CULTUROLOGICAL INTENSIONS OF LACANIAN PSYCHOANALYTIC CONCEPT OF A SUBJECT

Abstract

The article analyses culturological intensions of lacanian psychoanalytic concept of a subject, inserted in philosopho-antropological project of contemporary postmodern culture. By declaring death of a classic subject in its logocentrical, elite and romantic interpretations, this concept puts into the forefront depersonalized presentation of cultural senses. According to it, the subjectivity is decomposed in a semiotic space of a language. The basis of lacanian subjectivity becomes a category of fundamental abruption, wherefore it is antithesized not only to the concept of R. Descartes "subject cogito", but also to S. Freud’s "subject desidero". It is important that is the fact that it was Lacan who parted psychoanalysis from clinical practice and assigned it a status of "pure" philosophy. Taking this into consideration, the name of J. Lacan on a par with J. Derrida, M. Foucault, G. Deleuze, G. Bataille, M. Blanchot, R. Barthes, F. Guattari, J-F. Lyotard, J. Baudrillard, J. Kristeva, J-L. Nancy etc. has become the centre of cultural and philosophical research.

Basing on a thesis that the unconscious is structured identically to language and appears to be the language of the Other, psychoanalytical concept of J. Lacan suggests that in order for the structure of unconscious processes to be correctly unraveled, linguistic analysis of language and its tools must be previously performed. He assumes that, same as in language, composition of the unconscious is based on specific language elements. Though insensible by humans, they widely participate in occurrence and development of psychical processes. J. Lacan places desire into semiotic field where it originates specific discursive and cultural practices instead of being source of inferiority complexes (as according to S.Freud). This field becomes a place of intersection for different symbolic structures and at the same time it is exposed to forces of the unconscious. According to J. Lacan interaction point is represented by subject, interpreted as symbolic linguistic consciousness never identical to itself. As opposed to R. Descartes’s "concept cogito" (conscious subject concept), J. Lacan emphasizes on "speaker" (talking subject). Describing linguistic condition of the unconscious, J. Lacan expresses an idea about existence of two forms of subjectivity: subject of speech and state of its objectivation – imaginary narcissus subject. Researcher controverts S. Freud’s theory about substantiality of the unconscious, as it does not represent any "real place" and all attempts to define it result in its loss. Reinterpretation of Freudian ego transformed it into split subject influenced by desire, narcissism and aggression. "The I" of J. Lacan is doomed to constant selfsearch. According to J. Lacan human psyche components are "Real – Imaginary – Symbolic" as opposed to Freudian mental structure "The It" – ‘The I" – "The Over-I". J. Lacan emphasizes precisely on cooperationof imaginary (lack of which brings to naught subjective illusionary synthesis) and symbolic, presented by objective language and cultural mechanism. In the opinion of J. Lacan subject should be regarded at the intersection of different symbolic forms, as it exists in perpetual swirl of alienations and sublimations. Freudian Oedipus complex that serves to relief subject acquiring cultural status in order to become "the agent of symbolic order" and gain access to the world of culture, language and civilization, is also interpreted by J. Lacan in another way. It is proved that lacanian psychoanalytic discourse turns into conceptual tool used for postmodernism culture analysis that extensively utilizes researcher’s idea on verbal articulation of any form of the unconscious. Lacanian interpretation of subject as self-contradictory occurrence on the permanent edge of collapse, breaking and deformation is mostly maintained by virtue of J. Kristeva. In the same spirit of lacanian beliefs J. Derrida declares text the only possible model of reality. He researches it from a perspective of indication of inexpressible that deconstructs uncompromising logos relativizing it. J. Derrida’s phallocentric concept is closely related to J. Lacan’s teaching of phallus as "the main indicator" of consistency that appears an attribute of power and at the same time symbolizes an urge to merge with the Other.

Consequently we can univocally assert that J. Lacan’s work seamlessly fits into changeable context of modern cultural world. It showed significant influence on development of postmodernism subjectivity inseparably connected to self-will of the cultural unconscious, loss of centre, work of imagination becoming law of pulpating desire, process of difference of signs and sign graphs. Cancellation of reference, representation and conceptual role as a basis of European logocentrizm in structured-semiotic search of J. Lacan makes room for elements of affect, desire, fortuity, consecution of multiple determinants and identifiables existing in discourse division. J. Lacan’s valuable merit is "debiologization" of human consciousness. From now on the unconscious considers related to culture and socialization rather than to biological demands.