS Involved mthe affaIr; and even
properly speakmgto be only connoted In the field ofperception by bemg really
detached from any object ofeventual frUItIOn. frUItIOn meamng enjoyment
(;oUlssanceJ. Idid not mean to say enjoyment. for SInce Ialready put acertaIn
stress on the '"\ford enjoyment. rdo not want to Introduce lthere With Its whole
context: frUIt IS the contrary ofuseful. It IS not a useable object that IS at stake.
It IS the object ofthe appeme'founded on the elementary needs ofthe liVIng
(19) bemg. ItIS In so far as the sound ofthe trumpet has nothmg to do With
any1hmg that mIght mterestadog, for example. at any rate mthe field mwhich
IDS appetite IS awakened bythe SIght ofapiece ofmeat that Pavlov legmmately
mtroduces It Into.the field ofthe expenment.
Only ifIsay that thIS way ofoperatmg IS extraordinarily correct. It IS very
precisely In the measure that Pavlov reveals hImselfthere. as Imight say. to be a
structuralistat the start. At the start ofhiS expenment. he IS astructuralist ahead
oftime, a structuralist ofthe stnctest observance. narnely. ofthe Lacaman
observance. tn so far as precisely ,"vhat he demonstrates there. what he holds m a
\vay to be Implicated there. IS very precisely somethIng that means thatthe
.
t
15.11.67 I 9
sIgnifier, nameIv. that the sIgnifier IS whatrepresents asubject for another
sIgnifier.
r
Here In effect IS howto illustrate what haveJust put forward. The sound ofthe
trumpet represents nothIng other here than the subject ofsCience. namely.
Pavlov hImself. It represents It for whom? For\vhat? ObVIOusly for nothmg
otherthan for somethIng whIch IS not aSIgn. but asignifier. namely. thIS sign of
gastnc secretlon. whIch only takes on Its value. very precIsely. from the fact that
It IS not produced bythe object that one would expect to produce It. that It IS an
effect ofdeceptIon, that the need In questIOn IS adulterated and that the
dimenSIon In whIch there IS Installed what IS produced at the level ofthe
stomachfistula. IS what IS Involved. namely, the organIsm In thIS case IS
deceived.
There IS mdeed an effect then, ademonstratIOn ofsomethIng WhICh, ifyou look
more closely at It. IS notofcourse thatyou are gOIng to make acompletely
different type ofammal from adog. All PavlovIan expenmentatIOnwould
really be ofno Interest ifit were not amatter ofconstructmg the essentIal
possibility ofthe grasp ofsomethmgwhIch IS well and truly. and not to be
detined otherwlse,than asthe effectQfthe SIgnifieron afieldWhICh IS the liVIng
field. ThIS has no otherreperCUSSlOn. Imean theoretical reperCUSSIOn. than to
allow It to be conceIved how. where there IS language, there IS no need to search
for areference In aspmtual entlty. But who dreams ofitnow? And who could
be mterested In It? It must all the same be hIghlighted that what IS demonstrated
bythe PavlovIan experIment, namely. that there IS no operatIOn mvolvIng
signifiers as such wluch does not Imply the presence ofthe subject, IS not
entIrely the first thmgthat foolish people may thmk about.
(20) It IS mno way the dog who gIves thIS proofand notevenfor Mr Pavlov
because Mr Pavlov constructs tlus experIment preCIselyto show that one can do
very well WIthoutahypotheSIS about what the dog thInkS. The subject \vhose
eXIstence IS demonstrated. orrather the demonstratIOn ofhIS eXIstence. It IS not
at all the dog \vho gIves It. but. as everyone knows. NlrPavlovhImself. because
he IS the one who blows mto the trumpet. he or one ofhis helpers. It does not
maner. Imade aremark mCIdentally. sayIng that. ofcourse. what IS Implied
In
thIS experIment. 'vvhat IS Implied IS the possibility ofsomethmg whIch
demonstrates the functlon ofthe sIgmrier and ItS relatlon to the subject. And I
added that. ofcourse. no one had the IntentIon ofobtammg In thIS way anyth.lOg
\vhatsoever ofthe order ofachange mthe nature ofthe anImal. What Imean by
that IS somethmg whIch has Indeed ItS Interest. It IS that one does not even
obtaIn amodificatIon ofthe order ofthose that we must mdeed suppose to have
takenplace. at the tIme when thIS arumal who IS called adog was made pass
over to the domestIC state.
It must be admItted that the dog has not been domestIcated smce the time ofthe
earthlyparadise. So then. there was amoment when people were able to make
ofthIS ammal not at all. certaInly an ammal endowed With language but an