|The Names-of the-Father
translated by Barbara P. Fulks
|To resume again...||
Thus the Name-of-the-Father, as one of these elements, should not be the ultimate instance nor the ultimate response. It remains to be given a status and distinguished as element and as function. But, what function? If we refer to what Lacan denominated the paternal metaphor, it is the function of metaphorizing the desire of the mother, of barring it. In this sense, the Name-of-the-Father is, par excellence, an operator of metaphorization, to such an extent that, as element, it already is in itself the metaphor of the father, of the presence of the father. Let us write it this way:
The Name-of-the-Father can not only operate in the absence of the father (this is why Lacan criticizes the theories that relegate psychosis to the lack of the father), but it can also make him absent. If it is a matter of the father spoken through the mother, as a theme of the discourse, it is well to stress that it is an empty reference there, that he is made absent by the verb. And for that reason, without myth, one can affirm that it is a matter of the dead father as the subject of the signifier, which is written .
Excerpt from the actual article - in the printed edition. For information about subscribing to Lacanian Ink click here. If you do not wish to subscribe but would like information about buying the issue containing this article click here.