Lost In Translation: Lacan And Desire
Society & Culture
Philosophy & Ethics
What is the role of philosophy in our age?
Societal & Cultural analysis
Freedom to shop, but not to govern:
The erosion of gender roles has created, in a sense, economic equality.
The Death of the Liberal Class takes a highly critical view of American society and its social demise.
"Most writers earn less than £600 a year, survey reveals.."
The Critique is dedicated to changing the status quo of 'free labour' that publishers hold towards writers. We believe that a society lacking in a wide variety of critics is one lacking the tools it needs to progress efficiently. The Critique promises a small payment to those who contribute outstanding works towards the Editorial Themes. See details below..
Editorial Writing Guidelines and Payment.
Community Project News
Connect with @critiquerd
Bloggers Needed!
Our newly established 'Voices' section is in need of contributers. Short, personalised oversavtions of events or traits in society (wherever you are) are all welcome.
Email the team at thecritique.rd@gmail.com with your pieces or message us via social media.
Love in a constantly evolving society.
L’objet petit a: the object cause of desire. An exploration of Lacan’s conception of desire and its link to symbolic lack.
Jobe Moakes
‘Desire, a function central to all human experience, is the desire for nothing nameable. And at the same time this desire lies at the origin of every variety of animation. If being were only what it is, there wouldn’t even be room to talk about it. Being comes into existence as an exact function of this lack. Being attains a sense of self in relation to being as a function of this lack, in the experience of desire.' Jacques Lacan
Desire, for Lacan, is the motor that drives all human activity. Be it love, work, sex or violence desire is the structuring force driving the subject in every endeavour. The object of desire, a beautiful woman for example, is never the cause of this desire, but a manifestation of lack. This lack is at the core of the subject and is the root cause of desire. For Lacan desire and lack are inseparable. To understand desire in Lacanian terms one must first examine the nature of what is lacking. Key to this is understanding that what is lacking will always remain elusive, therefore the void left in the subject by its presence will always remain unfilled.
This article aims to explore Lacan’s conception of desire and its link to symbolic lack. This will be achieved via an explanation of the source of this lack; the paternal metaphor and an introduction to what Lacan terms l’objet petit a: the object cause of desire. To achieve this it is necessary to provide an uncritical, surface explanation of Lacan’s thought. Given the notorious impenetrability of Lacan’s work, to provide a more detailed critical analysis would be beyond the scope of this article and perhaps contrary to purpose.
At this juncture it is necessary to provide a disclaimer regarding the origin of lack. Lacan formulated a number of ‘lost objects’ that cause lack in the subject occurring in both the symbolic and the imaginary realms. Here, due to the streamlined nature of the article, we focus only on the symbolic phallus and its loss via the paternal metaphor. This is justified because this process is central to a number of Lacanian themes; including the subjects first acceptance of the Lacanian ‘big other’.
The paternal metaphor occurs in the subject’s infancy, in the stage of development when the subject recognises itself as an individual and possesses an un-fragmented consciousness. In this stage of development the subject is completely dependent on the Mother. The Mother provides the infant with food, comfort and crucially love. Thus the subject comes to identify these concepts with the Mother.
The Origin of Lack: The Paternal Metaphor
It is here that Lacan introduces the symbolic phallus; the phallus is never a physical trait or an actual object, but is a symbolic entity that represents the cause of the Mother’s desire. The phallus comes to represent for the subject the cause of the Mother’s absence and the reason for her return.
It is therefore natural that the absence of the mother is the cause of great distress for the child. The Mother often seeks to limited this distress with justifications for her absence: ‘Mum has to go to work’ or ‘Mum has to eat dinner’. These statements lead the child to hypothesise reasons for the Mother’s absence in the form of questions such as: ‘where does she go when she is not with me?’ or ‘why must she spend time with Dad?’ Here Lacan provides the Name-of-the-Father as the answer the subject formulates as the reason for the Mother’s absence. Here it is important to state that the Name-of-the-Father does not represent the Father exclusively but can represent any strong commitment in the Mother’s life such as work or family, furthermore it will also come to represent the Other.
It is at this point that the subject comes to question what it is the Father has which causes the Mother’s absence, the object cause of the Mother’s desire. And since the Mother always returns to the child what does it possess which causes the Mother to return?It is here that Lacan introduces the symbolic phallus; the phallus is never a physical trait or an actual object, but is a symbolic entity that represents the cause of the Mother’s desire. The phallus comes to represent for the subject the cause of the Mother’s absence and the reason for her return
As the subject progresses through the paternal metaphor the Name-of-the-Father comes to represent the Other, the symbolic order, which causes the Mother’s absence. Here the subject undergoes castration, or loss, when they recognise they do not possess the phallus and that neither does the Father. This submission to the Other causes the subject to experience lack; the incompleteness caused by castration.
As mentioned previously castration is not the only cause of lack within the subject; lack is introduced at other key stages of development. However what is a common theme in Lacan’s explanation of lack is the lost object, such as the phallus, an object which not only cannot be rediscovered but cannot be forgotten. Desire, therefore, functions as a result of the remembrance of the lost object, of lack and functions as an attempt to rediscover the lost object; to find what is lacking.
If in the case of the phallus, the object of desire possesses a phallic quality, the objet petit a can be seen as the unattainable phallic quality of the object. In this case, the true cause of the subject’s desire is not the physical object which they think they desire, but the unattainable phallic quality of the object; the objet petit a.
L’objet Petit a: The Object Cause of Desire
Lacan’s objet petit a can be defined, in simple terms, as the quality which makes an object desirable. For example, in the case of a bed, one does not desire the bed itself, but the notions of warmth, comfort and rest associated with the object of the bed. This definition functions as an adequate introduction to the concept of the objet petit a, however it is necessary to explain another facet of the objet petit a and its connection to lack.
In relation to lack and the lost object, the objet petit a functions as the thing which the subject is trying to attain in order to fill the void left within the subject by the lost object. In the case of the paternal metaphor this void is a result of the loss of the phallus via castration. It is from this desire to regain the lost object, in this case the phallus, that the subject is attracted to the objet petit a.
This link between desire and the lost object becomes particularly apparent when the object of the subject’s desire is reminiscent of the lost object. If in the case of the phallus, the object of desire possesses a phallic quality, the objet petit a can be seen as the unattainable phallic quality of the object. In this case, the true cause of the subject’s desire is not the physical object which they think they desire, but the unattainable phallic quality of the object; the objet petit a.
L’objet Petit a: The Object Cause of Desire
The Lacanian concepts of lack and desire emerge often in cinema; the lack experienced by characters in a film and the resulting desire can been seen as the driving force behind the plot. In order to examine the narrative of a film from this perspective it is crucial to locate the objet petit a causing the character’s desire. Once this is achieved it is possible to view cinema from a Lacanian perspective; a useful lens with which to examine the underlying themes present and the relation these have to wider social issues.
Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation lends itself amicably to a Lacanian analysis. The film explores themes such as alienation, loneliness and existential quandary against the backdrop of Tokyo; a city in which the main protagonists, Bob a middle aged actor played by Bill Murray and a recent graduate Charlotte played by Scarlett Johansson, feel isolated and confused. The vision of Tokyo in the film is a metaphoric representation of the two character’s existential condition; the confusion generated by the city mirrors the confusion experienced by the two characters, both of whom are at significant junctures in their lives. Charlotte is questioning her recent marriage and is confused about what path her life should take after graduation. Bob is also experiencing difficulty with his marriage and appears to be experiencing a mild mid-life crisis.
What is interesting from a Lacanian perspective is what brings the two together, aside from circumstance, what is the basis upon which the two are attracted to each other; upon which there relationship is founded? In order to answer these questions it is necessary to locate the objet petit a each character believes the other possesses; the cause of their desire for each other and the basis of their friendship.
In the eyes of Charlotte, Bob appears as the ‘subject supposed to know’; a term introduced by Lacan to denote the position the analyst assumes in response to analysand’s assumption that the knowledge possessed by the analyst holds the potential resolution to their problems. Here the objet petit a drawing Charlotte to Bob is the perceived wisdom, gained via experience, she believes Bob possess. The lack experienced by Charlotte has manifested itself in an existential crisis as she questions how she should proceed with her life and ‘what she should be’. Therefore the objet petit a is the answers to these question she believes Bob, as the subject supposed to know, possesses.
Bill Murray: The Subject Supposed to Know
In the eyes of Charlotte, Bob appears as the ‘subject supposed to know’; a term introduced by Lacan to denote the position the analyst assumes in response to analysand’s assumption that the knowledge possessed by the analyst holds the potential resolution to their problems. Here the objet petit a drawing Charlotte to Bob is the perceived wisdom, gained via experience, she believes Bob possess. The lack experienced by Charlotte has manifested itself in an existential crisis as she questions how she should proceed with her life and ‘what she should be’. Therefore the objet petit a is the answers to these question she believes Bob, as the subject supposed to know, possesses.
This is demonstrated clearly in the scene in which Bob and Charlotte are lying on a bed, looking upwards at the camera. Charlotte confesses to Bob that she is stuck and asks ‘does it get easier?’ She then goes on to admit that, ‘I just don't know what I'm supposed to be’. This scene, whilst understated, demonstrates the core dynamic of Charlotte’s attraction to Bob and reveals the objet petit a; Bob as the subject supposed to know.Here a parallel can be seen between the relationship between Charlotte and Bob in Lost in Translation and the relationship between Alcibiades and Socrates in Plato’s Symposium. In Symposium Alcibiades attempts to seduce the much older and sexually unattractive Socrates. Alcibiades does not undertake this attempt at seduction because he is physically attracted to Socrates but because of the ‘divine and golden images of such fascinating beauty’ within him.
In his analysis of symposium Lacan provides a metaphor to explain Alcibiades attraction to Socrates, which is equally pertinent when examining Lost in Translation. Lacan draws from Plato’s work the term agalma which in Greek denotes a precious object contained within a common place, valueless object such as a box. Here the agalma represents the objet petit a and the box in which it is contained represents the object to which the objet petit a attaches itself. In the case Bill and Socrates, the agalma is the knowledge they possess (or are perceived as possessing) and the box the agalma is contained in is their physical form. Here the parallel between the desire experienced by Charlotte and Alcibiades is evident; they are both drawn to their respective older man because of the knowledge they are deemed to possess, the agalma; the objet petit a.
Throughout Lacan’s work desire remains a central theme, a structuring force, universal and central to all human activity. For Lacan desire results from and is intimately connected to lack. This lack is something experienced by everyone, either subconsciously or otherwise, and attempts to reclaim what is lacking are in vain. Therefore desire and the pursuit of the objet petit a is a continuous process central to human existence. Understanding desire in Lacanian terms provides a useful perspective from which to observe a variety of phenomena, varying widely between art and politics. And whilst Lacanian theories have been applied to a wide variety of subjects, there remains a wealth of concepts within Lacan’s work which will help provide unique insight into a variety of issues facing modern thinkers. It is this versatility that will ensure Lacanian theory will remain relevant and continue to be applied in a variety of contexts.