Why did Freud supplement the Oedipal myth with the mythical narrative of the "primordial father"

in Totem and Taboo (T&T)? The lesson of this second myth is the exact obverse of the Oedipus
far from havin! to deal with the father who" intervenin! as the Third" prevents direct contact with
the incestuous ob#ect (thus sustainin! the illusion that his annihilation would !ive us free access
to this ob#ect)" it is the $illin! of the father" i%e%" the very reali&ation of the Oedipal wish" which
!ives rise to symbolic prohibition (the dead father returns as his 'ame)% (nd today)s much*
decried "decline of Oedipus" (of the paternal symbolic authority) is precisely the return of fi!ures
which function accordin! to the lo!ic of the "primordial father" from "totalitarian" political leaders
to the paternal sexual harasser% +ut why? When the "pacifyin!" symbolic authority is suspended"
the only way to avoid the debilitatin! deadloc$ of desire" its inherent impossibility" is to locate the
cause of its inaccessibility into a despotic fi!ure which stands for the primordial #ouisseur we
cannot en#oy because ,- amasses all en#oyment %%%
* . *
/n the "Oedipus complex"" parricide (and incest with the mother) is the unconscious desire of all
ordinary (male) sub#ects" since the paternal fi!ure prevents access to the maternal ob#ect"
disturbs our symbiosis with it" while Oedipus himself is the exceptional fi!ure" the One who
effectively did it% /n T&T" on the contrary" parricide is not the !oal of our unconscious wish" but" as
Freud emphasi&es a!ain and a!ain" a prehistoric fact which "really had to occur"" to allow the
passa!e from animal state to 0ulture% /n short" the traumatic event is not somethin! we dream
about" but which never really happens and thus" via its postponement" sustains the state of
culture (since the consummation of the incestuous lin$ with the mother would abolish the
symbolic distance1prohibition which defines the universe of 0ulture)2 rather" the traumatic event is
that which always already had to happen the moment we are within the order of 0ulture% /f we
effectively $illed the father" why is the outcome not the lon!ed*for incestuous union? /n this
paradox lies the central thesis of T&T the bearer of prohibition preventin! our access to the
incestuous ob#ect is not the livin! but the 3-(3 father" who" after his death" returns as his 'ame"
i%e%" the embodiment of the symbolic law1prohibition% What the matrix of T&T accounts for is thus
the structural necessity of the parricide the passa!e from direct brutal force to the rule of
symbolic authority" of the prohibitory law" is always !rounded in a (disavowed) act of primordial
crime% Therein resides the dialectic of "4ou can only prove that you love me by betrayin! me" the
father is elevated into the venerated symbol of 5aw only after his betrayal and murder% This
problemati6ue also opens up the va!uaries of i!norance not the sub#ect)s" but the bi! Other)s
"the father is dead" althou!h unaware of it"" i%e%" he doesn)t $now that his lovin! followers have
(always*already) betrayed him% On the other hand" this means that the father "really thin$s that he
is a father"" that his authority directly emanates from his person" not merely from the empty
symbolic place that he occupies and1or fills in% What the faithful follower should conceal from the
paternal fi!ure of the leader is precisely this !ap between the leader in the immediacy of his
personality and the symbolic place he occupies" a !ap on account of which the father 6ua
effective person is utterly impotent and ridiculous (7in! 5ear" confronted violently with this
betrayal and the ensuin! unmas$in! of his impotence" and deprived of his symbolic title" is
reduced to an old" ra!in!" impotent fool)% The heretical le!end accordin! to which 0hrist himself
ordered 8udas to betray him (or at least let him $now his wish between the lines%%%) is thus well*
founded in this necessity of the +etrayal of the 9reat :an" which can only assure his Fame"
resides the ultimate mystery of ;ower%
,owever" there is still somethin! missin! in the T&T matrix% /t is not enou!h to have the murdered
father return as the a!ency of symbolic prohibition this prohibition" to be effective" must be
sustained by a positive act of Will% For that reason" Freud" in his :oses and :onotheism (:&:)"
added a further" last variation to the Oedipal dispositif% ,ere" the two paternal fi!ures" however"
are not the same as that in T&T the two fi!ures are here not the presymbolic obscene1non*
castrated Father*8ouissance and the (dead) father 6ua bearer of the symbolic authority" i%e% the
'ame*of*the*Father" but the old -!yptian :oses (who" dispensin! with earlier polytheistic
superstitions" introduces monotheism" the notion of a universe as determined and ruled by a
uni6ue rational Order) and the <emitic :oses (8ehovah =4ahve>" the #ealous 9od who displays
ven!eful ra!e when ,e feels betrayed by his people)% :&: turns around yet a!ain the dispositif
of T&T the father "betrayed" and $illed by his followers1sons is 'OT the obscene primordial
Father*8ouissance" but the "rational" father embodyin! the symbolic authority" the fi!ure which
personifies the unified rational structure of the universe (lo!os)% ?ather than the obscene pre*
symbolic father returnin! in the !uise of his 'ame" of symbolic authority" we have now the
symbolic authority (lo!os) betrayed" $illed by his followers1sons" and returnin! in the !uise of the
#ealous" ven!eful and unfor!ivin! supere!o fi!ure of a 9od full of murderous ra!e (.)% Only after
this second reversal of the Oedipal matrix do we reach the well*$nown ;ascalean distinction
between the 9od of ;hilosophers (9od 6ua the universal structure of lo!os" identified with
rational structure of the universe) and the 9od of Theolo!ists (the 9od of love and hatred" the
inscrutable "dar$ 9od" of capricious "irrational" predestination)%
The crucial point is that" in contrast to the primordial father endowed by a $nowled!e about
#ouissance" this uncompromisin! 9od is that ,e says "'o@" to #ouissance as 5acan puts it" this
9od is possessed by a ferocious i!norance ("la fAroce i!norance de 4ahvA") (B)" by an attitude of
"/ refuse to $now" / do not want to hear" anythin! about your dirty and secret ways of #ouissance"2
a 9od who banishes the universe of traditional sexuali&ed wisdom" a universe with still a
semblance of an ultimate harmony between the bi! Other (the symbolic order) and #ouissance"
and the notion of a macrocosm re!ulated by some underlyin! sexual tension of male and female
"principles" (yin and yan!" 5i!ht and 3ar$ness" -arth and ,eaven%%%)% This 9od is the proto*
existentialist 9od whose existence to apply anachronistically <artre)s definition of man does not
simply coincide with his essence (as with the :edieval 9od of <t% (6uinas)" but precedes it% Thus"
,e spea$s in tautolo!ies not only concernin! his own 6uidditas ("/ am what / am")" but also and
above all in what concerns lo!os" the reasons for what ,e is doin!" or" more precisely" for his
in#unctions (what ,e as$s or prohibits us to do)2 ,is inexorable orders are ultimately !rounded in
"/t is li$e this +-0(C<- / <(4 /T /< 5/7- T,/<@"% /n short" this is the 9od of pure Will" of its
capricious abyss which lies beyond any !lobal rational order of lo!os" a 9od who does not have
to account for anythin! he does (D)
This is the 9od who spea$s to his followers1sons" to his "people" the intervention of voice here is
crucial% (s 5acan put it in his unpublished <eminar on (nxiety (from .EFG*F.)" the voice (the
actual "speech act") brin!s about the passa!e H l)acte of the si!nifyin! networ$" its "symbolic
efficiency%" This voice is inherently meanin!less" nonsensical even" a ne!ative !esture !ivin!
expression to 9od)s malicious and ven!eful an!er (all meanin! is already there in the symbolic
order which structures our universe)2 but it is precisely as such that it actuali&es the purely
structural meanin!" transformin! it into an experience of <ense (I)% This" of course" is another
way of sayin! that" throu!h this utterin! of the Joice which manifests his Will" 9od sub#ectivi&es
,imself% The old -!yptian :oses" betrayed and $illed by his people" was the all*inclusive One of
lo!os" the rational substantial structure of the universe" the "writin!" accessible to those who
$now how to read the "!reat boo$ of 'ature"" not yet the all*exclusive One of sub#ectivity who
imposes his unconditional Will on ,is creation%
This 9od of !roundless Willin! and ferocious "irrational" ra!e is the 9od who" by means of his
;rohibition" destroys the old sexuali&ed Wisdom" thus openin! up the space for the de*
sexuali&ed" "abstract" $nowled!e of modern science% The paradox is that there is "ob#ective"
scientific $nowled!e (in the modern" post*0artesian sense of the term) only if the universe of
scientific $nowled!e itself is supplemented and sustained by this excessive "irrational" fi!ure of
the prohibitive father2 3escartes) "voluntarism" (his infamous statement that BKB would be L if
such were 9od)s Will" there are no eternal truths directly co*substantial with the 3ivine 'ature) is
the necessary obverse of modern scientific $nowled!e% ;re*modern (ristotelian and :edieval
$nowled!e was not yet "ob#ective"" rational" scientific precisely because it lac$ed this excessive
element of 9od 6ua the sub#ectivity of pure "irrational" Willin! the (ristotelian 9od" directly e6ual
to its own eternal rational 'ature" "is" nothin! but the lo!ical Order of Thin!s% ( further paradox is
that this "irrational" 9od" as the prohibitory paternal fi!ure" also opens up the space for the entire
development of modernity" up to the deconstructionist notion that our sexual identity is a
contin!ent socio*symbolic formation the moment this prohibitory fi!ure recedes" we are bac$ into
8un!ian neoobscurantist notions of masculine and feminine archetypes which thrive today% This
point is crucial if we are not to misunderstand completely the !ap which separates the "proper"
authority of the symbolic law1prohibition from the mere "re!ulation by rules" paradoxically" the
domain of symbolic rules" to count as such" must be !rounded in some tautolo!ical authority
+-4O'3 ?C5-<" which says" "/t is so because said it so@"%
One can see" now" why" at the level of individual libidinal economy" 5acan calls this prohibitin!
9od the "real father" as the "a!ent of castration" symbolic castration is another name for the !ap
between the bi! Other and #ouissance" for the fact that the two can never be "synchroni&ed%" One
can also see in what precise sense perversion enacts the disavowal of castration the pervert)s
fundamental illusion is that he possesses a (symbolic) $nowled!e which enables him to re!ulate
his access to #ouissance" i%e%" put in more contemporary terms" the pervert)s dream is to transform
sexual activity into an instrumental" purpose*oriented activity which can be pro#ected and
executed accordin! to a well*defined plan% <o when one spea$s today of the decline of paternal
authority" it is T,/< father" the father of the uncompromisin! "'o@"" who seems effectively to be in
retreat2 in his absence" in the absence of his prohibitory "'o@"" new forms of the fantasmatic
harmony between the symbolic order and #ouissance can thrive a!ain% This is what the so*called
'ew (!e "holistic" attitude ultimately is about" this renewal of the harmony between ?eason and
5ife substance (-arth or macrocosm itself as a livin! entity) at the expense of the prohibitory "real
father" (L)%
* B *
These deadloc$s indicate that today" in a sense" "the bi! Other no lon!er exists" however" in
W,(T sense? The bi! Other is somewhat the same as 9od accordin! to 5acan (9od is not dead
today ,e was dead from the very be!innin!" except ,e didn)t $now it%%%) it never existed in the
first place" i%e%" the "bi! Other)s" inexistence is ultimately e6uivalent to /ts bein! the symbolic
order" the order of symbolic fictions which operate at a level different from direct material
causality% (/n this sense" the only sub#ect for whom the bi! Other does exist is the psychotic" the
one who attributes to words direct material efficiency%) /n short" the "inexistence of the bi! Other"
is strictly correlative to the notion of belief" of symbolic trust" of credence" of ta$in! what other)s
say "at their word)s value%"
What is symbolic efficiency? We all $now the old" worn*out #o$e about a madman who thou!ht he
was a !rain of corn2 after bein! finally cured and sent home" he immediately returned to the
mental institution" explainin! to the doctor his panic "On the road" / encountered a hen" and / was
afraid it would eat me@" To the doctor)s surprised exclamation" "+ut what)s the problem now? 4ou
$now you)re not a !rain but a man who cannot be swallowed by a hen@"" the madman answered
"4es" / $now / am no lon!er a !rain" but does the hen $now it?"%%% This story" nonsensical at the
level of factual reality where you either are a !rain or not" is fully sensible if one replaces "!rain"
with some feature which determines my symbolic identity% 5oo$ at what occurs in our daily
dealin!s with the bureaucratic hierarchy? For instance" a hi!h*level office complies with my
demand and !ives me a hi!her title2 however" it ta$es some time for the decree to be properly
executed and reach the lower*level administration which effectively ta$es care of the benefits
from this title (hi!her salary" etc%)% We all $now the frustration caused by a lower bureaucrat who"
castin! a !lance at the decree" indifferently retorts
"<orry" / have not yet been properly informed about this new measure" so / can)t help you%%%"% /sn)t
this somewhat li$e tellin! you "<orry" for us you)re still a !rain of corn" not yet a human bein!?" /n
short" there is a certain mysterious moment at which a measure or a decree becomes effectively
operative" re!istered by the "bi! Other" of the symbolic institution% This mysterious moment can
be exemplified by a funny thin! which happened durin! the last election campai!n in <lovenia% (
friend of mine was approached for help by an elderly lady from his local constituency% <he was
convinced that the street number of her house (not the standard .D" but BD) was brin!in! her bad
luc$ the moment her house was assi!ned this new number due to some administrative
reor!ani&ation" misfortunes had started to afflict her (bur!lers bro$e in" a storm tore throu!h the
roof" nei!hbors be!an to annoy her%%%)% <he $indly as$ed my friend" a local candidate there" to
arran!e with the municipal authorities for the number to be chan!ed% :y friend made a simple
su!!estion to the lady why didn)t she do it herself? Why didn)t she simply repaint or replace the
plate with a different number (say" BD( or BD. instead of BD)? The old lady answered "Oh" / tried
that a couple of wee$s a!o" / added an ( to BD" but it doesn)t wor$" the misfortunes continue you
cannot cheat it" it has to be done properly" by the responsible state institution%%%"% The "it" which
cannot be duped is" of course" the "bi! Other" of the symbolic institution% <ymbolic efficiency is
thus about this minimum of "reification"to become operative" it is not enou!h for all concerned
individuals to $now some fact2 "it"" the symbolic institution" must also $now1"re!ister" this fact%
This "it"" of course" can ultimately be embodied in the !a&e of the absolute "bi! Other"" 9od
,imself% 3o we not encounter exactly the same problem as that of unfortunate old lady with those
0atholics who" in order to avoid unwanted pre!nancy" have intercourse only on days with no
ovulation? Whom are they cheatin!" as if 9od could not $now their desire for pleasurable sex
without procreation? The 0hurch was always extremely sensitive to this !ap between mere
existence and its proper inscription1re!istration for example" unbapti&ed children who died were
not allowed a proper burial on holy !round" since they were not yet properly inscribed into the
community of believers %%%
/n one of the :arx brothers) films" 9roucho :arx" when cau!ht in a lie" answers an!rily "Whom
do you believe" your eyes or my words?" This apparently absurd lo!ic renders perfectly the
functionin! of the symbolic order" in which the symbolic mas$*mandate matters more than the
direct reality of the individual who wears this mas$ and1or assumes this mandate% This functionin!
involves the structure of fetishist disavowal "/ $now very well that thin!s are the way / see them
1that this person is a corrupted wea$lin!1" but / nonetheless treat him respectfully" since he wears
the insi!nia of a #ud!e" so that when he spea$s" it is the 5aw itself which spea$s throu!h him"% <o"
in a way" / effectively believe his words" not my eyes" i%e%" / believe in (nother <pace (the domain
of pure symbolic authority) which matters more than the reality of its spo$esmen% The cynical
reduction to reality thus falls short when a #ud!e spea$s" there is in a way more truth in his words
(the words of the /nstitution of law) than in the direct reality of the person of #ud!e if one limits
oneself to what one sees" one simply misses the point% 5acan aims at this paradox with his "les
non*dupes errent" those who do not allow themselves to be cau!ht in the symbolic
deception1fiction" who continue to believe their eyes" are the ones who err most% ( cynic who
"believes only his eyes" misses the efficiency of the symbolic fiction" and how it structures our
experience of reality% The same !ap is at wor$ in our most intimate relationship to our nei!hbors
we behave (< /F we do not $now that they also smell bad" secrete excrements" etc% a minimum
of ideali&ation" of fetishi&in! disavowal" is the basis of our co*existence%
Today" new di!itali&ed technolo!ies enable perfectly fa$ed documentary ima!es" not to mention
Jirtual ?eality" so that the motto "believe my words (ar!umentation)" not the fascination of your
eyes@" is more actual than ever% /t is crucial to $eep in si!ht how the lo!ic of "Whom do you
believe" your eyes or my words?" (i%e%" "/ $now well" but nonetheless %%% 1/ believe1") can function in
two different ways that of the symbolic fiction and that of the ima!inary simulacrum% /n the case of
the efficient symbolic fiction of the #ud!e wearin! his insi!nia" "/ $now very well that this person is
a corrupt wea$lin!" but / nonetheless treat him as if 1/ believe that1 the symbolic bi! Other spea$s
throu!h him" / disavow what my eyes tell me and choose to believe the symbolic fiction% On the
contrary" in the case of the simulacrum of virtual reality" "/ $now very well that what / see is an
illusion !enerated by di!ital machinery" but / nonetheless accept to immerse myself in it" to
behave as if / believe it%" ,ere" / disavow what my (symbolic) $nowled!e tells me and choose to
believe my eyes only %%%
,owever" the supreme example of the power of the symbolic fiction as the medium of universality
is perhaps 0hristianity proper" i%e%" the belief in 0hrist)s ?esurrection the death of the "real" 0hrist
is "sublated" in the ,oly 9host" in the spiritual community of believers% This authentic $ernel of
0hristianity" first articulated by <t% ;aul" is today under attac$ in the !uise of the 'ew (!e
!nostic1dualist (mis)readin!" which reduces the ?esurrection to the metaphor of the "inner"
spiritual !rowth of the individual soul% What is lost is the central tenet of 0hristianity the brea$
with the Old Testament lo!ic of <in and ;unishment" i%e% the miracle of 9race" which retroactively
"undoes"" erases our past sins% The "!ood meesa!e" of the 'ew Testament is that the miracle of
creatio ex nihilo a 'ew +e!innin!" startin! a new life "from nothin!" is possible% (0reatio ex nihilo"
the establishment of a new symbolic fiction which erases the past one" of course is feasible only
within a symbolic universe)% The crucial point is that this 'ew +e!innin! is possible only throu!h
3ivine 9race its impetus must come from outside" and not as the result of man)s inner effort to
overcome his limitations and elevate his soul above e!otistic material interests% /n this precise
sense" the properly 0hristian 'ew +e!innin! is absolutely incompatible with the pa!an !nostic
problematic of the "purification of the soul%"
One of the obsessions of the contemporary 'ew (!e approach to ;lato is to unearth beneath his
public teachin! at our disposal in his written dialo!ues his true" esoteric doctrine" ;lato)s so called
"secret teachin!"% This "secret teachin!" exemplifies case of the theoretical obscene Other which
accompanies" as a $ind of shadowy double" the One of pure theory% +ut" on a closer loo$" the
positive content of this "secret teachin!" reveals itself to be pop*wisdom commonplaces a la
8oseph 0ampbell sold at airport boo$stores the 'ew (!e platitudes about the duality of cosmic
principles" about how the One" the positive principle of 5i!ht" must be accompanied by the
primordial Otherness" the mysterious dar$ principle of feminine matter% Therein resides the basic
paradox of ;lato)s mysterious "secret teachin!" the secret we are supposed to discern throu!h
the arduous wor$ of textual archeolo!y is none other than the most notorious 'ew (!e pop*
wisdom a nice example of 5acanian topolo!y in which the innermost $ernel coincides with the
radical externality% This is simply another chapter in the eternal fi!ht wa!ed by obscurantist
/llumination a!ainst -nli!htenment insofar as ;lato was the first !reat -nli!htener" the obsession
with his secret teachin! bears witness to the effort to prove that ;lato himself was already an
obscurantist preachin! a special initiatic doctrine%
The !oal of recent 'ew (!e pop*!nostic endeavors to reassert a $ind of 0hrist)s "secret teachin!"
beneath the official ;aulinian do!ma is the same to undo" to erase" the radical novelty of the
"-vent*0hrist"" reducin! it to a continuation of the precedin! !nostic linea!e% (nother important
aspect of this !nostic (mis)readin! of 0hristianity is the !rowin! obsession of the popular pseudo*
science with the mystery of the 0hrist)s alle!ed tomb and1or pro!eny from his alle!ed marria!e
with :ary :a!dalene% +estsellers li$e The ,oly +lood and the ,oly 9rail or The Tomb of 9od"
focusin! on the re!ion around ?ennes*le*0hMteau in the south of France" weave a lar!e coherent
narrative out of the 9rail myth" 0athars" Templars" Freemasons" etc%" and endeavour to supplant
the diminishin! power of the symbolic fiction of the ,oly 9host (the community of believers) with
the bodily ?eal of 0hrist and1or his descendants% The fact that 0hrist left behind his body or bodily
descendants undermines the 0hristian*;aulinian narrative of ?esurrection 0hrist)s body was not
effectively resurrected" "the true messa!e of 8esus was lost with the ?esurrection" (F)% This "true
messa!e" alle!edly resides in promotin! "the path of self*determination" as distinct from
obedience to the written word" (N) redemption results from the soul)s inner #ourney" not from an
act of ;ardon comin! from Outside% "?esurrection" is to be understood as the inner
renewal1rebirth of the soul on its #ourney of self*purification% For the advocates of this "return of1in
the real"" their discovery is the unearthin! of the heretic and subversive secret lon! repressed by
the 0hurch as /nstitution2 however" what if this very unearthin! of the "<ecret" serves the
"undoin!"" the riddance of the truly traumatic" subversive core of 0hristian teachin!" the
s$andalon of ?esurrection and retroactive pardon of sins" i%e%" the uni6ue character of the -vent
of ?esurrection?
* D *
These vicissitudes si!nal that" today" "the bi! Other doesn)t exist" is more radical than the usual
one" synonymous with symbolic order this symbolic trust" which persists a!ainst all sceptical
data" is more and more undermined% The first paradox of this retreat of the bi! Other is
discernible in the so*called "culture of complaint" with its underlyin! lo!ic of ressentiment far from
cheerfully assumin! the inexistence of the bi! Other" the sub#ect blames the Other for its failure
and1or impotence" as if the Other is !uilty for the fact that it doesn)t exist" i%e% as if impotence is no
excuse% The more the sub#ect)s structure is "narcissistic"" the more he blames the bi! Other" and
thus asserts his dependence on it% The "culture of complaint" thus calls on the bi! Other to
intervene" and to set thin!s strai!ht (to recompense the dama!ed sexual or ethnic minority" etc%"
althou!h how exactly this is to be done is a matter of different ethico*le!al "committees")% The
specific feature of the "culture of complaint" lies in its le!alistic twist" in the endeavor to translate
the complaint into the le!al obli!ation of the Other (usually the <tate) to indemnify one for what?
For the very unfathomable surplus*en#oyment of which / am deprived" whose lac$ ma$es me feel
deprivile!ed% Thus" is not the "culture of complaint" today)s version of the hysterical impossible
demand" addressed to the Other" which effectively wants to be re#ected" since the sub#ect
!rounds its existence in its complaint"/ am insofar as / ma$e the Other responsible and1or !uilty
for my misery"? The !ap here is insurmountable between this lo!ic of complaint and the true
"radical" ("revolutionary") act which" instead of complainin! to the Other and expectin! it to act
(i%e% displacin! the need to act onto it)" suspends the existin! le!al frame and itself accomplishes
the act% What is wron! with the complaint of the truly deprivile!ed is that" instead of underminin!
the position of the Other" they still address /t they" translatin! their demand into le!alistic
complaint" confirm the Other in its position by their very attac$%
Furthermore" a wide scope of phenomena the resur!ent ethico1reli!ious "fundamentalisms" which
advocate a return to the 0hristian or /slamic patriarchal division of sexual roles2 the 'ew (!e
massive re*sexuali&ation of the universe" i%e%" the return to pre*modern" pa!an" sexuali&ed
cosmo*ontolo!y2 the !rowth of "conspiracy theories" as a form of popular "co!nitive mappin!"
seem to counter the retreat of the bi! Other% These phenomena cannot be simply dismissed as
"re!ressive"" as new modes of "escape from freedom"" as unfortunate "remainders of the past"
which will disappear if only we continue more resolutely on the deconstructionist path of
historicisation of every fixed identity" of unmas$in! the contin!ency of every naturali&ed self*
ima!e% ?ather" these disturbin! phenomena compel us to elaborate the contours of the bi!
Other)s retreat The paradoxical result of this mutation in the "inexistence of the Other" (of the
!rowin! collapse of the symbolic efficiency) is precisely the re*emer!ence of the different facets
of a bi! Other which exists effectively" in the ?eal" and not merely as symbolic fiction%
The belief in the bi! Other which exists in the ?eal is the most succint definition of paranoia" so
that" two features which characteri&e today)s ideolo!ical stance cynical distance and full reliance
on paranoiac fantasy are strictly codependent today)s typical sub#ect" while displayin! cynical
distrust of any public ideolo!y" indul!es without restraint in paranoiac fantasies about
conspiracies" threats" and excessive forms of en#oyment of the Other% 3istrust of the bi! Other
(the order of symbolic fictions)" the sub#ect)s refusal to "ta$e it seriously"" relies on the belief that
there is an "Other of the Other"" a secret" invisible" all*powerful a!ent who effectively "pulls the
strin!s" behind the visible" public ;ower% This other" obscene" invisible power structure acts the
part of the "Other of the Other" in the 5acanian sense" the part of the meta*!uarantee of the
consistency of the bi! Other (the symbolic order that re!ulates social life)%
,ere we should loo$ for the roots of the recent impasse of narrativi&ation" i%e%" of the "end of lar!e
narratives"% /n our era" when !lobal" all*encompassin! narratives ("the stru!!le of liberal
democracy with totalitarianism"" etc%) no lon!er seem possible in politics and ideolo!y as well as
in literature and cinema the paranoiac narrative of a "conspiracy theory" appears the only way to
arrive at a $ind of !lobal "co!nitive mappin!%" We see this paranoiac narrative not only in ri!ht*
win! populism and fundamentalism" but also in the liberal center (the "mystery" of 7ennedy)s
assassination) and left*win! orientations (the (merican 5eft)s old obsession that some mysterious
!overnment a!ency is experimentin! with nerve !ases to re!ulate the behavior of the population)%
/t is all too simplistic to dismiss conspiracy*narratives as the paranoiac proto*Fascist reaction of
the infamous "middle classes" which feel threatened by the process of moderni&ation it would be
much more productive to conceive "conspiracy theory" as a $ind of floatin! si!nifier which could
be appropriated by different political options to obtain a minimal co!nitive mappin!%
This" then" is one version of the bi! Other which persists in the wa$e of its alle!ed disappearance%
(nother version operates in the !uise of the 'ew (!e" 8un!ian re*sexuali&ation of the universe
("men are from :ars" women are from Jenus")" accordin! to which there is an underlyin!" deeply
anchored archetypal identity which provides a safe haven in the flurry of contemporary confusion
of roles and identities% From this perspective" the ultimate ori!in of today)s crisis is not the
difficulty to overcome the tradition of fixed sexual roles" but modern man)s unbalanced emphasis
on the male1rational1conscious aspect at the expense of the feminine1compassionate one% While
sharin! with feminism the anti*0artesian and anti*patriarchal bias" this tendency rewrites the
feminist a!enda into a re*assertion of archetypal feminine roots repressed in our competitive"
male" mechanistic universe% (nother version of the real Other is the fi!ure of the father as sexual
harasser of his youn! dau!hters" which stands at the core of the so*called "false*memory*
syndrome" here" also" the suspended father as the a!ent of symbolic authority i%e%" the
embodiment of a symbolic fiction "returns in the real" (the controversy is caused by the contention
of those advocatin! rememoration of childhood sexual abuses" that sexual harassment by the
father is not merely fantasy or" at least" an indissoluble mixture of fact and fantasy" but a plain
fact" somethin! that in the ma#ority of families "really happened" an obstinacy comparable to
Freud)s no less obstinate insistence on the murder of the "primordial father" as a real event in
humanity)s prehistory%) There is" however" yet another" much more interestin! and uncanny
assertion of the bi! Other" clearly discernible in the alle!edly "liberatin!" notion that" today"
individuals are compelled to (re)invent the rules of their co*existence without any !uarantee of
some meta*norm 7ant)s ethical philosophy was already its exemplary case% /n 0oldness and
0ruelty" 3eleu&e provides an unsurpassable formulation of 7ant)s radically new conception of the
moral 5aw
%%% the law is no lon!er re!arded as dependent on the 9ood" but on the contrary" the 9ood itself is
made to depend on the law% This means that the law no lon!er has its foundation in some hi!her
principle from which it would derive its authority" but that it is self*!rounded and valid solely by
virtue of its own form% =%%%> 7ant" by establishin! T,- 5(W as an ultimate !round or principle"
added an essential dimension to modern thou!ht the ob#ect of the law is by definition
un$nowable and elusive% %%% 0learly T,- 5(W" as defined by its pure form" without substance or
ob#ect of any determination whatsoever" is such that no one $nows nor can $now what it is% /t
operates without ma$in! itself $nown% /t defines a realm of trans!ression where one is already
!uilty" and where one oversteps the bounds without $nowin! what they are" as in the case of
Oedipus% -ven !uilt and punishment do not tell us what the law is" but leave it in a state of
indeterminacy e6ualed only by the extreme specificity of the punishment%" (O)
The 7antian 5aw is thus not merely an empty form applied to random empirical content in order to
ascertain if this content meets the criteria of ethical ade6uacy% ?ather" the empty form of the 5aw
functions as the promise of an absent content (never) to come% The form is not a $ind of neutral*
universal mould of the plurality of different empirical contents2 the autonomy of the Form rather
bears witness to the uncertainty which persists with re!ard to the content of our acts we never
$now if the determinate content which accounts for the specificity of our acts is the ri!ht one" i%e%"
if we have effectively acted in accordance with the 5aw rather than bein! !uided by some hidden
patholo!ical motifs% 7ant thus announces the notion of 5aw which culminates in 7af$a and the
experience of modern political "totalitarianism" since" in the case of the 5aw" its 3ass*<ein (the
fact of the 5aw) precedes its Was*<ein (what this 5aw is)" the sub#ect finds himself in a situation
in which" althou!h he $nows there is a 5aw" he never $nows (and a priori cannot $now) what this
5aw is a !ap forever separates the 5aw from its positive incarnations% The sub#ect is thus" a priori"
in his very existence" !uilty !uilty without $nowin! what he is !uilty of (and for that very reason
!uilty)" infractin! the law without $nowin! its exact re!ulations% For the first time in the history of
philosophy" the assertion of the 5aw is unconscious Form experienced without content is always
the index of a repressed content the more intensely the sub#ect stic$s to the empty form" the more
traumatic the repressed content becomes%
The !ap that separates this 7antian version of the sub#ect reinventin! the rules of his ethical
conduct from the postmodern Foucauldian version is easily discernible% +oth assert that ethical
#ud!ments ultimately display the structure of aesthetic #ud!ement (in which" instead of simply
applyin! a universal rule to a particular situation" one must (re)invent the universal rule in each
uni6ue concrete situation)2 however" in Foucault" this simply means that the sub#ect is thrown into
a situation in which he has to shape his ethical pro#ect with no support in any transcendent(al)
5aw" while for 7ant" this very absence of 5aw in the specific sense of a determinate set of positive
universal norms renders all the more sensible the unbearable pressure of the moral 5aw 6ua the
pure empty in#unction to do one)s 3uty% From the 5acanian perspective" it is here that we
encounter the crucial distinction between rules to be invented and their underlyin!
5aw1;rohibition it is only when the 5aw 6ua set of positive universal symbolic norms fails to
appear" that we encounter the 5aw at its most radical" the 5aw in its aspect of the ?eal of an
unconditional in#unction% The paradox to be emphasi&ed here resides in the precise nature of the
;rohibition involved by the moral 5aw at its most fundamental" this ;rohibition is not the
prohibition to accomplish some positive act which would violate the 5aw" but the self*referential
prohibition to confuse the "impossible" 5aw with any positive symbolic prescription and1or
prohibition" i%e%" to claim for any positive set of norms the status of the law% Cltimately" the
;rohibition means that the place of the 5aw itself must remain empty%
;ut in classic Freudian terms in Foucault we !et a set of rules re!ulatin! the "care of the <elf" in
his "use of pleasures" (in short" a reasonable application of the "pleasure*principle")" while in 7ant
the (re)invention of rules follows an in#unction which comes from the "beyond the pleasure*
principle%" Of course" the Foucauldian13eleu&ian answer would be that 7ant is ultimately the
victim of a $ind of perspective illusion which leads him to (mis)perceive the radical immanence of
ethical norms the fact that the sub#ect has to invent the norms re!ulatin! his conduct
autonomously" at his own expense and responsibility" with no bi! Other to ta$e the blame for it as
its exact opposite" as radical transcendence" presupposin! the existence of an inscrutable"
transcendent "bi! Other" who terrori&es us with its unconditional in#unction" and simultaneously
prohibits us access to it2 we are under compulsion to do our 3uty" but forever prevented from
clearly $nowin! what this 3uty is% The Freudian answer is that such a solution (the translation of
the bi! Other)s inscrutable 0all of 3uty into immanence) relies on the disavowal of the
Cnconscious what usually passes unnoticed is that Foucault)s re#ection of the psychoanalytic
account of sexuality also involves a thorou!h re#ection of the Freudian Cnconscious% /f we read
7ant in psychoanalytic terms" the !ap between self*invented rules and their underlyin! 5aw is
none other than the !ap between (consciously*preconscious) rules we follow and the 5aw 6ua
unconscious the basic lesson of psychoanalysis is that what is unconscious is" at its most
radical" not the wealth of illicit "repressed" desires but the fundamental 5aw itself%
<o" even in the case of a narcissistic sub#ect dedicated to the "care of the <elf"" his "use of
pleasures" is sustained by the unconscious" unconditional supere!o*in#unction to en#oy% /s not the
ultimate proof of this feelin! of !uilt which haunts him when he fails in his pursuit of pleasures?
(ccordin! to sociolo!ical investi!ations" people find less and less attraction in sexual activity2 this
uncanny" !rowin! indifference towards intense sexual pleasure contrasts star$ly with the official
ideolo!y of our postmodern society as bent on instant !ratification and pleasure*see$in!% <o" we
have a sub#ect who dedicates his life to pleasure and becomes so deeply involved in the
preparatory activities (#o!!in!" massa!es" tannin!" applyin! cremes and lotions%%%) that the
attraction of the official 9oal of his efforts fades away2 a brief stroll today alon! 'ew 4or$)s
0hristopher <treet or 0helsea reveals hundreds of !ays puttin! extraordinary ener!y into body*
buildin!" obsessed with !ettin! old" dedicated to pleasure" yet obviously livin! in permanent
anxiety and under the shadow of ultimate failure%%% the supere!o has a!ain successfully
accomplished its wor$ the direct in#unction "-n#oy@" is a much more effective way to hinder the
sub#ect)s access to en#oyment than the explicit ;rohibition which sustains the space for its
trans!ression% The lesson of it is that the narcissistic "care of the <elf"" and not the "repressive"
networ$ of social prohibitions" is the ultimate enemy of intense sexual experiences% The utopia of
a post*psychoanalytic sub#ectivity en!a!ed in the pursuit of new" idiosyncratic bodily pleasures
beyond sexuality has reverted into disinterested boredom2 and the direct intervention of pain
(sado*masochistic sexual practices) seems the only remainin! path to the intense experience of
pleasure%
Thus" the fact that "the bi! Other doesn)t exist" (as the efficient symbolic fiction) has two
interconnected" althou!h opposed" conse6uences on the one hand" the failure of symbolic fiction
induces the sub#ect to clin! more and more to ima!inary simulacra" to sensual spectacles which
bombard us today from all sides2 while on the other" it tri!!ers the need for violence in the ?eal of
the body itself (cuttin! and piercin! the flesh" or insertin! prosthetic ob#ects into the body)%
(.) For a concise description of these shifts" see :ichel 5apeyre" (u*delH du complexe d)Oedipe
(;aris (nthropos*-conomica .EEN)%
(B) The title of 0hapter /P of 8ac6ues 5acan" 5e sAminaire" livre PJ// 5)envers de la
psychanalyse (;aris -ditions du <euil .EE.)%
(D) /n the history of philosophy" this crac$ in the !lobal rational edifice of macrocosm in which the
3ivine Will appears was first opened up by 3uns <cotus2 but we owe to F%W%8% <chellin! the most
piercin! descriptions of this horrifyin! abyss of Will% <chellin! opposed the Will to the "principle of
sufficient reason" pure Willin! is always self*identical" it relies only onto its own act * "/ want it
because / want it@"% /n his descriptions of horrifyin! poetic beauty" <chellin! emphasi&ed how
ordinary people are horrified when they encounter a person whose behaviors displays such an
unconditional Will there is somethin! fascinatin!" properly hypnotic about it" one is as if
bewitched by its si!ht%%% <chellin!)s emphasis on the abyss of pure Willin!" of course" tar!ets
,e!el)s alle!ed "panlo!icism" <chellin! wants to prove that the ,e!elian universal lo!ical system
is in itself stricto sensu impotent it is a system of pure potentialities" and as such in need of the
supplementary "irrational" act of pure Will in order to actuali&e itself%
(I) For a more detailed account of this distinction" see 0hapter B of <lavo# Qi&e$" The /ndivisible
?emainder (5ondon Jerso .EEF)%
(L) ( si!n of how even the 0hurch is not resistant to this shift in the fundamental attitude are the
recent !rass*root pressures on the ;ope to elevate :ary to the status of co*redemptrix one
expects the ;ope to render the 0atholic 0hurch viable for the post*paternal third millenium by
proclaimin! a do!ma which asserts that the only way for us" sinful mortals" to !ain divine mercy"
is via our plea to :ary" who serves as mediator" i%e%" if we convince her" she will spea$ in our favor
to 0hrist" her son%
(F) ?ichard (ndrews and ;aul <chellenber!er" The Tomb of 9od (5ondon Warner +oo$s .EEN)"
p% IDD%
(N) Op%cit%" p% IBO%
(O) 9illes 3eleu&e" 0oldness and 0ruelty ('ew 4or$ Qone +oo$s .EE.)" p% OB*OD%