Lack

What is lack? Cambridge Dictionary provides these answers - A condition of not having enough of something, especially something necessary or wanted. The fact that something is not available or that there is not enough of it. A situation in which there is not enough of something, or something is not available.

Lack and Structure

How does lack relate to psychic structure? To extrapolate the intricacies of lack in relation to psychic structure, we have to start with "The family triad", where the structure takes shape. The relationship between the Mother and the Child (unity) is separated by the Father (prohibition). Once unity is separated by the prohibition, the child can begin as a separate entity, disconnected from the complete unification with the Mother. What is the particular signifier that separates the unity? It is a Phallic signifier, the non-lack of the Father symbolically overpowers the symbolic unity between the Mother and the Child. The real connection between the Mother and the Child is non-separable, a love relationship between the woman and her child is a connection which goes beyond logic and the explanation which could be described in words. This connection is based on the fact that the woman gave birth to the child, her being produced another being. These matters are biologically impossible for men, which is why no amount of logical extrapolation could point to the truth of the connection between the woman and her child.

What is being separated then, if the true love relationship between the Mother and the Child is non-separatable? Within psychoanalysis "separation" and "prohibition" are almost religiously used terminology. The separation between the Mother and the Child caused by the Father is on the symbolic level, the level of language, and the level of signification. The signifier "Phallus" is the signifier equivalent to the signifier "God", there is no clear explanation as to what "It" means because we do not know what "God" is. So, the only way to explain it is to explain "What it is not", in (Sanskrit: नेति नेति) Neti Neti is a concept in Hindu philosophy, particularly within the Upanishads, which literally translates to "not this, not this." It is a method in Jnana Yoga (the path of knowledge) for understanding the ultimate nature of Brahman or the Absolute by negation, which means negating and rejecting everything that Brahma or the Absolute is not, in order to find what it is. Phallus does not have a clear signified, it is a signifier without the clear signified. But, what can be said about it, in order to describe its operationalism, is that it signifies authority, law and power. The bag of all possible signifiers which holds all the possible signifiers is used by the Mother in order to communicate with her Child, until the Father appears in the picture and provides a signifier that breaks the unity between the Mother and the Child. It is a painful signifier for the child because it destroys the unity between the Mother and the Child. The phallic signifier as the separator of unity installs the realisation in the psyche of the child, that there is something bigger than the child, that authority exists. As the God of destruction "Shiva" in Hindu philosophy is represented as the one who is running around with an erect phallus and destroys things in the name of the appearance of new things.

So, the phallic signifier signifies the beginning of the child as a separate entity (separate from the unity with the mother) within the bag of all signifiers, the child receives the place within the bag of all possible signifiers with a future reference by losing the unity with the mother. The phallic signification probes a place in the psyche of the child, probing of the psyche provides an inscription of the fact that there is a chance to be wanted by the Mother more than I am wanted by her. And who seems to be wanted more than the Child by the Mother? It is the Father. Why? Because, instead of staying in complete, constant unity with the Child, the Mother takes her attention away from the child and invests a certain amount of her attention into the father. The unconscious realisation of the child could be described as "That person, who takes mommy's attention has something (Phallus), that something is what makes mommy want him more than me because she is not constantly with me, but accompanies somebody else". From that moment onwards "The Phallus" is the governor of the unconscious. This governing system, which inscribes the child's unconscious is what inscribes "Lack" into the child's being. This governing system becomes the motor force of the unconscious and desire. A desire to acquire that special something (Phallus), which made Mommy want Daddy more than me the Child. Lack, phallus and desire become the force which runs the psyche in order to in one way or another acquire the symbolic object which was the cause of desire. The symbolic object operating in the background becomes the "object cause of desire", which causes the desire for the real objects.

Inscription and Non-inscription of Lack within the Structure

Neurosis - Inscription of lack, recognition of the existence of lack within oneself - Repression - Recognition of the law and the prohibition - Realisation of the object possessed by the father - Desire for the object.

Psychosis - Non-inscription of lack, non-recognition of existence of lack within oneself - Foreclosure - Non-recognition of the law and the prohibition - Non-realisation of the object possessed by the father - No desire for the object.

Perversion - Partial inscription of lack, partial recognition of the existence of lack within oneself - Disavowal - Partial Non-realisation of the object possessed by the father - Becoming the desired object.

An inscription of lack within the structure of the psyche is the determining factor of what type of subjectivity will govern the position of the subject within the psychoanalytic theory. Inscription of lack appears and takes on an effect because the signification of the phallus probed the psyche of the child and inscribed an unconscious realisation of lack.

Three Types of Lack

Real lack - mechanism Need - Need, for example, the need for nourishment is needed and desired but because it is a "Need" it is needed biologically, for survival. The baby has to be fed in order to survive. It is encompassed in the dimension of the "Real" which means the body, because we have bodies, we have real needs.

Imaginary lack - mechanism Demand - Demand, for example, is demand for a thing, but the thing is demanded not in order to satisfy biological nourishment but in order to feel loved (an imaginary exchange). The actual object is desired or needed, not for the purpose of survival but for the feeling of love that the reception of the object provides for the subject. It is encompassed in the dimension of the "Imaginary", the most simple description of it would be (an imagination), the dimensions which allow us to feel wholeness. Wholeness was lost because of the separation from the Mother, so, an imaginary wholeness has to be created via the pathway of fantasy and imagination (Imaginary) in order to compensate for the structural lack within subjectivity.

Symbolic lack - mechanism (Desire) - For example, desiring for an object but after the object is accumulated wanting for another object. Desire works for its own sake, is metonymical, and constantly changes its objects. Desire is its own question and its own answer, but, the answer itself is open. Desire (Symbolic) becomes operational in the place between "Need" (Real) and "Demand" (Imaginary). Phallus being the symbolic object and the original master signifier without the signified, turns on desire, by prohibiting enjoyment between the mother and the child and becomes the ideal figure of desire. The "symbolic phallic object", which belonged to the father (the prohibitor of enjoyment), detaches itself from the father and becomes the driving force of desire (an object cause of desire). No "real" object can satisfy "symbolic" desire, the more objects are acquired, the more objects are needed to sustain the power of desire for desiring itself.

Lack and the Three Psychic Registers

Lack inscribed in the register of the "Real" is equivalent to physical trauma, bodily injury or a psychic injury which is beyond comprehension. Lack inscribed in the register of the "Imaginary" becomes the object of rivalry without the symbolic location in the future, as an aeroplane that flew over your head once in your life, but, you had no clue, to whom it belongs. Lack inscribed in the register of the "Symbolic" is equivalent to the prohibition within the dynamics of sanity and the possibility of creating the desire to be like the father within the child's psyche because the child encountered the symbolic prohibition which installed the lack and neuroticised the child.

Lack, as The Basis for Desire

Non-inscription of lack and a non-operative phallic prohibition at the beginning of the history of the subject is the cause of foreclosure, which in psychoanalytic theory means psychosis. The psychotic structure is a structure which does not lack, there is no symbolic lack because the chance for the prohibition was foreclosed. If followed structurally, a psychotic structure, cannot participate in the symbolic matters of the world because the metonymy of desire wasn't propelled by the symbolic object of the father which was the cause of desire, that made the subject want to possess the thing that his father had. The psychotic structure might have an impaired sense of desire (because of foreclosure), a desire that is not bound by the rules of the symbolic structure of the world or a non-existent desire completely. Contrary to obsessional neurosis, where desire, is the force that is fusing the subject, without any rational possibility of reaching the ceiling.

Lack and Impotence

Slavoj Zizek gives a perfect example of the impotent father in one of his lectures. If, as a child, you have encountered the father's prohibition, which most of us did, even if the fatherly prohibition was not by your biological father but the prohibition of the law itself. If you have reached the limit, where the symbolic rule had to intervene, but, the intervention was fused with fury and completely irrational, the prohibition itself loses its function. Instead of seeing the father or the authority of the prohibition in a manner of respect and understanding and the realisation of the symbolic limit, the perspective flips onto the side of impotence. The overly cruel father becomes an impotent figure, the figure which is not worthy of respect but on the contrary, is worthy of empathic sadness, as if the father himself becomes the victim of his own violent crime against the child. As if the truly fatherly prohibition is made by the father only by his eye contact with you, once you see the eyes of your father, you know that shit will hit the fan. But, if the shit hits the fan and your father loses his bearings completely, he reminds you of a hysterical woman who is screaming through the window for her children to come home, but, the children aren't listening. Why children aren't listening? Because the mother represents the caring aspect of the equation, even after screaming at her children, she hugs them and tells them that she loves them because she made them. The father's position within this equation would consist of approaching the mother, where she is screaming while standing in front of the window and just standing next to her, without raising his voice, but, standing there as the authority that the father is, the rule that cannot be bent. If the father runs outside screaming at his kids like an animal, his phallic authority disappears and morphs into a weird emotional tantrum, as if the father would be a female, but, with a penis. Why is that? Why does the phallic structure itself, prohibit, males from stepping over the symbolic boundary? If the symbolic boundary would not exist, then the father who can shout the loudest, or the father who can throw the biggest tantrum, would be the ideal situation of the phallic position of authority, but, it is not. Why? The answer goes back to the creation of subjectivity and inscription of lack. Lack was inscribed within the psyche of the child by the phallic signification of the third term (the father), the signification of the phallus is the signification of the non-lacking signifier, the signifier that prohibits and proves to the child that there is something bigger, that the law exists. The limit created by the phallic signification disrupts the insatiable enjoyment between the mother and the child and if the child becomes a straight male, his enjoyment is caged within the phallic structure. The phallic structure itself is based on symbolic prohibition, enjoyment for the child is prohibited by the phallic signification but the signification itself is prohibitory. Signification which prohibited enjoyment created the mode of enjoyment, which is based on the prohibition. If the rule of the symbolic prohibition is stepped over, the prohibitor loses the prohibitory power and becomes impotent because phallic potency is based on enjoying the prohibition itself, prohibition which is based on the boundary itself. That is why in certain cultures, when a straight male sees another male dancing and twerking (like a lady would do), the first thought in the man's mind is "Is this dude homosexual?" because his behaviour stepped over the phallic prohibition of enjoyment, the twerking male is enjoying within the field of the feminine enjoyment. Insatiable enjoyment is one the feminine side of the structure, a structure which embodies the "Phallus" through the mode of "being it". Because the woman "is the phallus", her structuration of enjoyment does not consist of the prohibition of enjoyment, her enjoyment does not have to be prohibited because symbolic castration is non-operative on the female. Feminine castration anxiety differs from the male castration anxiety because the male has a penis, while the woman has a vagina. Sexual encounter on the masculine side of "having it" consists of "proving that you have it by performing", supplying the woman with an insatiable pleasure through good performance. On the contrary, the feminine side of the sexual encounter consists of "Being it", being the object which pleasures the man. Psychoanalytically speaking, there are two modes of enjoyment, the mode of "Having it" (The Phallic Enjoyment) and the mode of "Being It" (The feminine Enjoyment). Phallic enjoyment is based on symbolic prohibition and the prohibition itself becomes enjoyment, there is a structural limit created for the subject which is enjoying through the mode of "having it", having it will consist of enjoying the limit which prohibits stepping over into the feminine type of enjoyment which has no prohibition (The Cage of Neurosis). Feminine type of enjoyment consists of the mode of "Being It", which is why the girl that you are texting now via Facebook, has, 50 other male subjects messaging her because she "Is It", she is what all other males want, she is "The Phallus". It becomes truly interesting if we enquire towards the original stance of subjectivity itself. If the phallic prohibition was the artificial signifier created by the imposition of the law, which your father truly never had and no other male has because it is the symbolic object, then without the imposition of the symbolic object, subjectivity itself would be feminine. Then, what kind of situation do we have here? The artificial structure of "masculinity" (the Phallus) is what prohibits and creates the basis for the non-psychotic structure but in itself does not truly exist. Masculinity becomes a cage, a trap in which every single subject, which unconsciously chose the mode of "having it" becomes stuck in.

The Inscriber of the Law as Lack

If the symbolic object (The Phallus), the master signifier without a signified does not truly exist but is only thought to exist by the one who encountered the prohibition, while the prohibitor (The Father) knew that he does not possess the object if he was neurotic, then why anybody should listen to the law? The symbolic existence of the law is what differentiates the two genders (Man and Woman), if the law is lifted, the differentiation between the two genders disappears, which is what we see in today's world, differentiation between the two genders is disappearing. Structurally the power of the phallic prohibition is disappearing and the fatherly dimension is flowing into the motherly dimension, the dimension in which everyone is accepted for who they are. Instead of the neurotic structure governing the world, the psychotic structure is taking over the collective psyche. Because people are enquiring about the basis of the law and questioning God's existence, the Phallic authority is losing its ground.

The Beauty of a Woman and her Lack

The beauty of a woman exists in the fact that she is non-lacking while at the same time embracing her lack. On the contrary, on the masculine side, the beauty of a man is in the fact of his realisation of his lack and the ability to function within the limit of the prohibition while knowing the prohibition itself is not real, but it is the only thing that holds the structure together. The structural boundary is what holds the beauty of sexuality in place. If, a male notices a crying woman standing in the rain, the natural reaction of the male would be to give the lady an umbrella and ask her if she needs help, to protect and comfort her. A woman is allowed to publicly lack, there is no prohibition within the confines of her enjoyment and pain and her tears are completely acceptable. On the contrary, masculine tears in public signify a complete destruction of boundaries because men's lack is prohibited by the masculine ideal. A man, crying in the street would signify the worst-case scenario, a loss of his possessions and the inability to take care of the family, or something along these lines. Masculine/phallic prohibition and the possibility of enjoying the prohibition itself, which becomes a more perverse act of enjoyment of pain, is what differentiates the structures. The nonsense of the law is what creates, sense. The beauty of the feminine ideal which is two-sided "Virgin Mary" and "The sex object Madonna" is in the fact that her lack is not prohibited. She can live in her emotions and feelings openly, while on the contrary if men would act in that way, the cage of masculinity would disappear and subjectivity would become openly feminine. But, the consequence of it would be complete, collective psychosis. In a world, where the phallic signification is completely removed and the law itself is rejected, only women could enjoy, because their enjoyment is insatiable and not based on the phallic signification, which would mean that in this world men could not exist. While, on the contrary, in a world where the phallic signification is still present, both, men and women can enjoy because women are capable of enjoying through the phallic signifier and without using the phallic signifier.
What seems to be the answer to this worldly equation, in which, we are all collectively living? If Jacques Lacan was correct and the answer to the psychic structure is in the dimension of the symbolic, then probably, we could find an answer there and that answer is simply rationality. But, rationality can only appear through thinking, communication and discussion of the matters in question. The world portrayed in the Barbie movie is a world in which a man could live with a constantly flaccid penis and enjoy his non-erectional existence. A feminine mode of enjoyment as "Being it" would disappear and the woman inevitably would take the phallic mode of enjoyment and by that removing her existence as a woman, who can enjoy her lack through the mode of "Being it" because males are only capable of existing through the mode of "Having it". The opposition gives both parties meaning because the phallic prohibition induces the split between the signifier and the signified. The basis of the structure will inevitably consist of the heterosexual opposition between the two genders, through understanding and conversation the inclusion of the deviations from the norm becomes also included.

To be continued...