책과 사상-정신분석학의 이론과 저술

박찬부,Park, Chan-Bu 대한출판문화협회 1996 출판저널 Vol.202 No.-

기표의 물질성과 메타포-라캉의 의미론 다시 읽기

박찬부(Chan-Bu Park) 한국비평이론학회 2005 비평과이론 Vol.10 No.2

This essay is concerned with what Lacan meant by the primacy of the signifier or 'the incessant sliding of the signified under the signifier.' As is well known, Lacan's concept of the signifier is derived, but appreciably modified, from Saussure's concept of the linguistic sign which is composed of the sound-image(signifier) and concept(signified). The principle of the arbitrariness fo the sign for the latter does not necessarily account for its aleatory nature for the former, for example, a number of signifieds associated with a single signifier. A specific instance of this aleatoriness of the sign is seen in the metaphorical process in which the first sign(S1/s1) substitutes for the signified of the second sign(S2/s2), which disappears temporarily. Thus, metaphorization as a signifying substitution involves a sign rather than a signifier alone, which is not a Saussurean "intimately united" sign(S/S), but a Lacanian unstable, unmatched one(S/s). While mentioning the primacy of the signifier or the sliding of the signified, Lacan never claims in any of his texts that there is no discernible signified of a signifier, and thus that we cannot interpret the analysand's discourse because what he says can mean anything and everything. He unequivocally says, "It is false to say that interpretation is open to any and every meaning." It is with this in mind that we disagree with any doctrine of the hegemony or empire of the signifier which claims that 'a signifier is only a signifier for another signifier.' A signifier has a discernible significance, and a signifying or significant power; we know that there is a signifying somewhere, even if there is not necessarily any explicit signified. In other words, it has a certain 'materiality.' This is what Lacan and Laplanche call 'the enigmatic signifier.'

라캉의 의미론

박찬부(Chan-Bu Park) 한국비평이론학회 2011 비평과이론 Vol.16 No.1

The Lacanian subject comes into being through an unconditional submission or subjection to the Other as signifiers, as is manifested in the forced choice concerning the metaphor of “money or life.” This symbolically castrating process brings about a split and barred subject $, transforming the subject-to-be from an ontological plane to a semantic one. Viewed in terms of signification, the coming-to-be of the subject is tantamount to a successful realization of the paternal metaphor or the signifying substitution: S₁/S₂. Only when a unary signifier S₁ operates in a differentiating relation to the binary signifier S₂, as is the case with the “fort/da” game, the subject has full access to the signifying chain or the symbolic order. This is what Lacan means by the dictum that the signifier is that which represents the subject for another signifier. The situation of the S₁ to which the S₂ represents a subject has to do with another dictum of Lacan’s: “Dialectize a master signifier.” Dialectization is the Lacanian term used to introduce an outside of the S₁, that is, to establish an opposition between it and another signifier, S₂. If this S₁ can be brought into some kind of relationship with another signifier, then its status as a master signifier freezing, subjugating the subject changes. This change leads to the precipitation of subjectivity and an analytic cure as well. Thus, when a master signifier is dialectized, metaphorization occurs, the subject is precipitated, and the subject assumes a new position. This is what is meant by the ‘signifying substitution.’

재현과 그 불만 : 라캉의 실재론

박찬부(Chan-Bu Park) 신영어영문학회 2006 신영어영문학 Vol.35 No.-

This essay is an attempt to account for the paradoxical way in which the real as the surplus-effect of symbolization is internal to the symbolic order, but is nevertheless irreducible to the system of representation. Topologically speaking, the real is simultaneously ‘inside’ the symbolic structure and ‘outside’ it as well. It is a kind of ‘excluded interior,’ or an ‘intimate exterior,’ if extrapolated from the Lacanian term ‘extimit?.’ Lacan’s thesis developed in his later years from the concept of the big Other barred, ‘Ø’ is that something anomalous never ceases to appear within the system of representation, something unaccountable, unexplainable: a aporia or an impasse. These impasses point to the presence within or impact on the symbolic of the real.

자아 담론과 대타자 담론 - 서술 언어의 전복적 해체구조

박찬부(Chan-Bu Park) 한국영미어문학회 2006 영미어문학 Vol.- No.79

  Freudian Ichspaltung and Lacanian ‘self’s radical ex-centricity to itself’ manifest themselves especially in the dichotomy between ego discourse and the Other"s discourse.   The ego discourse, which is conscious and intentional, constituting the imaginary axis o-o" in the schema L, is sharply contrasted with the discourse of the Other, which is unconscious and unintentional, constituting the symbolic axis S-O.   Arguably, these two distinct discourses are compared with the classic distinction made in linguistics between ?nonc?, which is concerned with ‘the said’ and ?nonciation, which is concerned with ‘the saying.’   The Lacanian subject is not the subject of the statement and thus appears nowhere in what is said. Accordingly, the truth of the subject, which has to do with the authentic discourse of the Other, appears in the mi-dit, the half-said. To put it otherwise, psychoanalytically speaking, the bien-dire is the mi-dire, the half-saying.   Lacanian dictum, ‘The signifier is that which represents the subject for another signifier’ is discussed in connection with the unconscious savoir, or structured knowledge, that is, the way in which the unconscious knows how to actualize in an opportune signifier what the subject says without knowing what it is saying.   Lastly, this essay draws attention to the way in which something like the psychoanalytic difference between ego and Other discourse also occurs in the narrative text in the form of ‘narration as repetition,’ more specifically, in the difference between narration as reporting and narration as performance.

사물(das Ding)의 품격으로 승화된 예술적 오브제 - 라캉의 미학론

박찬부(Chan-Bu Park) 한국영미어문학회 2008 영미어문학 Vol.- No.88

  This essay is a study of the Lacanian aesthetics with an emphasis on his search for the sublime beauty, as is typically manifested in his reading of Sophocles"s Antigone.<BR>  A particular concern is drawn to the way in which Antigone is so radical in her insistence on the proper burial of the body of her brother, Polynices. Arguably, what she aims at here is nothing other than das Ding, or the Freudian Thring, a jenseits, or an exteriority of the world of human meaning and experience. And Antigone"s desire for the Thing manifests itself as the Todestrieb, death drive that both Freud and Lacan have elaborated on. Lacanian sublime beauty reveals itself in this figure of Antigone, that is, in her tragic confrontation with une seconde mort.<BR>  More specifically, beauty in Lacanian terms is found when an object, or an artistic objet is raised to the dignity of das Ding. This is made possible through the psychoanalytic mechanism of "sublimation," for it means "nothing else than the possibility of coming into the Thing without losing oneself as a subject." Through this non-destructive relation to das Ding, the human subject comes as closely as possible to a jenseits, away from the world of the social-symbolic network.<BR>  This essay accounts for this search for the sublime beauty in terms of the myth of Eden, for the process of losing the Paradise in the wake of eating the Tree of Knowledge and dreaming a return to the Paradise, closely parallels the way in which the Lacanian subject desires for the Thring of the real achtr?glich, following a falling into this world of meaning and experience through representation and

트라우마와 정신분석

박찬부(Park Chan-Bu) 한국비평이론학회 2010 비평과이론 Vol.15 No.1

In Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Freud defines the trauma as the stimuli and excitations from outside that are powerful enough to break through the protective shield. In Lacanian terms, it can be translated into a breach of the symbolic system of representation, resulting in the production of the traumatic real. Generally speaking, the Lacanian real is an effect of symbolization that can not nevertheless be reducible to the symbolic order. Accordingly, the traumatic real can be looked upon as an effect of a negative/traumatic symbolization, which has to do with the breach of the symbolic system of representation. The traumatic event constitutes a liminal case in which the victim is situated in what Freud terms ‘anti-thetical representation,’ exposed to the ‘unrepresented’ ‘unsymbolized’ ‘unintegrated’ ‘unprocessed’ ‘unassimilated’'unclaimed’ experience, as the theoreticians of trauma name variously. It is worth noting that the traumatic real ungendered in the wake of the traumatic event is closely related to the activation of what Freud calls Todestrieb(death drive). This accounts for the way in which the victims of trauma are disintegrated sexually and/or aggressively, exposed to some derailments and transgressions. According to Triebmischung, the two classes of drive may be fused into sadism and/or masochism. Lacanian psychoanalysis can be defined as a way of working on the traumatic real by means of the symbolic, or a way of speaking the unspeakable through the medium of the signifier. Otherwise put, the analytic cure is an attempt to have an impact on affect by means of representation, thus changing the subject of jouissance via the subject of the signifier. It is only the signifier itself, the very tool of disintegration that can heal the wound it incises into the traumatic real, much like the way in which “only the spear that smote you, can heal your wound” as in Wagner’s Parsifal.

메타포

박찬부(Chan-Bu Park) 한국현대정신분석학회 2012 현대정신분석 Vol.14 No.2

무의식과 라깡의 실재 개념

박찬부(PARK, Chan-Bu) 한국현대정신분석학회 2013 현대정신분석 Vol.15 No.1

오이디푸스를 넘어서 - 프로이트에서 라캉으로 : 오이디푸스를 넘어서

박찬부(Chan-Bu Park) 한국비평이론학회 2007 비평과이론 Vol.12 No.1

This essay is an examination of the way in which the Oedipus complex, which is traditionally regarded as the centerpiece of Freudian theory, is reinterpreted by Jacques Lacan in the light of what he calls the ‘formulas of metaphor’ or the signifying substitution. Freudian theory of the Oedipus Complex, which is concerned with such critical issues as the formation of the human subject, the logic of affects, and the question of sexual difference, tends to be articulated largely in terms of the real family structure, as is manifested in his phrase ‘family romance.’ On the other hand, Lacanian approach to the Oedipal structure is mainly structural and linguistic, with the paternal signifier ‘Name-of-the-Father’ substituted for the ‘Desire of the Mother’ resulting in the structure of the ‘Name-of-the-Father’ (Other/Phallus). Otherwise said, the overcoming of the Oedipal conflict means in Lacanian terms a successful accession to the symbolic order or the big Other (O), set of signifiers and a birth of the human subject with sexual identity, securing a phallic meaning (Ф). According to Lacan, the difference between the mother and the father, even when it is sexually marked, cannot be ‘translated’ into the difference between the man and the woman. Every attempt at such symbolic translation leaves a ‘surplus-effect,’ which is the real of sexual difference. The last part of the essay is devoted to the way in which the human subject is differently positioned with respect to the Other. This different subject position vis-?-vis the Other explains what Lacan calls ‘sexuation’ and the Other jouissance as distinguished from the phallic jouissance.