From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|Full name||Jacques Lacan|
|Born||April 13, 1901|
|Died||September 9, 1981|
|Notable ideas||Mirror Stage,
|Part of a series of articles on
Conscious • Preconscious • Unconscious
Id, ego, and super-ego
Libido • Drive
Transference • Ego defenses • Resistance
Jacques-Marie-Émile Lacan (French pronounced [ʒak lakɑ̃]) (April 13, 1901 – September 9, 1981) was a French psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who made prominent contributions to psychoanalysis, philosophy, and literary theory. He gave yearly seminars, in Paris, from 1953 to 1981, mostly influencing France’s intellectuals in the 1960s and the 1970s, especially the post-structuralist philosophers. His interdisciplinary work is Freudian, featuring the unconscious, the castration complex, the ego; identification; and language as subjective perception, and thus he figures in critical theory, literary studies, twentieth-century French philosophy, and clinical psychoanalysis.
 Early life
Lacan was born in Paris, the eldest of Emilie and Alfred Lacan’s three children. His father was a successful soap and oils salesman. His mother was ardently Catholic, the younger brother went to a monastery in 1929; Lacan attended the Jesuit Collège Stanislas. During the early 1920s, Lacan attended right-wing Action Française political meetings and met the founder, Charles Maurras. By the mid-1920s, Lacan had become dissatisfied with religion and quarrelled with his family over it.
In 1920, on being rejected as too-thin for military service, he then directly entered medical school, and, in 1926, specialised in psychiatry at the Sainte-Anne Hospital in Paris. Academically, he was especially interested in the philosophies of Karl Jaspers and Martin Heidegger; and attended the seminars about Hegel given by Alexandre Kojève. Sometime in that decade, and until 1938, Lacan sought psychoanalysis by Rudolph Loewenstein.
In 1931, Lacan was a licensed forensic psychiatrist; in 1932 he was awarded the Doctorat d’état for the thesis: De la Psychose paranoiaque dans ses rapports avec la personnalité (On paranoiac psychosis in its relations to the (paranoiac) personality). Although it was acclaimed beyond psychoanalytic circles, especially by surrealist artists, psychoanalysts mostly ignored it. Despite that, in 1934 he was a candidate to the Société Psychoanalytique de Paris. In January of that year, he married Marie-Louise Blondin and they had their first child, daughter Caroline; their second child, a son named Thibaut, was born in August 1939.
In 1936, Lacan presented his first analytic report, about the “Mirror Phase” at the Congress of the International Psychoanalytical Association, in Marienbad. The congress chairman, Ernest Jones, interrupted and ended Lacan’s reporting, unwilling to extend his slated presentation time. Insulted, Dr Lacan left the congress, to witness the Berlin Olympic Games. Unfortunately, no copy of the original lecture remains.
Lacan was an active intellectual of the inter-war period; he associated with André Breton and Georges Bataille, Salvador Dalí, Pablo Picasso, et al. He attended the mouvement Psyché founded by Maryse Choisy. He published in the Surrealist journal Minotaure and attended the first, public reading of Ulysses. His interest in surrealism predated his interest in psychoanalysis. Perhaps Lacan never really abandoned his early surrealist sympathies, its neo-Romantic view of madness as ‘convulsive beauty’, its celebration of irrationality, and its hostility to the scientist who murders nature by dissecting it”. 
The Société Psychoanalytique de Paris (SPP) was disbanded due to Nazi Germany’s occupation of France in 1940 and Lacan was subsequently called up to serve in the French army at the Val-de-Grâce military hospital in Paris, where he spent the duration of the war. His third child, Sibylle, was born in 1940.
The following year, Lacan fathered a child, Judith (who kept the name Bataille) with Sylvia Bataille (née Maklès), estranged wife of his friend Georges. There are contradictory stories about his romantic life with Sylvia Bataille in southern France during World War II. The official record shows only that Marie-Louise requested divorce after Judith’s birth, and Lacan married Sylvia in 1953.
Following the war, the SPP recommenced their meetings, and Lacan visited England for a five-week study trip, meeting English analysts Wilfred Bion and John Rickman. He was influenced by Bion’s analytic work with groups and this contributed to his own later emphasis on study groups as a structure with which to advance theoretical work in psychoanalysis. In 1949, Lacan presented a new paper on the mirror stage to the sixteenth IPA congress in Zurich.
In 1951 Lacan started to hold a private weekly seminar in Paris, urging what he described as “a return to Freud” concentrating upon the linguistic nature of psychological symptomatology. Becoming public in 1953, Lacan’s twenty-seven year long seminar was very influential in Parisian cultural life as well as in psychoanalytic theory and clinical practice.
In 1953, after a disagreement about analytic practice methods, Lacan and many of his colleagues left the Société Parisienne de Psychoanalyse to form a new group the Société Française de Psychanalyse (SFP). One of the consequences of this was to deprive the new group of membership within the International Psychoanalytical Association.
Encouraged by the reception of “the return to Freud” and of his report – “The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis” (Écrits) – Lacan again returned to Freud, re-reading the canon in relation to contemporary philosophy, linguistics, ethnology, biology and topology. From 1953 to 1964 at Sainte-Anne Hospital, he held his Seminars and presented case histories of patients. During this period he wrote the texts that are found in Écrits, a selection of which was first published in 1966. In his seventh Seminar of 1959-60, ‘The Ethics of Psychoanalysis’, Lacan defines his ethical foundations of psychoanalysis and constructs his “ethics for our time”; according to Freud, an ethics that would prove to be equal to the tragedy of modern man and to the “discontent of civilization”. At the roots of the ethics is desire: analysis’ only promise is austere, it is the entrance-into-the-I (in French a play of words between ‘l’entrée en je’ and ‘l’entrée en jeu’). ‘I must come to the place where the id was’, where the analysand discovers, in its absolute nakedness, the truth of his desire. The end of psychoanalysis entails ‘the purification of desire’. This text functioned throughout the years as the background of Lacan’s work. He defends three assertions: that psychoanalysis must have a scientific status; that Freudian ideas have radically changed the concepts of subject, of knowledge, and of desire; that the analytic field is the only place from where it is possible to question the insufficiencies of science and philosophy.
Starting in 1962 a complex negotiation took place to determine the status of the SFP within the IPA. Lacan’s practice—with his controversial indeterminate-length sessions in which he charged a full fee for truncated sessions, had his hair cut during sessions, and Lacan’s critical stance towards psychoanalytic orthodoxy—led, in 1963, to a condition being set by the IPA that registration of the SFP was dependent upon removing Lacan from the list of SFP training analysts. Lacan left the SFP to form his own school which became known as the École Freudienne de Paris (EFP)
With Lévi-Strauss and Althusser‘s support, he was appointed lecturer at the École Pratique des Hautes Etudes. He started with a seminar on The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis in January 1964 in the Dussane room at the École Normale Supérieure (in his first session he thanks the generosity of Fernand Braudel and Claude Lévi-Strauss). Lacan began to set forth his own teaching on psychoanalysis to an audience of colleagues who had joined him from the SFP. His lectures also attracted many of the École Normale’s students. He divided the École de la Cause freudienne into three sections: the section of pure psychoanalysis (training and elaboration of the theory, where members who have been analyzed but haven’t become analysts can participate); the section for applied psychoanalysis (therapeutic and clinical, physicians who either have not started or have not yet completed analysis are welcome); the section for taking inventory of the Freudian field (it concerned the critique of psychoanalytic literature and the analysis of the theoretical relations with related or affiliated sciences (Proposition du 9 octobre 1967 sur le psychanalyste à l’Ecole).
By the 1960s, Lacan was associated, at least in the public mind, with the far left in France. In May 1968 Lacan voiced his sympathy for the student protests and as a corollary a Department of Psychology was set up by his followers at the University of Vincennes (Paris VIII). Echoing this sentiment, “Shortly after the tumultuous events of May 1968, Lacan was accused by the authorities of being a subversive, and directly influencing the events that transpired.” In 1969 Lacan moved his public seminars to the Faculté de Droit (Panthéon) where he continued to deliver his expositions of analytic theory and practice till the dissolution of his School in 1980.
Throughout the final decade of his life, Lacan continued his widely followed seminars. During this period, he focuses on the development of his concepts of masculine and feminine jouissance, and puts special emphasis on his concept of “The Real” as a point of impossible contradiction in the “Symbolic Order”. This late work had the greatest influence on feminist thought, as well as upon the informal movement that arose in the 1970s or 1980s called post-modernism.
 Major concepts
 The ‘Return to Freud’
Lacan’s “return to Freud” emphasizes a renewed attention to the original texts of Freud and a radical critique of Ego psychology, Melanie Klein and Object relations theory. Lacan thought that Freud’s ideas of “slips of the tongue”, jokes, et cetera, all emphasized the agency of language in subjective constitution. In “The Instance of the Letter in the Unconscious, or Reason Since Freud” (Écrits, pp. 161 – 197)) he argued that “the unconscious is structured like a language”; it was not a primitive or archetypal part of the mind separate from the conscious, linguistic ego, but a formation as complex and structurally sophisticated as consciousness itself. If the unconscious is structured like a language, he claimed, then the self is denied any point of reference to which to be ‘restored’ following trauma or ‘identity crisis’.
 The mirror stage (le stade du miroir)
Lacan’s first official contribution to psychoanalysis was the mirror stage which he described “ as formative of the function of the I as revealed in psychoanalytic experience”. By the early fifties, he no longer considers the mirror stage as only a moment in the life of the infant, but as the permanent structure of subjectivity. In the paradigm of The Imaginary order, the subject is permanently caught and captivated by his own image. Lacan writes, “[T]he mirror stage is a phenomenon to which I assign a twofold value. In the first place, it has historical value as it marks a decisive turning-point in the mental development of the child. In the second place, it typifies an essential libidinal relationship with the body-image”.
As he further develops the concept, the stress falls less on its historical value and ever more on its structural value. In his fourth Seminar, La relation d’objet, Lacan states that “the mirror stage is far from a mere phenomenon which occurs in the development of the child. It illustrates the conflictual nature of the dual relationship”.
The mirror stage describes the formation of the Ego via the process of objectification, the Ego being the result of feeling dissension between one’s perceived visual appearance and one’s perceived emotional reality. This identification is what Lacan called alienation. At six months the baby still lacks coordination. However, he can recognize himself in the mirror before attaining control over his bodily movements. He sees his image as a whole, and the synthesis of this image produces a sense of contrast with the uncoordination of the body, which is perceived as a fragmented body. This contrast is first felt by the infant as a rivalry with his own image, because the wholeness of the image threatens him with fragmentation, and thus the mirror stage gives rise to an aggressive tension between the subject and the image. To resolve this aggressive tension, the subject identifies with the image: this primary identification with the counterpart is what forms the Ego. The moment of identification is to Lacan a moment of jubilation since it leads to an imaginary sense of mastery, yet the jubilation may also be accompanied by a depressive reaction, when the infant compares his own precarious sense of mastery with the omnipotence of the mother. This identification also involves the ideal ego which functions as a promise of future wholeness sustaining the Ego in anticipation.
In the Mirror stage a misunderstanding – “méconnaissance” – constitutes the Ego—the ‘moi’ becomes alienated from himself through the introduction of the Imaginary order subject. It must be said that the mirror stage has also a significant symbolic dimension. The Symbolic order is present in the figure of the adult who is carrying the infant: the moment after the subject has jubilantly assumed his image as his own, he turns his head towards this adult who represents the big Other, as if to call on him to ratify this image.
While Freud uses the term “other”, referring to der Andere (the other person) and “das Andere” (otherness), Lacan’s use is more like Hegel’s, through Alexandre Kojève.
Lacan often used an algebraic symbology for his concepts: the big Other is designated A (for French Autre) and the little other is designated a (italicized French autre). He asserts that an awareness of this distinction is fundamental to analytic practice: ‘the analyst must be imbued with the difference between A and a, so he can situate himself in the place of Other, and not the other’.
- The little other is the other who is not really other, but a reflection and projection of the Ego. He is both the counterpart or the other people in whom the subject perceives a visual likeness (semblable), and the specular image or the reflection of one’s body in the mirror. In this way the little other is entirely inscribed in The Imaginary order. See Objet Petit a.
- The big Other designates a radical alterity, an otherness transcending the illusory otherness of the Imaginary because it cannot be assimilated through identification. Lacan equates this radical alterity with language and the law: the big Other is inscribed in The Symbolic order, being in fact the Symbolic insofar as it is particularized for each subject. The Other is then another subject and also the Symbolic order which mediates the relationship with that other subject.
‘The Other must first of all be considered a locus, the locus in which speech is constituted’. We can speak of the Other as a subject in a secondary sense, only when a subject may occupy this position and thereby embody the Other for another subject.
When he argues that speech originates not in the Ego nor in the subject, but in the Other, Lacan stresses that speech and language are beyond one’s conscious control; they come from another place, outside consciousness, and then ‘the unconscious is the discourse of the Other’. When conceiving the Other as a place, Lacan refers to Freud’s concept of physical locality, in which the unconscious is described as “the other scene”.
“It is the mother who first occupies the position of the big Other for the child, it is she who receives the child’s primitive cries and retroactively sanctions them as a particular message”. The castration complex is formed when the child discovers that this Other is not complete, that there is a Lack (manque) in the Other. This means that there is always a signifier missing from the trove of signifiers constituted by the Other. Lacan illustrates this incomplete Other graphically by striking a bar through the symbol A; hence another name for the castrated, incomplete Other is the ‘barred Other’.
Feminists thinkers have both criticized and utilized Lacan’s concepts of castration and the (Symbolic) Phallus. Many feminists believe that Lacan’s phallocentric analysis provides a useful means of understanding gender biases and imposed roles. Some feminist critics, notably Luce Irigaray, accuse Lacan of maintaining the sexist tradition in psychoanalysis. For Irigaray, rather than the Phallus defining a single axis of gender by its presence/absence, gender has two positive poles. Like Irigaray, Jacques Derrida, in criticism of Lacan’s concept of castration, discusses the phallus in a chiasmus with the hymen, as both one and other, as Derrida returns to Freud’s case of the Wolf Man in The Dissemination. Others feminists, such as Judith Butler, Jane Gallop, and Elizabeth Grosz, have each interpreted Lacan’s work as opening up new possibilities for feminist theory.
 The Three Orders
 The Imaginary
Lacan thought the relationship between the Ego and the reflected image means that the Ego and the Imaginary order itself are places of radical alienation: “alienation is constitutive of the Imaginary order”. This relationship is also narcissistic. So the Imaginary is the field of images and imagination, and deception: the main illusions of this order are synthesis, autonomy, duality, similarity.
The Imaginary is structured by the Symbolic order: in The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis Lacan argues how the visual field is structured by symbolic laws. Thus the Imaginary involves a linguistic dimension. If the signifier is the foundation of the Symbolic, the signified and signification are part of the Imaginary order. Language has Symbolic and Imaginary connotations; in its Imaginary aspect, language is the “wall of language” which inverts and distorts the discourse of the Other. On the other hand, the Imaginary is rooted in the subject’s relationship with its own body (the image of the body). In Fetishism: the Symbolic, the Imaginary and the Real Lacan argues that in the sexual plane the Imaginary appears as sexual display and courtship love.
Lacan accused major psychoanalytic schools of reducing the practice of psychoanalysis to the Imaginary order by making identification with the analyst the objective of analysis (see Écrits, “The Directions of the Treatment”). He proposes the use of the Symbolic as the way to dislodge the disabling fixations of the Imaginary: the analyst transforms the images into words. “The use of the Symbolic is the only way for the analytic process to cross the plane of identification.”
 The Symbolic
In his Seminar IV “La relation d’objet” Lacan asserts that the concepts of Law and Structure are unthinkable without language: thus the Symbolic is a linguistic dimension. Yet, he does not simply equate this order with language since language involves the Imaginary and the Real as well. The dimension proper of language in the Symbolic is that of the signifier, that is a dimension in which elements have no positive existence but which are constituted by virtue of their mutual differences.
The Symbolic is also the field of radical alterity, that is the Other: the unconscious is the discourse of this Other. Besides it is the realm of the Law which regulates desire in the Oedipus complex. We may add that the Symbolic is the domain of culture as opposed to the Imaginary order of nature. As important elements in the Symbolic, the concepts of death and lack (manque) connive to make of the pleasure principle the regulator of the distance from the Thing (das ding an sich) and the death drive which goes “beyond the pleasure principle by means of repetition”—”the death drive is only a mask of the Symbolic order.”
It is by working in the Symbolic order that the analyst can produce changes in the subjective position of the analysand; these changes will produce imaginary effects since the Imaginary is structured by the Symbolic. Thus, it is the Symbolic which is determinant of subjectivity, and the Imaginary, made of images and appearances, is the effect of the Symbolic.
 The Real
Not only opposed to the Imaginary, the Real is also located outside the Symbolic. Unlike the latter which is constituted in terms of oppositions, i.e. presence/absence, “there is no absence in the Real.” Whereas the Symbolic opposition presence/absence implies the possibility that something may be missing from the Symbolic, “the Real is always in its place.” If the Symbolic is a set of differentiated elements, signifiers, the Real in itself is undifferentiated, it bears no fissure. The Symbolic introduces “a cut in the real”, in the process of signification: “it is the world of words that creates the world of things – things originally confused in the “here and now” of the all in the process of coming into being.
Thus the Real is that which is outside language, resisting symbolization absolutely. In Seminar XI Lacan defines the Real as “the impossible” because it is impossible to imagine and impossible to integrate into the Symbolic, being impossibly attainable. It is this resistance to symbolization that lends the Real its traumatic quality. In his Seminar “La relation d’objet”, Lacan reads Freud’s case on “Little Hans.” He distinguishes two real elements which intrude and disrupt the child’s imaginary pre-oedipical harmony: the real penis which is felt in infantile masturbation and the newly born sister.
Finally, the Real is the object of anxiety in that it lacks any possible mediation, and is “the essential object which is not an object any longer, but this something faced with which all words cease and all categories fail, the object of anxiety par excellence.”
Lacan’s désir follows Freud’s concept of Wunsch and it is central to Lacanian theories. For the aim of the talking cure – psychoanalysis – is precisely to lead the analysand to uncover the truth about their desire, but this is only possible if that desire is articulated, or spoken. Lacan said that “it is only once it is formulated, named in the presence of the other, that desire appears in the full sense of the term.” “That the subject should come to recognize and to name his/her desire, that is the efficacious action of analysis. But it is not a question of recognizing something which would be entirely given. In naming it, the subject creates, brings forth, a new presence in the world.” “[W]hat is important is to teach the subject to name, to articulate, to bring desire into existence.” Now, although the truth about desire is somehow present in discourse, discourse can never articulate the whole truth about desire: whenever discourse attempts to articulate desire, there is always a leftover, a surplus.
In The Signification of the Phallus Lacan distinguishes desire from need and demand. Need is a biological instinct that is articulated in demand, yet demand has a double function, on one hand it articulates need and on the other acts as a demand for love. So, even after the need articulated in demand is satisfied, the demand for love remains unsatisfied and this leftover is desire. For Lacan “desire is neither the appetite for satisfaction nor the demand for love, but the difference that results from the subtraction of the first from the second” (article cited). Desire then is the surplus produced by the articulation of need in demand (Dylan Evans). Lacan adds that “desire begins to take shape in the margin in which demand becomes separated from need” (article cited). Hence desire can never be satisfied, or as Slavoj Žižek puts it “desire’s raison d’être is not to realize its goal, to find full satisfaction, but to reproduce itself as desire.”
It is also important to distinguish between desire and the drives. If they belong to the field of the Other (as opposed to love), desire is one, whereas the drives are many. The drives are the partial manifestations of a single force called desire (see “The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis”). If one can surmise that objet petit a is the object of desire, it is not the object towards which desire tends, but the cause of desire. For desire is not a relation to an object but a relation to a lack (manque). Then desire appears as a social construct since it is always constituted in a dialectical relationship.
Lacan maintains Freud’s distinction between Trieb (drive) and Instinkt (instinct) in that drives differ from biological needs because they can never be satisfied and do not aim at an object but rather circle perpetually round it, so the real source of jouissance is to repeat the movement of this closed circuit. In the same Seminar Lacan posits the drives as both cultural and symbolic (discourse) constructs, to him “the drive is not a given, something archaic, primordial”. Yet he incorporates the four elements of the drives as defined by Freud (the pressure, the end, the object and the source) to his theory of the drive’s circuit: the drive originates in the erogenous zone, circles round the object, and then returns to the erogenous zone. The circuit is structured by the three grammatical voices:
- the active voice (to see)
- the reflexive voice (to see oneself)
- the passive voice (to be seen)
The active and reflexive voices are autoerotic, they lack a subject. It is only when the drive completes its circuit with the passive voice that a new subject appears. So although it is the “passive” voice, the drive is essentially active, “to make oneself be seen” instead of “to be seen.” The circuit of the drive is the only way for the subject to transgress the pleasure principle.
Lacan identifies four partial drives: the oral drive (the erogenous zones are the lips, the partial object the breast), the anal drive (the anus and the faeces), the scopic drive (the eyes and the gaze) and the invocatory drive (the ears and the voice). The first two relate to demand and the last two to desire. If the drives are closely related to desire, they are the partial aspects in which desire is realized: again, desire is one and undivided whereas the drives are partial manifestations of desire.
 Other concepts
- Name of the Father
- Oedipal drama and the Oedipal signification
- Objet Petit a
- The Seminars of Jacques Lacan
- Signifier/ Signified
- The Letter
- Foreclusion – Foreclosure
- Lack (manque)
- The Phallus
- Das Ding
- The gaze
- The four discourses
- The graph of desire
- Lacan’s Topology
 Writings and seminars
Jacques-Alain Miller is the sole editor of Lacan’s seminar lectures, which contain the majority of his life’s work. Although Lacan is a major figure in the history of psychoanalysis, some of these seminars still remain unpublished. Since 1984, Miller has been regularly conducting a series of lectures, “L’orientation lacanienne”, within the structure of ParisVIII. Miller’s teachings have been published in the US by the journal Lacanian Ink.
Lacan claimed that his Écrits were not to be understood, but would produce a meaning effect in the reader similar to some mystical texts. Lacan’s writing is notoriously difficult due to the repeated Hegelian/Kojèvean allusions, wide theoretical divergences from other psychoanalytic and philosophical thinking, as well as his obscure prose style.
Some critics have dismissed Lacan and his work wholesale. François Roustang called Lacan’s output “extravagant” and an “incoherent system of pseudo-scientific gibberish.” In Fashionable Nonsense, Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont accused Lacan of “superficial erudition” and of abusing scientific concepts he does not understand. Defenders of Lacanian thinking claim that these critics misunderstand, or often simply have not read, Lacan’s admittedly difficult texts.
Lacan is known for his incorporation of mathematical terms in his works. For example, he uses elements from topology when he concludes:
“What is implied, in any case, by the demonstrable finity of the open spaces that can cover the space that is bounded and closed in the case of sexual jouissance. [...] That is the case in the space of sexual jouissance, which thereby proves to be compact.”—Le Séminaire de Jacques Lacan
- Chronology of Jacques Lacan
- The Seminars of Jacques Lacan
- Jacques Lacan’s Complete French Bibliography
- Jacques Lacan; Kant with Sade
- Of Structure as the Inmixing of an Otherness Prerequisite to Any Subject Whatever Johns Hopkins University – 1966
- The Seminar on “The Purloined Letter”
- The Crime of the Papin Sisters
- ^ Roudinesco, Elisabeth Jacques Lacan & Co.: a history of psychoanalysis in France, 1925-1985, 1990, Chicago University Press
- ^ Perry Meisel (April 13, 1997). “The Unanalyzable”. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/04/13/reviews/970413.13meiselt.html.
- ^ Roudinesco, Elisabeth. ‘The mirror stage: an obliterated archive’ The Cambridge Companion to Lacan. Ed. Jean-Michel Rabaté. Cambridge: CUP, 2003
- ^ a b c d e Evans, Dylan “From Lacan to Darwin”, in The Literary Animal; Evolution and the Nature of Narrative, eds. Jonathan Gottschall and David Sloan Wilson, Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2005
- ^ Review of Bruce Fink’s A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis: Theory and Technique
- ^ French Communist Party “official philosopher” Louis Althusser did much to advance this association in the 1960s. Zoltán Tar and Judith Marcus in Frankfurt school of sociology. ISBN 0878559639 (p.276) write, for example, Althusser’s call to Marxists that the Lacanian enterprise might … help further revolutionary ends, endorsed Lacan’s work even further.
- ^ a b Elizabeth A. Grosz, Jacques Lacan: A Feminist Introduction
- ^ Lacan, J., Some reflections on the Ego in Écrits
- ^ Lacan, J., La relation d’objet in Écrits
- ^ Lacan, Tenth Seminar, L’angoisse, 1962-1963
- ^ a b c d e Lacan, J., The Seminar of Jacques Lacan: Book II: The Ego in Freud’s Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis 1954-1955 (W. W. Norton & Company, 1991), ISBN 9780393307092
- ^ Lacan, J., The Freudian Thing in Écrits
- ^ Lacan, J., Psychoanalysis and its Teaching in Écrits
- ^ a b Lacan, Seminar III: The Psychoses
- ^ Lacan, Seminar VIII: Le transfert
- ^ Lacan, J., Seminar on “The Purloined Letter” in Écrits
- ^ Lacan, J., The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious in Écrits
- ^ Lacan, Seminar V: Les formations de l’inconscient
- ^ Irigary, Luce, This Sex Which Is Not One 1977, (Eng. trans. 1985)
- ^ Derrida, Jacques. The Dissemination (1983)
- ^ Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex” (1993)
- ^ Gallop, Jane, Reading Lacan. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985.
- ^ a b Lacan, J. Seminar XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis
- ^ Lacan, J., The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis in Écrits
- ^ a b Fink, Bruce, The Lacanian Subject: Between Language and Jouissance (Princeton University Press, 1996), ISBN 9780691015897
- ^ Lacan, J., The Seminar of Jacques Lacan: Book I: Freud’s Papers on Technique 1953-1954 “…what is important is to teach the subject to name, to articulate, to bring desire into existence” (W. W. Norton & Company, 1991), ISBN 9780393306972
- ^ Lacan, J., ‘The Signification of the Phallus’ in Écrits
- ^ Roustang, François, The Lacanian Delusion
- ^ Bruce Fink, Lacan to the Letter
- ^ Arkady Plotnitsky, The Knowable and the Unknowable
- ^ Lacan, J. Le Séminaire de Jacques Lacan. Livre XX: Encore, 1972–1973. Translation: The seminar of Jacques Lacan. Book XX, Encore transl. by Bruce Fink 1998
Selected works published in English listed below. More complete listings can be found at Lacan Dot Com.
- The Language of the Self: The Function of Language in Psychoanalysis*, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1968
- Écrits: A Selection*, transl. by Alan Sheridan, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1977, and revised version, 2002, transl. by Bruce Fink
- Écrits: The First Complete Edition in English, transl. by Bruce Fink, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2006
- The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis
- The Seminar, Book I. Freud’s Papers on Technique, 1953-1954,, edited by Jacques-Alain Miller, transl. by J. Forrester, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1988
- The Seminar, Book II. The Ego in Freud’s Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-1955, ed. by Jacques-Alain Miller, transl. by Sylvana Tomaselli, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1988.
- The Seminar, Book III. The Psychoses, edited by Jacques-Alain Miller, transl. by Russell Grigg, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1993.
- The Seminar, Book VII. The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, 1959-1960, ed. by Jacques-Alain Miller, transl. by Dennis Porter, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1992.
- The Seminar XI, The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, ed. by Jacques-Alain Miller, transl. by Alan Sheridan, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1977.
- The Seminar XVII, The Other Side of Psychoanalysis, ed. by Jacques-Alain Miller, transl. by Russell Grigg, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 2007.
- The Seminar XX, Encore: On Feminine Sexuality, the Limits of Love and Knowledge, ed. by Jacques-Alain Miller, transl. by Bruce Fink, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1998.
- Television: A Challenge to the Psychoanalytic Establishment, ed. Joan Copjec, trans. Jeffrey Mehlman, W.W. Norton & Co., New York, 1990.
 Works about Lacan’s Work and Theory
- Badiou, Alain, “The Formulas of L’Etourdit” (New York: Lacanian Ink 27, 2006.)
- —————, “Lacan and the Pre-Socratics”, Lacan Dot Com, 2006.
- Benvenuto, Bice; Kennedy, Roger, The Works of Jacques Lacan (London, 1986, Free Association Books.)
- Bowie, Malcolm, Lacan (London: Fontana, 1991). (An introduction.)
- Dor, Joel, The Clinical Lacan (New York: Other Press, 1999)
- —————, Introduction to the Reading of Lacan: The Unconscious Structured Like a Language (New York: Other Press, 2001)
- Elliott, Anthony and Stephen Frosh(eds.), Psychoanalysis in Contexts: Paths between Theory and Modern Culture (London and New York: Routledge, 1995). (A recent overview.)
- —————, “Matrixial Gaze and Screen: Other than Phallic and Beyond the Late Lacan.” In: Laura Doyle (ed.) Bodies of Resistance. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 2001.
- —————, “Weaving Trans-Subjective Texture or The Matrixial Sinthome.” In: Thurston, Luke (ed.), Re-inventing the Symptom: Essays on the final Lacan. NY: The Other Press, 2002.
- Evans, Dylan, An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis, Routledge, 1996.
- Fink, Bruce, The Lacanian Subject: Between Language and Jouissance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).
- —————, Lacan to the Letter: Reading Ecrits Closely, University of Minnesota, 2004.
- Forrester, John, Language and the Origins of Psychoanalysis (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan, 1985).
- Fryer, David Ross, The Intervention of the Other: Ethical Subjectivity in Levinas and Lacan (New York: Other Press, 2004)
- Gallop, Jane, Reading Lacan. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985.
- —————, The Daughter’s Seduction: Feminism and Psychoanalysis. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982.
- Gherovici, Patricia, The Puerto Rican Syndrome (New York: Other Press, 2003)
- Glynos, Jason and Yannis Stravrakakis, ED, Lacan and Science. London:Karnac Books, May 2002.
- Harari, Roberto, Lacan’s Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis: An Introduction (New York: Other Press, 2004)
- —————, Lacan’s Seminar on “Anxiety”: An Introduction (New York: Other Press, 2005)
- Homer, Sean, Jacques Lacan (London: Routledge, 2005)
- Johnston, Adrian, Time Driven: Metapsychology and the Splitting of the Drive (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2005)
- Lander, Romulo, Subjective Experience and the Logic of the Other (New York: Other Press, 2006)
- Leupin, Alexandre, Lacan Today (New York: Other Press, 2004)
- Mathelin, Catherine, Lacanian Psychotherpay with Children: The Broken Piano (New York: Other Press, 1999)
- McGowan, Todd and Sheila Kunkle Eds., Lacan and Contemporary Film (New York: Other Press, 2004)
- Miller, Jacques-Alain, “Introduction to Reading Jacques Lacan’s Seminar on Anxiety I ” (New York: Lacanian Ink 26, 2005.)
- —————, “Introduction to Reading Jacques Lacan’s Seminar on Anxiety II” (New York: Lacanian Ink 27, 2006.)
- —————, “Jacques Lacan’s Later Teachings” (New York: Lacanian Ink 21, 2003.)
- —————, “The Paradigms of Jouissance” (New York, Lacanian Ink 17, 2000.)
- —————, “Suture: Elements of the Logic of the Signifier”, Lacan Dot Com, 2006.
- Moustafa, Safouan, Four Lessons of Psychoanalysis (New York: Other Press, 2004)
- Nasio, Juan-David, Book of Love and Pain: The Thinking at the Limit with Freud and Lacan. Translated by David Pettigrew and Francois Raffoul (Albany: SUNY Press, 2003)
- —————, Five Lessons on the Psychoanalytic Theory of Jacques Lacan. Translated by David Pettigrew and Francois Raffoul (Albany: SUNY Press, 1998)
- —————, Hysteria: The Splendid Child of Psychoanalysis. Translated by Susan Fairfield (New York: Other Press, 1998)
- Nobus, Dany (ed.), Key Concepts of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. (New York: Other Press, 1999)
- Pettigrew, David and François Raffoul (eds.), Disseminating Lacan (Albany: SUNY Press, 1996)
- Rabaté, Jean-Michel (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Lacan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)
- Rose, Jacqueline, Sexuality in the Field of Vision (London: Verso, 1986)
- Roudinesco, Élisabeth, “Jacques Lacan: His Life and Work”. Translated by Bray B. New York, Columbia University Press, 1997
- Turkle, Sherry, Psychoanalytic Politics: Jacques Lacan and Freud’s French Revolution, 2nd edition, Guildford Press, New York, 1992
- ————— and Wollheim, Richard, ‘Lacan: an exchange’, New York Review of Books, 26 (9), 1979, p. 44.
- Soler, Colette, What Lacan Said About Women Translated by John Holland (New York: Other Press, 2006)
- Thurston, Luke (ed.), “Re-inventing the Symptom”, NY: Other Press, 2002.
- Van Haute, Philippe, Against Adaptation: Lacan’s “Subversion” of the Subject (New York: Other Press, 2002)
- Van Haute, Philippe and Tomas Geyskens, Confusion of Tongues: The Primacy of Sexuality in Freud, Ferenczi, and Laplanche (New York: Other Press, 2004)
- Verhaeghe, Paul, On Being Normal and Other Disorders (New York: Other Press, 2004)
- Wilden, Anthony, ‘Jacques Lacan: A partial bibliography’, Yale French Studies, 36/37, 1966, pp. 263–268.
- Žižek, Slavoj, “Woman is One of the Names-of-the-Father, or how Not to misread Lacan´s formulas of sexuation”, Lacan Dot Com, 2005.
- —————, ‘The object as a limit of discourse: approaches to the Lacanian real’, Prose Studies, 11 (3), 1988, pp. 94–120.
- —————, Interrogating the Real, ed. Rex Butler and Scott Stephens (London and New York: Continuum, 2005).
- —————, “Jacques Lacan as Reader of Hegel” (New York: Lacanian Ink 27, 2006.)
 External links
- École de la Cause Freudienne
- Jacques Lacan in English
- Links of Jacques Lacan
- Jacques Lacan at The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Ecole Lacanienne
- Jacques Lacan (1901-1981)
- CFAR – The Centre for Freudian Analysis and Research. London-based Lacanian psychoanalytic training agency
- Homepage of the Lacanian School of Psychoanalysis and the San Francisco Society for Lacanian Studies
- The London Society of the New Lacanian School. Site includes online library of clinical & theoretical texts
- The Freudian School of Melbourne, School of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. Clinical and theoretical teaching and training of psychoanalysts.
- Lacan Dot Com
- Jacques Lacan
- Lacan Online
- UBUweb – radio features and interviews w/ Lacan on ubu.com
- No Subject, an online encyclopedia of Lacanian psychoanalysis