Lacan emphasized the power of words and the impact of language on the mind. Western societies have long cultivated words to conform to ideological and political demands. What might Lacan have to say about the current focus on changing the meanings of terms or mandating the use of new terms?

Word usage is not trivial. It affects the way we think. Changing our word usage may broaden and/or restrict our thought processes. Mandating a change in word choice could be helpful in promoting desirable social reform; it could also precipitate a dangerous path toward the suppression of thought. These are issues that deserve considerable thought, especially in today’s climate of rapid social change.

There are many words that can be offensive, provocative, obscene, or painful to the mind of the listener. Implicit in words are meanings that have cultural histories and preconscious associations. Language scholars have long debated whether words constrain a native speaker’s thoughts or merely influence the patterns of conventional speech. Much of common language usage includes catchphrases, cliches, or slogans. While these forms of speech are handy shorthand, they are often used reflexively without much thought to their implicit bias, presuppositions, or prejudice.

While we may initially learn our language through mimicry and modeling, over time we take the language as our own. As we internalize and appropriate the language of our culture, our words also become a constraint as to what can be expressed or even consciously thought. We also learn that some words are less acceptable than others and thus must be suppressed in favor of social propriety. Censuring expletives and racial or ethnic slurs are typical examples of the admonitions parents impose on their children to teach them how to be better citizens.

Lacan emphasized the power of words–let’s consider what he might have to say about the power of words and their source. Lacan wrote about four discourses and identified four contexts within which the discourses play out, each nuancing a different form of control and conformity imposed upon the Subject. In each discursive context the Subject’s engagement with the Other influences the mind of the Subject in accordance with the Other’s authority. This influence centers around the social construction of words, their meaning, and their history. Whereas the shared usage of words is essential for interpersonal communication, words also impose a limiting structure on the mind of the Subject; hence the subjugation of thought through the control and conformity derived from a shared language.

The University discourse metaphorically describes a fundamental relationship that all persons in a society experience as part of being educated about truths, values, and facts. The authority of the University is beyond that of any individual and serves as the prototype for all bureaucracy, education, and government.

The Master discourse represents a relationship based on the governing rules imposed by persons of authority such as parents and teachers, who position themselves to command social conformity.

The Hysteric discourse refers to the inevitable neurotic position that individuals are subjected to regarding their attempt to express individuality and subjective experience. The private reality of the Subject can be subordinated to the Other’s authority, leading to neurotic compromises for the Subject’s subjective truth, i.e., the Hysteric position. One’s idiosyncratic use of words in the form of symptoms signifies a disguised expression of the subjective truth.

Finally, the Analyst discourse refers to the relationship that strives to give credence and support to the subordinated self of the Subject so as to provide awareness, acceptance, and dignity regarding one’s uniqueness. The task of the Analyst is to allow for the subjective truth to be spoken, along with the guilt and shame arising from its potential conflict with social dictates.

In each of these discourses, the emphasis is on how the influence of language serves as a critical factor for the shaping of the mind. When discourse occurs in the context of some authoritative Other, language use is controlled by the Other by virtue of that authority.

Lewis Carroll satirically anticipated the current linguistic controversy in Alice in Wonderland’s Through the Looking Glass, through the philosophy of Humpty Dumpty. Lacan, like Humpty Dumpty, recognized the power of words and of their source:

‘“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

 “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”’ (Carroll, 2000, p. 213)

Who is the master? Who is the master that gets to decide what words shall mean and how is it that this master has attained the authority to dictate meaning? These are not trivial questions.

Aligned with Lacan’s view on the power of words, in George Orwell’s cautionary novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four (written in 1948), Newspeak was introduced as a prescient language that was imposed upon the populace to strategically erase undesirable social issues. Old words were banned as if they were heretical to the prevailing ruling class, while new words were invented to reshape how reality was supposed to be known. As Orwell described it:

“Newspeak was the official language of Oceania and had to be devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism… It was expected that Newspeak would have finally superseded Oldspeak … by about the year 2050…

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought—that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc—should be literally unthinkable, at least as far as thought is dependent on words. … The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. … Newspeak was designed not to extend, but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.” (Orwell, 1990, Appendix)

A United States Supreme Court justice claimed, during her confirmation hearing, that she could not define what a woman is, and instead referred the question to the authority of biologists. Should science, then, be the master? Modern societies have long revered science as the harbinger of truth, as demonstrated through rigorous experimentation and hypothesis testing. The products of this methodology are “facts” that can be reliably accepted, that is, until they are questioned by still more investigation and testing. Science certainly has the license to coin new words to identify new phenomena (e.g., quarks, black holes, dark matter, etc.) or to redefine a planet (e.g., Pluto).

Psychology as an institution, likewise, creates and defines words that objectify human experience via the authority of the current DSM. Psychologists catalog an ever-expanding compendium of terms for mental disorders that redefines a patient’s private idiosyncratic experience into an objectified set of labels that one then seeks to mitigate. A person’s suffering, longings, fears, and misery are reorganized in terms such as psychoses, depressions, or personality disorders, where they are explored as though they could be homogenized as entities separate from the person. Addictions, for instance, can be defined neurologically as a dopamine rush rather than the subjective belief that one can control external outcomes. Depression can be similarly defined as a serotonin deficiency.  By objectifying the patient, their subjective mind is described with a preset list of authorized objective conditions. Whereas some may find it comforting to abdicate their misery and suffering to circumstances beyond their control, such resignation erases one’s personal history, autonomy, agency, and, perhaps, dignity.

While the influence and control from various social authorities may be inevitable, an individual can claim their own authority to dispute, challenge, and reject that which conflicts with who they know themselves to be. Adaptation, growth, and maturity are not passive processes, but rather require the embracing of and respect for differences and the courage to speak for oneself.

Lacan emphasized the power of words and the impact of language on the mind. He would argue that words matter, as does the source of their evolution. Who will claim the power to determine the words and retain the power by having determined the words? Something to think about…

Interested in learning more about Lacan? The following blog posts and courses may be helpful: How Lacan’s Theory Can Be Helpful in Psychotherapy (blog), Jacques Lacan: A Real, Imaginary, and Symbolic Psychoanalyst (blog), Jacques Lacan: Introductory Overview (4 CE Credits), and Lacan-Inspired Psychotherapy (4 CE Credits). 

Citations

Carroll, L. (2000). The Annotated Alice: The Definitive Edition (The Annotated Books). W.W. Norton & Company.

Orwell, G. (1990). Nineteen Eighty-Four. Penguin UK.

Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies is approved by the American Psychological Association to sponsor continuing education for psychologists. Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies maintains responsibility for the program and its content.

Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies also offers a Certificate of Advanced Study in Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy. All online and completed at your convenience. Learn more at: www.psychstudies.net/specialization-certificates

How Lacan’s theory can be helpful in psychotherapy may not be obvious and is often overlooked.

The theories and concepts of French psychoanalyst, Jacques Lacan, are considered by many as among the most significant contributions to psychoanalytic thinking and praxis since Freud; yet his work is largely unknown to many American psychotherapists. Lacan is mostly known in the US in terms of applications to literary criticism and socio-political theory, and those who are familiar with Lacan typically describe his contributions as intriguing, but esoteric and enigmatic. Much has been written regarding Lacan’s philosophical, political, and mathematical influences, but many Lacanian theorists have adopted an obscure and cryptic style, perhaps in homage to the master. Discussions have tended to be abstract and esoteric, making their practical application to psychotherapy difficult. Whereas Lacan’s concepts are complex, both philosophically and logically, my reading of his work suggests that he sought to promote creative and relevant applications by clinicians. Lacan’s theory can be helpful in psychotherapy–his constructs can be helpful in guiding one’s thinking in the clinical process.

Let me be clear—I do not consider myself to be a “Lacanian,” nor do I apply his concepts in what some may consider an “orthodox” manner. Rather, as a practicing psychoanalyst and psychologist of over 35 years, I have sought to integrate the wisdom from many theories and mentors. Lacan’s writings, published as Écrits, include discussions of art, literature, religion, culture, philosophy, and music, all as expressions of the human experience that are essential for venturing into a serious consideration of the psyche.

My original attraction to Lacan came from my interest in psycholinguistics. As linguistic creatures, our conscious thoughts are structured by our language. Lacan, perhaps more than any other psychoanalytic theorist, emphasized the role and function of language as the organizer of the mind.

Language serves as a vehicle for communicating subjective experience into a shared collective objectivity. In speaking, the person enacts their language to externalize what is intuitively known internally. This externalization is always an approximation of the internal known, and thus constitutes a compromise formation. In this way, speech is symptomatic of the unconscious since this linguistic translation is an approximation, adapting the subjective into the objective, with some aspect of that private experience being lost and changed in translation. The important question for psychotherapy is, what is being approximated? For Lacan, the answer is the patient’s personal truth. The speaker (Subject) works toward expressing a personal private truth by speaking in a language that is not their own but is required to be used for social discourse. The fact that all participants of that language/speech process are expected to use their language conventionally makes neurosis inevitable.

The enactment of language through speech or conscious thought must always be considered in a relational context, or discourse. Lacan proposes a psychologically-based model of social discourse that is informed by structural linguistics, political theory, and psychoanalysis.  He offers four structures that are contexts in a social exchange. These four structures are his discourses of Master, University, Hysteric, and Analyst, which serve as archetypal categories for social relations. Lacan’s discourses are comprised of a Subject, as the agent who initiates the communication, and an Object, as the “Other” who serves to complement the dialectic. When engaging in speech, the Subject’s motivation is an unconscious derivative of a subjective truth. This truth is “known,” but ineffable. Through the dialectical exchange with the Other, a product in the form of a verbal response is created by the Other for the Subject. In this way, the Subject’s truth is named by the language of the Other. By naming the Subject’s truth, one is subjugated into a social order that compromises the Subject in accordance with social convention. As was stated earlier, the process of socialization necessitates compromise and thereby ensures a degree of self-alienation.

Each of the four discourses establishes a variant in the dialectic between the person and others. The intent behind psychoanalysis becomes the empowerment of the person as their own master, without the necessity for the subordination by another. Lacan confers upon psychoanalysis an ethical directive to allow the patient the authority to know their self. Lacan’s theory is helpful in psychotherapy even through its emphasis of this directive.

This pursuit is different from a medical or scientific agenda where the removal of symptoms is the goal. Symptoms and complaints expressed by the patient are respected as statements attempting to speak a personal, private truth known only to the patient, but repressed from speech owing to the inadequacy of language. The medical agenda for reducing or eliminating symptoms is at complete odds with Lacanian therapy. Emotional suffering, in this regard, demands understanding by and for the patient alone. Implicit in this suffering lies a passion and desire that eludes direct linguistic expression, yet may be knowable from recognizing the limits set by language. Herein lies the neurotic dilemma of speaking the unspeakable to another who is likewise a divided self.

Another of Lacan’s contributions to the understanding of the mind is the mental registers: Real, Imaginary, and Symbolic. These registers can, I believe, be thought of as forms of information created by the mind that together form knowledge. These mental registers add another degree of complexity in understanding the human experience. Lacan was most concerned with the phenomenological over a mechanical or biological understanding of mental experience. His mental registers can be thought to emphasize a multileveled nesting of mental processes that could provide a framework for appreciating the humanness of the mind.

It is important to reiterate that the focus of treatment is the patient in relationship to others. This position is in contradistinction to those forms of psychotherapy aimed at altering psychic structures such as the ego and its defenses or in working toward the targeting of specific symptoms. Lacan adopted an epistemological stance consistent with systems theories. From this position, a patient’s psychic conflict arises from an effort to preserve sanity in the context of living among others. Contemporary clinical psychology and American psychoanalysis tend toward promoting change in the patient by addressing diagnosed psychopathological conditions that are constellations of symptoms. The current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5) and other nosological systems such as the International Classification of Diseases by the World Health Organization (ICD-10), give primacy to the disease (disorder) and secondarily to the patient wherein it is thought to manifest.

I have found that Lacan’s key concepts are helpful in understanding and guiding the therapeutic process. As clinicians, our primary tool for treating patients is rooted in our use of language to communicate and approximate understanding. Understanding, itself, is a lifelong pursuit that may be fundamental to the mind and our sanity. Lacan’s theory can be helpful in psychotherapy.

Interested in learning more about Lacan? See Lacan on the Power of Words (blog), Jacques Lacan: A Real, Imaginary, and Symbolic Psychoanalyst (blog), Lacan – Inspired Psychotherapy (4 CE Credits) (online course), and Jacques Lacan: Introductory Overview (4 CE Credits) (online course).

Interested in earning a Certificate of Advanced Study in Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy?  Simply complete 48 CE credits with our psychoanalytic courses, including at least three course courses. Entirely online, accessible 24/7, and paced at your convenience.

The Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies is approved by the American Psychological Association to sponsor continuing education for psychologists. The Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies maintains responsibility for this program and its content.

Jacques Lacan: A Real, Imaginary, and Symbolic Psychoanalyst 

As a practicing psychoanalyst for the past 30-plus years, I have sought to integrate the wisdom from many mentors. My supervisors and training analyst guided me through the collected works of Freud, Klein, Winnicott, and Spotnitz. While writing my doctoral dissertation on clinical psycholinguistics, I learned of the work of Jacques Lacan, a French psychoanalyst.

The more I read of Lacan’s ideas, the more fascinated I became with his unique take on the role of language for shaping the mind and the practice of psychoanalysis. Equally intriguing were the stories about Lacan, the man, who fought to promote a view of psychoanalysis that dared to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy of the psychoanalytic establishment.

Psychoanalysis has been fraught with in-fighting, exclusiveness, and dogmatism since its inception, which bears an embarrassing irony toward unresolved Oedipal feuds. Fortunately, my training had encouraged an appreciation for psychoanalysis as one of the humanities. Art, literature, religion, culture, philosophy, and music are all expressions of the human experience that are essential for venturing into a serious consideration of the psyche. Lacan’s masterpiece, simply titled, Écrits, included discussions of all of these topics and more.

Certainly his writing is dense and difficult; yet, I found it compelling as a source of provocative ideas and observations. A learned colleague once warned me that life is too short to read Lacan. In fact, most of my colleagues have shared similar negative biases, although they had never read his work themselves and relied, instead, on second- and third-hand critiques. Like most contemporary textbooks on psychology that summarily dismiss Freud out of ignorance or misinformation, these colleagues were content to preserve their allegiance to a particular school of thought.

Some Lacanian theorists have since become a somewhat esoteric group in the US, often adopting an obscure and cryptic style, perhaps in homage to the master. Whereas Lacan’s concepts are complex, both philosophically and logically, my reading of his work suggests that he sought to promote creative and relevant applications by clinicians, not to develop sycophants.

As an addition to Freud’s structural model of the mind consisting of the Id, Ego, and Superego, Lacan proposed that our subjective experience is contextualized with regard to how phenomena become registered in the mind. He identified three constituent contexts for the mind: the Real, the Imaginary, and the Symbolic. Broadly described, the Real is fundamentally a derivative of our senses, the Imaginary is derived from perceptual and fantasied mental processes, and the Symbolic is derived from culture and through language. These registers function as interlocking systems of knowing that collectively form one’s sense of awareness.

With the premise of these mental registers, I will attempt to describe Lacan himself. The Real Lacan was a man trained as a psychiatrist in the first half of the twentieth century. He appeared as an intellectual and scholar who studied philosophy, art, science, medicine, and politics, as well as psychoanalysis. His personality is described as intense, passionate, and charismatic. Reportedly, he successfully obtained the release of his wife from Nazi custody by charging into Gestapo offices and demanding her immediate release.

The Imaginary Lacan is the one we know as we read his words. The thoughts and questions that emerge as the reader forms associations to his ideas and through his playful use of words that tease us to push our thinking a bit further.

The Symbolic Lacan is a provocateur of psychological theory. The word “Lacanian” has come to represent courageous and radical commitment to understanding the depth and vastness of the human condition, with full acceptance of the impossibility and ineffability of that task.

Whereas Lacan is mostly known in the US in terms of applications to literary criticism and socio-political theory, he is considered one of the most influential psychoanalytic thinkers in Europe and South America. Regardless of the difficulty that some of his ideas pose, the questions he raises about self-authenticity and one’s capacity to retain sanity in a civilized society has never been more timely.

To learn more about Lacan’s theory in a reading, Jacques Lacan: Introductory Overview (4 CE Credits), provides an article written by an expert on his theory. For a briefer overview of his theory and a more practical discussion of how it may be applied in psychotherapy, see the video course, Lacan – Inspired Psychotherapy (4 CE Credits).

You may also be interested in the following blogs: Lacan on the Power of Words and Jacques Lacan: A Real, Imaginary, and Symbolic Psychoanalyst.

Interested in earning a Certificate of Advanced Study in Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy?  Simply complete 48 CE credits with our psychoanalytic courses, including at least three course courses. Entirely online, accessible 24/7, and paced at your convenience. See www.psychstudies.net/specialization-certificates for more information.

The Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies is approved by the American Psychological Association to sponsor continuing education for psychologists. The Institute of Advanced Psychological Studies maintains responsibility for this program and its content.