6/8/2015

SlavojZizekFromChevuoi?toFantasy

SLAVOJIEK.FROMCHEVUOI?TOFANTASY:LACANWITHEYESWIDE
SHUT.
Slavojiek."FromChevuoi?toFantasy:LacanwithEyesWideShut."in:
Lacan.com.2007.(English).
AndwhytheOtherwithacapitalO?Foranodoubtmadreason,inthesamewayasitismadnesseverytimeweareobliged
tobringinsignssupplementarytothosegivenbylanguage.Herethemadreasonisthefollowing.Youaremywifeafterall,
whatdoyouknowaboutit?Youaremymasterinreality,areyousosureofthat?Whatcreatesthefoundingvalueofthose
wordsisthatwhatisaimedatinthemessage,aswellaswhatismanifestinthepretence,isthattheotheristherequa
absoluteOther.Absolute,thatistosayheisrecognized,butisnotknown.Inthesameway,whatconstitutespretenceisthat,
intheend,youdon'tknowwhetherit'sapretenceornot.Essentiallyitisthisunknownelementinthealterityoftheother
whichcharacterizesthespeechrelationonthelevelonwhichitisspokentotheother.
ThispassageshouldsurpriseanyoneacquaintedwithLacan:itequatesthebigOtherwiththeimpenetrabilityofanother
subjectbeyondthe"walloflanguage,"puttingusattheoppositeendofthepredominantimageLacanpresentsofthebig
Other,thatoftheinexorablelogicofanautomatismwhichrunstheshow,sothatwhenthesubjectspeaks,heis,
unbeknownsttohimself,merely"spoken,"notmasterinhisownhouse.What,then,isthebigOther?Theanonymous
mechanismofthesymbolicorder,oranothersubjectinhisorherradicalalterity,asubjectfromwhomIamforeverseparated
bythe"walloflanguage"?Theeasywayoutofthispredicamentwouldhavebeentoreadinthisdiscrepancythesignofa
shiftinLacan'sdevelopment,fromtheearlyLacanfocusedontheintersubjectivedialecticofrecognition,tothelaterLacan
whoputsforwardtheanonymousmechanismthatregulatestheinteractionofsubjects(inphilosophicalterms:from
phenomenologytostructuralism).Whilethereisalimitedtruthinthissolution,itobfuscatesthecentralmysteryofthebig
Other:thepointatwhichthebigOther,theanonymoussymbolicorder,getssubjectivized.
Theexemplarycaseisdivinity:iswhatwecall"God"notthebigOtherpersonified,addressingusasalargerthanlifeperson,
asubjectbeyondallsubjects?Inasimilarway,wetalkaboutHistoryaskingsomethingofus,ofourCausecallingustomake
thenecessarysacrifice.Whatwegethereisanuncannysubjectwhoisnotsimplyanotherhumanbeing,buttheThird,the
subjectwhostandsabovetheinteractionofrealhumanindividualsandtheterrifyingenigmais,ofcourse,whatdoesthis
impenetrablesubjectwantfromus(theologyreferstothisdimensionasthatofDeusabsconditus).ForLacan,wedonothave
toevokeGodtogetatasteofthisabyssaldimensionitispresentineveryhumanbeing:
man'sdesireistheOther'sdesire,inwhichthede/of/provideswhatgrammarianscalla'subjectivedetermination'namely,
thatitisqua/as/Otherthatmandesires....ThisiswhytheOther'squestionthatcomesbacktothesubjectfromtheplace
fromwhichheexpectsanoracularreplywhichtakessomesuchformas'Chevuoi?','Whatdoyouwant?'isthequestionthat
bestleadsthesubjecttothepathofhisowndesire.[2]
Lacan'sformulaisambiguous."ItisquaOtherthatmandesires"firstmeansthatman'sdesireisstructuredbythe
"decentered"bigOther,thesymbolicorder:whatIdesireispredeterminedbythebigOther,thesymbolicspacewithinwhichI
dwell.Evenwhenmydesiresaretransgressive,evenwhentheyviolatesocialnorms,thisverytransgressionisconditioned
bywhatittransgresses.Paulknewthisverywellwhen,inthefamouspassageinRomans,hedescribeshowthelawgives
risetothedesiretoviolateit.SincethemoraledificeofoursocietiesstillturnsaroundthetenCommandmentsthelawPaul
wasreferringto,theexperienceofourliberalpermissivesocietyconfirmsPaul'sinsight:itcontinuouslydemonstratesthat
ourcherishedhumanrightsareultimately,intheirinnermost,simplytherightstoviolatethetenCommandments."Therightto
privacy"therighttoadultery,doneinsecret,whennooneseesmeorhastherighttoprobeintomylife."Therighttopursue
happinessandtopossessprivateproperty"therighttosteal(toexploitothers)."Freedomofthepressandoftheexpression
ofopinion"therighttolie."Therightofthefreecitizenstopossessweapons"therighttokill.And,ultimately,"freedomof
religiousbelief"therighttocelebratefalsegods.
Thereis,however,anothermeaningto"man'sdesireisOther'sdesire":thesubjectdesiresonlyinsofarasitexperiencesthe
Otheritselfasdesiring,asthesiteofanunfathomabledesire,asifanopaquedesireisemanatingfromhimorher.Theother
notonlyaddressesmewithanenigmaticdesire,italsoconfrontsmewiththefactthatImyselfdonotknowwhatIreally
desire,withtheenigmaofmyowndesire.ForLacan,whofollowsFreudhere,thisabyssaldimensionofanotherhuman
beingtheabyssofthedepthofanotherpersonality,itsutterimpenetrabilityfirstfounditsfullexpressioninJudaismwithits
injunctiontoloveyourneighborasyourself.ForFreudaswellasforLacan,thisinjunctionisdeeplyproblematic,sinceit
obfuscatesthefactthat,beneaththeneighborasmymirrorimage,theonewhoislikeme,withwhomIcanempathize,there
alwayslurkstheunfathomableabyssofradicalOtherness,ofsomeoneaboutwhomIultimatelydonotknowanythingcanI
reallyrelyonhim?Whoishe?HowcanIbesurethathiswordsarenotamerepretence?IncontrasttotheNewAgeattitude
whichultimatelyreducesmyneighborstomymirrorimagesortothemeansonthepathofmyselfrealization(asisthecase
intheJungianpsychologyinwhichotherpersonsaroundmeareultimatelyreducedtotheexternalizationsprojectionsofthe
disavowedaspectsofmyownpersonality),Judaismopensupatraditioninwhichanalientraumatickernelforeverpersistsin
data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Ch1%20style%3D%22margin%3A%2015px%200px%3B%20padding%3A%200px%3B%20fontsize%3A%2018px%3B%20font

1/7

6/8/2015

SlavojZizekFromChevuoi?toFantasy

myneighbortheneighborremainsaninert,impenetrable,enigmaticpresencethathystericizesme.Thecoreofthis
presence,ofcourse,istheneighbor'sdesire,anenigmanotonlyforus,butalsofortheneighborhimself.Forthisreason,
Lacan'sChevuoi?isnotsimplyaninquiryinto"Whatdoyouwant?"butmoreaninquiryinto"What'sbuggingyou?Whatisit
inyouthatmakesyousounbearablenotonlyforus,butalsoforyourself,thatyouyourselfobviouslydonotmaster?"
Thetemptationtoberesistedhereistheethicaldomesticationoftheneighborforexample,whatEmmanuelLevinasdid
withhisnotionoftheneighborastheabyssalpointfromwhichthecallofethicalresponsibilityemanates.WhatLevinas
obfuscatesisthemonstrosityoftheneighbor,monstrosityonaccountofwhichLacanappliestotheneighborthetermThing
(dasDing),usedbyFreudtodesignatetheultimateobjectofourdesiresinitsunbearableintensityandimpenetrability.One
shouldhearinthistermalltheconnotationsofhorrorfiction:theneighboristhe(Evil)Thingwhichpotentiallylurksbeneath
everyhomelyhumanface.JustthinkaboutStephenKing'sTheShining,inwhichthefather,amodestfailedwriter,gradually
turnsintoakillingbeastwho,withanevilgrin,goesontoslaughterhisentirefamily.Nowonder,then,thatJudaismisalso
thereligionofdivineLawwhichregulatesrelationsbetweenpeople:thisLawisstrictlycorrelativetotheemergenceofthe
neighborastheinhumanThing.Thatistosay,theultimatefunctionoftheLawisnottoenableusnottoforgettheneighbor,
toretainourproximitytotheneighbor,but,onthecontrary,tokeeptheneighborataproperdistance,toserveasakindof
protectivewallagainstthemonstrosityoftheneighbor.AsRainerMariaRilkeputitinhisTheNotebooksofMalteLaurids
Brigge:
Thereexistsacreaturethatisperfectlyharmlesswhenitpassesbeforeyoureyes,youhardlynoticeitandimmediatelyforget
itagain.Butassoonasitsomehow,invisibly,getsintoyourears,itbeginstodevelop,ithatches,andcaseshavebeen
knownwhereithaspenetratedintothebrainandflourishedtheredevastatingly,likethepneumococciindogswhichgain
entrancethroughthenose...ThiscreatureisYourNeighbor.
Itisforthisreasonthatfindingoneselfinthepositionofthebelovedissoviolent,traumaticeven:beinglovedmakesmefeel
directlythegapbetweenwhatIamasadeterminatebeingandtheunfathomableXinmewhichcauseslove.Lacan's
definitionoflove("Loveisgivingsomethingonedoesn'thave...")hastobesupplementedwith:"...tosomeonewhodoesn't
wantit."Isthisnotconfirmedbyourmostelementaryexperiencewhensomebodyunexpectedlydeclaredpassionateloveto
us?Thefirstreaction,precedingthepossiblepositivereply,isthatsomethingobscene,intrusive,isbeingforceduponus.In
themiddleofGuillermoArriaga's21Grams,Paul,whoisdyingofaweakenedheart,gentlydeclareshislovetoCristina,who
istraumatizedbytherecentdeathofherhusbandandtwoyoungchildrenwhentheymeetthenexttime,Cristinaexplodes
intoacomplaintabouttheviolentnatureofdeclaringlove:
"Youknow,youkeptmethinkingallday.Ihaven'tspokentoanyoneformonthsandIbarelyknowyouandIalreadyneedto
talktoyou...Andthere'ssomethingthemoreIthinkaboutthelessIunderstand:whythehelldidyoutellmeyoulikedme?
Answerme,becauseIdidn'tlikeyousayingthatatall.Youcan'tjustwalkuptoawomanyoubarelyknowandtellheryou
likeher.Youcan't.Youdon'tknowwhatshe'sgoingthrough,whatshe'sfeeling.I'mnotmarried,youknow.I'mnot
anythinginthisworld.I'mjustnotanything.[3]
Uponthis,CristinalooksatPaul,raisesherhandsanddesperatelystartskissinghimonthemouthsoitisnotthatshedidnot
likehimanddidnotdesirecarnalcontactwithhim.Theproblemforherwas,onthecontrary,thatshedidwantitthepointof
hercomplaintwas:whatrightdoeshehavetostirupherdesire?ItisfromthisabyssoftheOtherasThingthatwecan
understandwhatLacanmeanswithwhathecallsthe"foundingword",statementswhichconferonapersonsomesymbolic
titleandmakeshimorherwhattheyareproclaimedtobe,constitutingtheirsymbolicidentity:"Youaremywife,mymaster...".
Thisnotionisusuallyperceivedasanechoofthetheoryofperformatifs,ofspeechactswhichaccomplishintheirveryactof
enunciationthestateofthingsthattheydeclare(whenIsay"Thismeetingisclosed,"Itherebyeffectivelyclosethe
meeting).[4]However,itisclearfromthepassagewhichopensthischapterthatLacanaimsatsomethingmore.Performatifs
are,attheirmostfundamental,actsofsymbolictrustandengagement:whenIsaytosomeone"Youaremymaster!",Ioblige
myselftotreathiminacertainwayand,inthesamemove,Iobligehimtotreatmeinacertainway.Lacan'spointisthatwe
needthisrecoursetoperformativity,tothesymbolicengagement,preciselyandonlyinsofarastheotherwhomweconfrontis
notonlymymirrordouble,someonelikeme,butalsotheelusiveabsoluteOtherwhoultimatelyremainsanunfathomable
mystery.Themainfunctionofthesymbolicorderwithitslawsandobligationsistorenderourcoexistencewithothers
minimallybearable:aThirdhastostepinbetweenmeandmyneighborssothatourrelationsdonotexplodeinmurderous
violence.
Backinthe1960s,intheeraof"structuralism"(theoriesbasedonthenotionthatallhumanactivityisregulatedby
unconscioussymbolicmechanisms),LouisAlthusserlaunchedthenotoriousformulaof"theoreticalantihumanism,"
allowing,demandingeven,thatitbesupplementedbypracticalhumanism.Inourpractice,weshouldactashumanists,
respectingothers,treatingthemasfreepersonswithfulldignity,ascreatorsoftheirworld.However,intheory,weshould
alwaysbearinmindthathumanismisanideology,thewaywespontaneouslyexperienceourpredicament,andthatthetrue
knowledgeofhumansandtheirhistoryshouldtreatindividualsnotasautonomoussubjects,butaselementsinastructure
whichfollowsitsownlaws.IncontrasttoAlthusser,Lacanassertsthatwerecognizepracticalantihumanism,anethicsthat
goesbeyondthedimensionofwhatNietzschecalled"human,alltoohuman,"andconfronttheinhumancoreofhumanity.
Thismeansanethicswhichfearlesslytakesintoaccountthelatentmonstrosityofbeinghuman,thediabolicdimensionwhich
data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Ch1%20style%3D%22margin%3A%2015px%200px%3B%20padding%3A%200px%3B%20fontsize%3A%2018px%3B%20font

2/7

6/8/2015

SlavojZizekFromChevuoi?toFantasy

explodedinphenomenausuallycoveredbytheconceptname"Auschwitz".
PerhapsthebestwaytodescribethestatusofthisinhumandimensionoftheneighboriswithreferencetoKant'sphilosophy.
InhisCritiqueofPureReason,Kantintroducedakeydistinctionbetweennegativeandindefinitejudgment:thepositive
statement'thesoulismortal'canbenegatedintwoways.Wecaneitherdenyapredicate('thesoulisnotmortal'),oraffirma
nonpredicate('thesoulisnonmortal').Thedifferenceisexactlythesameastheone,knowntoeveryreaderofStephen
King,between'heisnotdead'and'heisundead'.Theindefinitejudgmentopensupathirddomainwhichunderminesthe
distinctionbetweendeadandnondead(alive):the'undead'areneitheralivenordead,theyarepreciselythemonstrous
'livingdead'.Andthesamegoesfor'inhuman':'heisnothuman'isnotthesameas'heisinhuman'.'Heisnothuman'means
simplythatheisexternaltohumanity,animalordivine,while'heisinhuman'meanssomethingthoroughlydifferent,namely
thefactthatheisneitherhumannorinhuman,butmarkedbyaterrifyingexcesswhich,althoughitnegateswhatwe
understandashumanity,isinherenttobeinghuman.And,perhaps,oneshouldriskthehypothesisthatthisiswhatchanges
withtheKantianphilosophicalrevolution:inthepreKantianuniverse,humansweresimplyhumans,beingsofreason,
fightingtheexcessesofanimallustsanddivinemadness,whilewithKant,theexcesstobefoughtisimmanentandconcerns
theverycoreofsubjectivityitself.(Whichiswhy,inGermanIdealism,themetaphorforthecoreofsubjectivityisNight,the
'NightoftheWorld',incontrasttotheEnlightenmentnotionoftheLightofReasonfightingthedarknessaround.)Inthepre
Kantianuniverse,whenaherogoesmad,heisdeprivedofhishumanityandanimalpassionsordivinemadnesstakeover.
WithKant,madnesssignalstheunconstrainedexplosionoftheverycoreofahumanbeing.
Howarewetoavoidthetraumaticimpactofthebeingtoodirectlyexposedtothisterrifyingabyssoftheother?Howareweto
copewiththeanxietyprovokingencounteroftheother'sdesire?ForLacan,fantasyprovidesananswertotheenigmaof
Other'sdesire.Thefirstthingtonoteaboutfantasyisthatitliterallyteachesushowtodesire:fantasydoesnotmeanthat,
whenIdesireastrawberrycakeandcannotgetitinreality,Ifantasizeabouteatingittheproblemisrather,howdoIknow
thatIdesireastrawberrycakeinthefirstplace?Thisiswhatfantasytellsme.Thisroleoffantasyhingesonthedeadlockof
oursexualitydesignatedbyLacaninhisparadoxicalstatement"thereisnosexualrelationship":thereisnouniversal
guaranteeofaharmonioussexualrelationshipwithone'spartner.Everysubjecthastoinventafantasyofhisorherown,a
"private"formulaforthesexualrelationshiptherelationshipwithawomanispossibleonlyinasmuchasthepartnerfitsthis
formula.
Acoupleofyearsago,Slovenefeministsreactedwithgreatoutcryatthepublicityposterofalargecosmeticsfactoryforsun
lotion,depictingaseriesofwelltannedwomen'sbehindsintightbathingsuites,accompaniedwiththelogo"Eachhasher
ownfactor."Ofcourse,thispublicitywasbasedonarathervulgardoubleentendre:thelogoostensiblyreferredtothesun
lotion,whichwasofferedtocustomerswithdifferentsunfactorssoastofitdifferentskintypeshowever,itsentireeffectwas
basedonitsobviousmalechauvinistreading:"Eachwomancanbehad,ifonlythemanknowsherfactor,herspecific
catalyst,whatarousesher!"TheFreudianviewpointisthateachsubject,femaleormale,possessessucha"factor"which
regulatesherorhisdesire:"awoman,viewedfrombehind,onherhandsandknees"wasthe"factor"forWolfman,Freud's
mostfamouspatientastatuelikewomanwithoutpubichairwasJohnRuskin'sfactor.Thereisnothingupliftingaboutour
awarenessofthisfactor:itisuncanny,horrifyingeven,sinceitsomehowdepossessesthesubject,reducingherorhimtoa
puppetlikelevelbeyonddignityandfreedom.
However,thethingtoaddimmediatelyisthatthedesirestagedinfantasyisnotthesubject'sown,buttheother'sdesire,the
desireofthosearoundmewithwhomIinteract:fantasy,thefantasmaticsceneorscenario,isananswerto"You'resaying
this,butwhatisitthatyoueffectivelywantbysayingit?"Theoriginalquestionofdesireisnotdirectly"WhatdoIwant?",but
"Whatdootherswantfromme?Whatdotheyseeinme?WhatamIfortheothers?"Asmallchildisembeddedinacomplex
networkofrelations,heservesasakindofcatalystandbattlefieldforthedesiresofthosearoundhimhisfather,mother,
brothersandsisters,unclesandaunts,whofighttheirbattlesaroundhim,themothersendingamessagetothefather
throughhercarefortheson.Whilebeingwellawareofthisrole,thechildcannotfathomwhat,precisely,anobjectheisfor
theothers,whattheexactnatureofthegamestheyareplayingwithhimis.Fantasyprovidesananswertothisenigma:atits
mostfundamental,fantasytellsmewhatIamformyothers.Thisintersubjectivecharacteroffantasyisdiscernibleeveninthe
mostelementarycases,liketheone,reportedbyFreud,ofhislittledaughterfantasizingabouteatingastrawberrycake:what
wehavehereisbynomeansthesimplecaseofthedirecthallucinatorysatisfactionofadesire(shewantedacake,didn'tget
it,soshefantasizedaboutit).Thecrucialfeatureisthat,whilevoraciouslyeatingastrawberrycake,thelittlegirlnoticedhow
herparentsweredeeplysatisfiedbyseeingherfullyenjoyingit.Whatthefantasyofeatingastrawberrycakereallywas
aboutwasherattempttoformsuchanidentity(oftheonewhofullyenjoyseatingacakegivenbytheparents)thatwould
satisfyherparentsandmakehertheobjectoftheirdesire.
Sincesexualityisthedomaininwhichwegetmostclosetotheintimacyofanotherhumanbeing,totallyexposingourselves
tohimorher,sexualenjoymentisrealforLacan:somethingtraumaticinitsbreathtakingintensity,somethingimpossiblein
thesensethatwecannotevermakesenseofit.Thisiswhyasexualrelation,inordertofunction,hastobescreenedthrough
somefantasy.RecalltheloveencounterbetweenSarahMilesandherillicitlover,theEnglishofficer,inDavidLean'sRyan's
Daughter:thedepictionofthesexualactinthemidstoftheforest,withwaterfallsoundssupposedtorendertheirsubdued
passion,cannotbutstrikeustodayasaridiculousbricabracofcliches.However,theroleofthepatheticsound
accompanimentisprofoundlyambiguous:bywayofemphasizingtheecstasyofthesexualact,thesesoundsinaway
derealizetheactanddeliverusoftheoppressiveweightofitsmassivepresence.Asmallmentalexperimentissufficientto
makethispointclear:letusimaginethat,inthemiddleofsuchapatheticrenderingofthesexualact,themusicwouldallofa
data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Ch1%20style%3D%22margin%3A%2015px%200px%3B%20padding%3A%200px%3B%20fontsize%3A%2018px%3B%20font

3/7

6/8/2015

SlavojZizekFromChevuoi?toFantasy

suddenbecutout,andallthatremainedwouldbequick,snappygestures,theirpainfulsilenceinterruptedbyoccasional
rattleandgroan,compellingustoconfronttheinertpresenceofthesexualact.Inshort,theparadoxofthescenefromRyan's
DaughteristhatthewaterfallsounditselffunctionsasthefantasmaticscreenobfuscatingtheRealofthesexualact.
ThesingingoftheInternationalinRedsplaysexactlythesameroleasthewaterfallsoundinRyan'sDaughter:theroleofthe
fantasmaticscreenwhichenablesustosustaintheRealofthesexualact.RedsintegratestheOctoberrevolution,themost
traumatichistoricaleventforHollywood,intotheHollywooduniverse,bystagingitasthemetaphoricalbackgroundforthe
sexualactbetweenthemovie'smaincharacters,JohnReed(playedbyBeattyhimself)andhislover(DianeKeaton).Inthe
film,theOctoberrevolutiontakesplaceimmediatelyafteracrisisintheirrelationship.Bydeliveringafiercerevolutionary
orationtothearousedcrowd,BeattymesmerizesKeatonthetwoexchangedesirousglances,andthecriesofthecrowd
serveasametaphorfortherenewedoutburstofpassion.Thecrucialmythicalscenesoftherevolution(street
demonstrations,thestormingoftheWinterPalace)alternatewiththedepictionofthecouple'slovemaking,againstthe
backgroundofthecrowdsingingtheInternational.Themassscenesfunctionasvulgarmetaphorsofthesexualact:whenthe
blackmassapproachesandencirclesthephallictramway,isthisnotametaphorforKeatonwho,inthesexualact,playsthe
activerole,ontopofBeatty?HerewehavetheexactoppositeoftheSovietsocialistrealismwhereloversexperiencetheir
loveasacontributiontothestruggleforsocialism,makingavowtosacrificealltheirprivatepleasuresforthesuccessofthe
revolutionandtodrownthemselvesinthemasses:inReds,onthecontrary,revolutionitselfappearsasametaphorforthe
successfulsexualencounter.
Thecommonwisdom,usuallyattributedtopsychoanalysis,aboutsexualityastheuniversalhiddenreferenceofeveryactivity
whateverwearedoing,weare"thinkingaboutthat"ishereinverted:itisrealsexitselfwhich,inordertobepalatable,has
tobesustainedbytheasexualscreenoftheOctoberrevolution.Insteadoftheproverbial"Closeyoureyesandthinkof
England!",wehavehere:"CloseyoureyesandthinkoftheOctoberRevolution!"Thelogicisthesameasthatofanative
Americantribewhosemembershavediscoveredthatalldreamshavesomehiddensexualmeaningall,excepttheovertly
sexualones:here,precisely,onehastolookforanothermeaning.(Inhisrecentlydiscoveredsecretdiaries,Wittgenstein
reportsthat,whilemasturbatingatthefrontduringWorldWarI,hewasthinkingaboutmathematicalproblems.)Anditisalso
thesameinreality,withsocalledrealsex:italsoneedssomefantasmaticscreen.Anycontactwithareal,fleshandblood
other,anysexualpleasurethatwefindintouchinganotherhumanbeing,isnotsomethingevident,butsomethinginherently
traumatic,andcanbesustainedonlyinsofarasthisotherentersthesubject'sfantasyframe.
What,then,isfantasyatitsmostelementary?Theontologicalparadox,scandaleven,offantasyresidesinthefactthatit
subvertsthestandardoppositionof"subjective"and"objective":ofcourse,fantasyisbydefinitionnotobjective(referringto
somethingthatexistsindependentlyofthesubject'sperceptions)however,itisalsonotsubjective(somethingthatbelongsto
thesubject'sconsciouslyexperiencedintuitions,theproductofhisorherimagination).Fantasyratherbelongstothe"bizarre
categoryoftheobjectivelysubjectivethewaythingsactually,objectivelyseemtoyoueveniftheydon'tseemthatwayto
you."[5]When,forexample,weclaimthatsomeonewhoisconsciouslywelldisposedtowardsJews,nonethelessharbors
profoundantiSemiticprejudicesheisnotconsciouslyawareof,dowenotclaimthat(insofarastheseprejudicesdonot
renderthewayJewsreallyare,butthewaytheyappeartohim)heisnotawarehowJewsreallyseemtohim?InMarch
2003,DonaldRumsfeldengagedinalittlebitofamateurphilosophizingabouttherelationshipbetweentheknownandthe
unknown:"Thereareknownknowns.Thesearethingsweknowthatweknow.Thereareknownunknowns.Thatistosay,
therearethingsthatweknowwedon'tknow.Buttherearealsounknownunknowns.Therearethingswedon'tknowwedon't
know."Whatheforgottoaddwasthecrucialfourthterm:the"unknownknowns,"thingswedon'tknowthatweknowwhichis
preciselytheFreudianunconscious,the"knowledgewhichdoesn'tknowitself,"asLacanusedtosay,thecoreofwhichis
fantasy.IfRumsfeldthinksthatthemaindangersintheconfrontationwithIraqarethe"unknownunknowns,"thethreatsfrom
Saddamaboutwhichwedonotevensuspectwhattheymaybe,whatweshouldreplyisthatthemaindangersare,onthe
contrary,the"unknownknowns,"thedisavowedbeliefsandsuppositionswearenotevenawareofadheringtoourselves,but
whichnonethelessdetermineouractsandfeelings.
ThisisalsooneofthewaysofspecifyingthemeaningofLacan'sclaimthatthesubjectisalways"decentered."Hispointis
notthatmysubjectiveexperienceisregulatedbyobjectiveunconsciousmechanismsthataredecenteredwithregardtomy
selfexperienceand,assuch,beyondmycontrol(apointassertedbyeverymaterialist),but,rather,somethingmuchmore
unsettling:Iamdeprivedofevenmymostintimatesubjectiveexperience,thewaythings"reallyseemtome,"thatofthe
fundamentalfantasythatconstitutesandguaranteesthecoreofmybeing,sinceIcanneverconsciouslyexperienceitand
assumeit.
Accordingtothestandardview,thedimensionthatisconstitutiveofsubjectivityisthatofphenomenal(self)experience:Iama
subjectthemomentIcansaytomyself,"Nomatterwhatunknownmechanismgovernsmyacts,perceptions,andthoughts,
nobodycantakefrommewhatIseeandfeelnow."Say,whenIampassionatelyinlove,andabiochemistinformsmethatall
myintensesentimentsarejusttheresultofbiochemicalprocessesinmybody,Icananswerhimbyclingingtothe
appearance:"Allthatyou'resayingmaybetrue,but,nonetheless,nothingcantakefrommetheintensityofthepassionthatI
amexperiencingnow..."Lacan'spoint,however,isthatthepsychoanalystistheonewho,precisely,cantakethisfromthe
subject:theanalyst'sultimateaimistodeprivethesubjectoftheveryfundamentalfantasythatregulatestheuniverseofhis
(self)experience.TheFreudiansubjectoftheunconsciousemergesonlywhenakeyaspectofthesubject's(self)experience
(hisfundamentalfantasy)becomesinaccessibletohim,primordiallyrepressed.Atitsmostradical,theunconsciousisthe
inaccessiblephenomenon,nottheobjectivemechanismsthatregulatesmyphenomenalexperience.So,incontrasttothe
data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Ch1%20style%3D%22margin%3A%2015px%200px%3B%20padding%3A%200px%3B%20fontsize%3A%2018px%3B%20font

4/7

6/8/2015

SlavojZizekFromChevuoi?toFantasy

commonplacethatwearedealingwithasubjectthemomentanentitydisplayssignsofinnerlife(ofafantasmaticexperience
thatcannotbereducedtoexternalbehavior),oneshouldclaimthatwhatcharacterizeshumansubjectivityproperis,rather,
thegapthatseparatesthetwo,namely,thefactthatfantasy,atitsmostelementary,becomesinaccessibletothesubject.Itis
thisinaccessibilitythatmakesthesubject"empty,"asLacanputit.
Wethusobtainarelationshipthattotallysubvertsthestandardnotionofthesubjectwhodirectlyexperienceshimselfviahis
innerstates:astrangerelationshipbetweentheempty,nonphenomenalsubjectandthephenomenathatremain
inaccessibletothesubject.Inotherwords,psychoanalysisallowsustoformulateaparadoxicalphenomenologywithouta
subjectphenomenaarisewhicharenotphenomenaofasubject,appearingtoasubject.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthe
subjectisnotinvolvedhereitis,but,precisely,inthemodeofexclusion,asdivided,astheagencywhichisnotableto
assumetheverycoreofhisorherinnerexperience.
Itispreciselythisparadoxicalstatusoffantasywhichbringsustotheultimatepointoftheirreconcilabledifferencebetween
psychoanalysisandfeminism,thatofrape(andthemasochisticfantasiessustainingit).Forstandardfeminism,atleast,itis
anaprioriaxiomthatrapeisaviolenceimposedfromwithout:evenifawomanfantasizesaboutbeingrapedorbrutally
mistreated,thisiseitheramalefantasyaboutwomenorawomandoesitinsofarasshe"internalized"thepatriarchallibidinal
economyandendorsedhervictimizationtheunderlyingideabeingthatthemomentwerecognizethisfactofdaydreaming
aboutrape,weopenthedoortothemalechauvinistplatitudesabouthow,inbeingraped,womenonlygetwhattheysecretly
wanted,andabouthowtheirshockandfearonlyexpressthefactthattheywerenothonestenoughtoacknowledgethis.So
themomentonementionsthatawomanmayfantasizeaboutbeingraped,onehearscries:'ThisislikesayingthatJews
fantasizeaboutbeinggassedinthecampsorAfricanAmericansfantasizeaboutbeinglynched!'Fromthisperspective,the
splithystericalpositionofthewoman(complainingaboutbeingsexuallymisusedandexploitedwhilesimultaneously
desiringitandprovokingmantoseduceher)issecondary,while,forFreud,thissplitisprimary,constitutiveofsubjectivity.
Thepracticalconclusionfromthisisthat,while(some)womeneffectivelymaydaydreamaboutbeingraped,thisfactnotonly
innowaylegitimizestheactualrapeitmakesitevenmoreviolent.Letustaketwowomen,thefirst,liberatedandassertive,
activetheother,secretlydaydreamingaboutbeingbrutallyhandledbyherpartner,evenraped.Thecrucialpointisthat,if
bothofthemareraped,therapewillbemuchmoretraumaticforthesecondone,onaccountoftheveryfactthatitwillrealize
in"external"socialrealitythe"stuffofherdreams".Thereisagapwhichforeverseparatesthefantasmatickernelofthe
subject'sbeingfromthemoresuperficialmodesofhisorhersymbolicorimaginaryidentifications.Itisneverpossibleforme
tofullyassume(inthesenseofsymbolicintegration)thefantasmatickernelofmybeing:whenIapproachittoomuch,whenI
cometooclosetoit,whatoccursiswhatLacancallsaphanisis(theselfobliteration)ofthesubject:thesubjectloseshis/her
symbolicconsistency,itdisintegrates.And,perhaps,theforcedactualizationinsocialrealityitselfofthefantasmatickernelof
mybeingistheworst,mosthumiliatingkindofviolence,aviolencewhichunderminestheverybasisofmyidentity(ofmyself
image).[6]Consequently,theproblemwithrape,inFreud'sview,isthatithassuchatraumaticimpactnotsimplybecauseitis
acaseofbrutalexternalviolence,butbecauseitalsotouchesonsomethingdisavowedinthevictimherself.So,whenFreud
writes,'Ifwhat/subjects/longformostintenselyintheirphantasiesispresentedtotheminreality,theynonethelessfleefrom
it,'[7]hispointisnotmerelythatthisoccursbecauseofcensorship,but,rather,becausethecoreofourfantasyisunbearable
tous.
Acoupleofyearsago,acharmingpublicityspotforabeerwasshownontheBritishTV.Itsfirstpartstagedthewellknown
fairytaleanecdote:agirlwalksalongastream,seesafrog,takesitgentlyintoherlap,kissesit,and,ofcourse,theuglyfrog
miraculouslyturnsintoabeautifulyoungman.However,thestorywasn'toveryet:theyoungmancastsacovetousglanceat
thegirl,drawshertowardshimself,kissesherandsheturnsintoabottleofbeerwhichthemanholdstriumphantlyinhis
hand.Forthewoman,thepointisthatherloveandaffection(signalledbythekiss)turnafrogintoabeautifulman,afull
phallicpresencefortheman,itistoreducethewomantoapartialobject,thecauseofhisdesire(theobjetpetita).On
accountofthisasymmetry,thereisnosexualrelationship:wehaveeitherawomanwithafrogoramanwithabottleofbeer.
Whatwecanneverobtainisthenaturalcoupleofthebeautifulwomanandman:thefantasmaticsupportofthisidealcouple
wouldhavebeenthefigureofafrogembracingabottleofbeeraninconsistentfigurewhich,insteadofguaranteeingthe
harmonyofthesexualrelationship,renderspalpableitsridiculousdiscord.[8]Thisopensupthepossibilityofundermining
theholdafantasyexertsoverusthroughtheveryoveridentificationwithit:bywayofembracingsimultaneously,withinthe
samespace,themultitudeofinconsistentfantasmaticelements.Thatistosay,eachofthetwosubjectsisinvolvedinhisor
herownsubjectivefantasizingthegirlfantasizesaboutthefrogwhoisreallyayoungman,themanaboutthegirlwhois
reallyabottleofbeer.Whatmodernartandwritingopposetothisisnotobjectiverealitybutthe"objectivelysubjective"
underlyingfantasywhichthetwosubjectsareneverabletoassume,somethingsimilartoaMagrittesquepaintingofafrog
embracingabottleofbeer,withatitle"Amanandawoman"or"Theidealcouple".(Theassociationwiththefamous
surrealist"deaddonkeyonapiano"isherefullyjustified,sincesurrealistsalsopracticizedsuchoveridentificationwith
inconsistentfantasies.)Andisthisnottheethicaldutyoftoday'sartisttoconfrontuswiththefrogembracingthebottleof
beerwhenwearedaydreamingofembracingourbeloved?Inotherwords,tostagefantasieswhichareradically
desubjectivized,whichcannoteverbeassumedbythesubject?
Thisbringsustoafurthercrucialcomplication:ifwhatweexperienceas'reality'isstructuredbyfantasy,andiffantasyserves
asthescreenthatprotectsusfrombeingdirectlyoverwhelmedbytherawReal,thenrealityitselfcanfunctionasanescape
fromencounteringtheReal.Intheoppositionbetweendreamandreality,fantasyisatthesideofreality,anditisindreams
thatweencounterthetraumaticRealitisnotthatdreamsareforthosewhocannotendurereality,realityitselfisforthose
data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Ch1%20style%3D%22margin%3A%2015px%200px%3B%20padding%3A%200px%3B%20fontsize%3A%2018px%3B%20font

5/7

6/8/2015

SlavojZizekFromChevuoi?toFantasy

whocannotendure(theRealthatanouncesitselfin)theirdreams.ThisisthelessonLacandrawsfromthefamousdream,
reportedbyFreudinhisInterpretationofDreams,dreamtbythefatherwhofallsasleepwhilekeepingtheguardofhisson's
coffininthisdream,hisdeadsonappearstohim,pronouncingtheterribleappeal'Father,can'tyouseethatIamburning?'
Whenthefatherawakens,hediscoversthattheclothontheson'scoffincaughtfire,sinceoneoftheburningcandlesfell
down.Sowhydidthefatherawaken?Wasitbecausethesmellofthesmokegottoostrong,sothatitwasnolongerpossible
toprolongthesleepbywayofincludingitintotheimproviseddream?Lacanproposesamuchmoreinterestingreading:
Ifthefunctionofthedreamistoprolongsleep,ifthedream,afterall,maycomesoneartotherealitythatcausesit,canwenot
saythatitmightcorrespondtothisrealitywithoutemergingfromsleep?Afterall,thereissuchathingassomnambulistic
activity.Thequestionthatarises,andwhichindeedallFreud'spreviousindicationsallowusheretoproduce,isWhatisit
thatwakesthesleeper?Isitnot,inthedream,anotherreality?therealitythatFreuddescribesthusDassdasKindan
seinemBettesteht,thatthechildisnearhisbed,ihnamArmefasst,takeshimbythearmandwhisperstohimreproachfully,
undihmvorwurfsvollzuraunt:Vater,siehstdudennnicht,Father,can'tyousee,dassichverbrenne,thatIamburning?
Istherenotmorerealityinthismessagethaninthenoisebywhichthefatheralsoidentifiesthestrangerealityofwhatis
happeningintheroomnextdoor?Isnotthemissedrealitythatcausedthedeathofthechildexpressedinthesewords?[9]
Soitwasnottheintrusionofthesignalfromexternalrealitythatawakenedtheunfortunatefather,buttheunbearably
traumaticcharacterofwhatheencounteredinthedreaminsofarasdreaming'meansfantasizinginordertoavoid
confrointingtheReal,thefatherliterallyawakenedsothathecouldgoondreaming.Thescenariowasthefollowingone:
whenhissleepwasdisturbedbythesmoke,thefatherquicklyconstructedadreamwhichincorporatedthedisturbing
element(smokefire)inordertoprolonghissleephowever,whatheconfrontedinthedreamwasatrauma(ofhis
responsibilityfortheson'sdeath)muchstrongerthanreality,soheawakenedintorealityinordertoavoidtheReal.
Incontemporaryart,weencounteroftenbrutalattemptstoreturntothereal',toremindthespectator(orreader)thatheis
perceivingafiction,toawakenhimfromthesweetdream.Thisgesturehastwomainformswhich,althoughopposed,amount
tothesame.Inliteratureorcinema,thereare(especiallyinpostmoderntexts)selfreflexiveremindersthatwhatweare
watchingisamerefiction,liketheactorsonscreenaddressingdirectlyusasspectators,thusruiningtheillusionofthe
autonomousspaceofthenarrativefiction,orthewriterdirectlyinterveningintothenarrativethroughironiccommentsin
theatre,thereareoccasionalbrutaleventswhichawakenustotherealityofthestage(likeslaughteringachickenonstage).
InsteadofconferringonthesegesturesakindofBrechtiandignity,perceivingthemasversionsofextraneation,oneshould
ratherdenouncethemforwhattheyare:theexactoppositeofwhattheyclaimtobeescapesfromtheReal,desperate
attemptstoavoidtherealoftheillusionitself,theRealthatemergesintheguiseofanillusoryspectacle.
Whatweconfronthereisthefundamentalambiguityofthenotionoffantasy:whilefantasyisthescreenwhichprotectsus
fromtheencounterwiththeReal,fantasyitself,atitsmostfundamentalwhatFreudcalledthe"fundamentalfantasy,"which
providesthemostelementarycoordinatesofthesubject'scapacitytodesirecannoteverbesubjectivized,andhastoremain
repressedinordertobeoperative.RecallStanleyKubrick'sEyesWideShut,theapparentlyvulgarconclusionofthefilm,
when,afterTomCruiseconfesseshisnightlyadventuretoNicoleKidmanandtheyarebothconfrontedwiththeexcessof
theirfantasizing,Kidmanuponascertainingthatnowtheyarefullyawakened,backintotheday,andthat,ifnotforever,at
leastforalongtime,theywillstaythere,keepingthefantasyatbaytellshimthattheymustdosomethingassoonas
possible."What?"heasks,andheransweris:"Fuck."Endofthefilm,finalcredits.Thenatureofthepassageal'acte
("passagetotheact")asthefalseexit,asthewaytoavoidconfrontingthehorrorofthefantasmaticnetherworld,wasneverso
abruptlystatedinafilm:farfromprovidingthemwithareallifebodilysatisfactionthatwouldrendersuperfluousempty
fantasizing,thepassagetotheactispresentedasastopgap,asadesperatepreventivemeasureaimedatkeepingatbay
thespectralnetherworldoffantasies.Itisasifhermessageis:let'sfuckassoonaspossibleinordertostiflethethriving
fantasies,beforetheyoverwhelmusagain.Lacan'squipaboutawakeningintorealityasanescapefromthereal
encounteredinthedreamholdsmorethananywhereaproposofthesexualactitself:wedonotdreamaboutfuckingwhen
wearenotabletodoitweratherfuckinordertoescapeandstifletheexcessivenatureofthedreamthatwouldotherwise
overwhelmus.ForLacan,theultimateethicaltaskisthatofthetrueawakening:notonlyfromsleep,butfromthespellof
fantasywhichcontrolsusevenmorewhenweareawake.
Notes:
[1]Lacan,J.,TheSeminarofJacquesLacan,BookIII:ThePsychoses,London:Routledge1981,p.48.
[2]Lacan,J.,crits:ASelection,NewYork:W.W.Norton,1981.
[3]GuillermoArriaga,21Grams,London:FaberandFaber2003,p.107.
[4]ThelinkbetweenLacanandJ.L.Austin,theauthorofthenotionofperformative,wasEmileBenveniste.
[5]DanielC.Dennett,ConsciousnessExplained,NewYork:Little,BrownandCompany1991,p.132.
[6]Thisisalsothereasonwhymenwhoactuallyperformrapesdonotfantasizeaboutrapingwomenonthecontrary,they
data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Ch1%20style%3D%22margin%3A%2015px%200px%3B%20padding%3A%200px%3B%20fontsize%3A%2018px%3B%20font

6/7

6/8/2015

SlavojZizekFromChevuoi?toFantasy

fantasizeaboutbeinggentle,aboutfindingalovingpartnerrapeisratheraviolentpassageal'acteemergingfromtheir
incapacitytofindsuchapartnerinreallife.
[7]SigmundFreud,Dora:AnAnalysisofaCaseofHysteria,NewYork:Macmillan1963,p.101.
[8]Ofcourse,theobviousfeministpointwouldbethatwhatwomenwitnessintheireverydayloveexperienceisratherthe
oppositepassage:onekissesabeautifulyoungmanand,afteronegetstooclosetohim,i.e.whenitisalreadytoolate,one
noticesthatheiseffectivelyafrog.
[9]Lacan,J.,TheFourFundamentalConceptsofPsychoAnalysis,Harmondsworth:PenguinBooks1979,p.5758.

data:text/htmlcharset=utf8,%3Ch1%20style%3D%22margin%3A%2015px%200px%3B%20padding%3A%200px%3B%20fontsize%3A%2018px%3B%20font

7/7