Interpretation of Lacan's Instance of the Letter in the Unconscious - Essay Example

Interpretation of Lacan's example of "Gentlemen" and "Ladies" in the ‘Instance of the Letter in the Unconscious'

The Lacan’s interpretation of the illustration meant to effect some kind of correlation commonly known as algorithmic between “Gentlemen” and “Ladies”. The example was combined with anecdotes that evoked an extended framework for the signifiers where he labelled them as Gentlemen and Ladies. The interpretation of this was to condense various networks and to activate them in order to reach beyond their nominative functions which are less important. The concept tried to explain the element of a difference devoid of signification. This story that was told by his wife signify that they can be termed as gentlemen and ladies regarding their sitting location and their given line of sight from the train window.

The psychologist who incorporated structuralism into the psychoanalytical theory developed by Sigmund Freud. In ‘The Instance of the Letter in the Unconscious the psychologist begins his article by revealing that he utilizes the name’ letter’ more often to mean the materials which originate from language (Lacan, 2010, 144). Lacan goes ahead to lay out the algorithm and reminds us of the language structure which he reveals that is at the foundation of language (143). According to him, the unconscious structure takes the form of language and divides human psyche into physical structures. He goes ahead and comes up with a formula known as linguistic science that is, the signifier and the signified and discusses the line that separates the two. He questions this method launched by Saussure. A composition of the sign consists of a signified and signifier. He uses a Tree as an in a bid to explain the relationship between the two. A tree drawing usually operates like the signified or the concept image. He further explains the changed concept by mentioning that, that concept is made up of two doors labeled as ladies and gentleman. The two doors which he calls signifiers in his opinion denote the one signified or the closest water concept.Ideally, a signifier can possess various signifieds.He insists that a significant relationship exists between the two.

By the fact “that the signifier and the signified are separate, no signification can be sustained unless by reference to another signification. Lacan utilizes an example of two kids on a train who believe that because of their relative station, they have arrived either at a stop called ‘Gentlemen’ or the one called ‘Ladies’ (Lacan, 2010, 143). Lacan reveals the incomplete significations that have been affected by the signifier. In the children example, each observes a sign over a public restroom. Despite a concrete restroom is associated with a particular sign, the children’s sign signification is entirely different. In this manner, the restroom (signifier) offers an incomplete signification that is not incorrect. Lacan brings together the idea of incomplete signification and signifier over the signified to form a series of signifiers where an individual signifier signifies other signifiers. He claims that individuals should be able to accept the way in which a signified slides under the signifier. He reveals that Saussure had the same nation but stopped short as a result of his linear analysis.

The correlations between signified and signifier are supplements to research standards as it interprets them into meanings. This can be used in the understanding of a slide of signified below a signifier. One signifier results to another. In reality, the signified is not an object or thing referred by the signifier. The sliding of the signified under the signifier as illustrated by Lacan means that producing more signifiers is what can lead to the designation of meanings hence producing then signified. The signified, and any meaning is only generated by the signifiers. He uses an example of a dictionary and says that one word in a dictionary can lead to learning many words without a provision of ultimate meaning

Lacan explains that individuals must recall some contexts that operate simultaneously to understand the chain of signifiers. He claims that ‘a signifier has to pass over to the level of the signified to fully operate’ (Lacan, 2010, 144). To him, the signifier is of much importance than the signified. He also uses the concepts of metaphor and metonomy and explains them using two slopes; metaphor and metanomy with a pyramid sign. One thing is a representation of anything through the part solely standing in metanomy while metaphor sees a representation of one thing to mean another. Through that, one can further understand this relationship between the signifier and signified. Lacan denotes that image signifier is not related to its signification during interpretation of dreams. Additionally, he reveals that similarities between the mechanism of discourse and of dream explain the various forms in which language may be utilized to represent dreams. Lacan argues that the unconscious structure is also signifier over signified and that neither language nor the unconscious can function outside that structure of the mind.

Lacan’s analysis of the series of signifiers in collaboration with his emphasis on metonymy and metaphor reminds me of ‘Ella minnow Pea: a novel of letters by Mark Dunn. The double meaning related to metonymy as letters of correspondence as made up by alphabetical letters. As alphabetic letters are lost and the novel progress, there is a corresponding change in the characters. The presence of alphabetic letters in the novel is eliminated when the letters are banned highlighting Lacanian principle that states signification can be induced by the absence of a signifier. Lacan also involves the unconscious in the accounts of signifier and signified. The unconscious is treated by Lacan as language. The unconscious take the language structure. It does not mean it ism language but resembles a language. One’s instincts result from the unconscious. Lacan is the idea that the subject of humans is divided between a conscious side; the accessible and the unconscious side which he calls series of forces and drives that have so far remained inaccessible. The drives are usually unknown. He refers to the unconscious as the kernel of people’s being. The unconscious structure is also termed as fact with no parallel. Lacan explains this by rewriting on a project of Freud. The language structure is employed in the interpretation of dreams so as to relate unconscious structure and dream structure. Lacan postulates that a dream is a signifier. People use their imaginations in the explanations of their dreams and thereby establishing a relationship between an object, an unconscious element, and a dreamer. He places emphasis on metaphor being important than metanomy in that a signifier occupies the signifier’s position leading to a signifying chain. A man exists only through his thoughts. It is only when a person thinks about himself that he is considered a man. Jacques

In conclusion, “The Instance of the Letter in the Unconscious or Reason since Freud” brings forth an argument claiming that just like language, the subconscious is also structured through signification chains. He then later brings out an algorithm that he claims is at the linguistics foundation. The algorithm which is S/s typically means “the signifier over signified”. He claims that, “in so far as it is itself only pure function of the signifier, the algorithm can reveal only the structure of a signifier in transfer” (Lacan, 143). This is because the signifier is separate from the signified, and a signification cannot be sustained unless it is referenced to another signification (Lacan, 144).

Lacan then uses an example of “gentlemen” and “ladies” to explain the relationship between signifier and signified. He gives his example using two children who are seated at different positions on the train, one thinking that they have reached a stop called “ladies”, while the other thinks they have reached a stop called “gentlemen”. This children get their thinking from the signs over public restrooms, where one saw a “gentlemen” sign over a gentlemen’ restroom while the other saw a “ladies” sign over a ladies’ restroom. From this example, Lacan shows how a sign intended to pass a certain message can end up delivering an incomplete or different message.

Lacan therefore argues that a signifier used can send an incomplete signification (Lacan, 143). In the example he uses, the children only see a sign over the door of a public restroom, which was intended to signify a specific restroom type, but it ends up to be a different signification to the children. The signifier in this case was the restroom signs, and the signified was supposed to be the specific room type. A different signification, which Lacan calls an “incomplete signification” is given of the stop location. He therefore uses this idea of incomplete signification with that of S/s to form a signifiers chain where one signifier is able to slide on and signify other signifiers. Lacan then insists from his argument that we need to accept the notion of the signified incessantly sliding under signifier. He also adds that the signifier must pass to the level of the signified so as to fully operate, where if it does not, the signifier is likely to signify something totally different.

From this understanding of language structure Lacan brings its explanation in relation to the psychoanalysis of Freud recommending its application. Freud argues that dreams need to be literally understood since they reflect directly what is in the unconscious mind. He claims that dreams have coded meanings which can only be accessed through analyzing the present. According to Lacan, as a signifier, the image value does not have anything to do with dream interpretation as the signification (Lacan, 143). He brings out the mechanisms of discourse and dreams. He claims that among the many forms, language is one of the representation in dreams (Lacan, 144). He therefore argues that the unconscious also has the structure of S/s, and neither language nor unconscious can work outside the S/s structure (Lacan, 143).

Reference

Lacan, J. (2010). “The Instance of the Letter in the Unconscious, or Reason since Freud”(1957). Cultural Theory: An Anthology, 143-144.

ss.