WHAT IS RECOGNIZED structural? PROBLEMATIZATION Gilles Deleuze English translation of Juan Bauza and María José Muñoz
Before wondered "what is the existentialist. " Now, what is structuralism? These questions relate to issues which arouse strong interest, but on the condition of referring to the present, to refer to the work being done. It is 1967. You can not invoke the unfinished nature of the works to avoid responding because it is only character that gives meaning to the question. Since then the question "What is structuralism?" Is required to suffer certain changes. Firstly, who is structuralism? There are customs and the most recent actual respect. Come to be known, as shown, rightly or wrongly, a linguist and R. Jakobson, a sociologist and C. Levi-Strauss, an analyst and J. Lacan, a philosopher who renews epistemology, and M. Foucault, a Marxist philosopher who takes up the problem of interpretation of Marxism as L. Althusser, a literary critic and R. Barthes, writers such as Tel Quel group ... Some did not reject the term "structuralism" and use "structure", "structural." Others prefer the term Saussure "system." Very different thinkers, and of different generations, some have exercised real influence over others. But the most important and striking is the extreme diversity of the domains exploring. Each encounter problems, methods, solutions that have analogous relationships, such as participating in a free air time, the spirit of the time, but that is measured by the discoveries and creations unique in each of these domains. The words in-ism, in this sense, are well founded.
It is right to assign the origin of language and structuralism: Saussure not only, but in a school in Moscow, the Prague school. And if structuralism then extends to other domains, it is no longer this time analogy is not simply to establish methods "equivalent" to those who first were fruitful in the analysis of language. There really is no structure to what is language, although it is an esoteric language or nonverbal. No structures of the unconscious rather than to the extent that the unconscious is language speech. No structures of the body rather than the extent to which the bodies were somehow supposed to "speak" a language that makes symptom, which is the language of symptoms. The same things generally do not have structure, but as far as holding a "speech" silent, which is the language of signs. Then the question "What is structuralism?" Becomes once again, and it is better to ask: in that can recognize who call structuralist? What are their distinguishing features and differential? and what do they recognize themselves? Whether it is true that not recognize people, so visible, rather than invisible and insensible things they recognize in their own way. What do you do, structuralists, to recognize a "language" into something, the language that characterizes a domain name? What they find in this domain? Here we propose to clear only certain formal criteria of recognition, simple, relying increasingly on the example of the authors concerned, regardless of the diversity of its work and projects.
First criterion: the symbolic
We are used almost conditioned to a certain distinction or correlation between the real and imaginary. All our thinking remains a dialectic between these two notions. Even when classical philosophy speaks of the pure intelligence or understanding, it is still a power defined by their ability to capture reality in its foundation, the real, so to speak, "real" reality as it is in opposition, but also in relation to the powers of the imagination. Take, for example, completely different creative movements: romanticism, symbolism, surrealism ... Invoked both the transcendent point where reality and fiction interpenetrate and bind, as their fine line as the cutting edge of their difference. Anyway, in general stay, we stay in the opposition and the alleged complementarity between the imaginary and real, at least in the traditional interpretation of romanticism, symbolism, etc. Even the Freudian theory is interpreted in the light of two principles: the principle of reality with its strength of disappointment, pleasure principle with the power of hallucinatory satisfaction. With more reason, methods such as Jung and Bachelard fully enroll in the real and imaginary, in the context of their complex, transcendent unity and preliminary tension, fusion and cutting.
However, against this tradition, the first criterion of structuralism, is the discovery and recognition of a third order, a third kingdom: the symbolic. This recognition is the mistaken rejection of both the symbolic and the imaginary, like the real thing, and this is the first dimension of structuralism. Here too, it started with the language, the language that we can describe modern: beyond the term in their reality and sound parts, beyond the images and concepts related to the word, the structuralist linguist discovers an item nature very different is the structural object. And it seems that the writers of the Tel Quel group want to settle in this symbolic element for renewing the sound realities such as accounts or related accounts. Beyond the history of mankind and the history of ideas, Michel Foucault discovers a deeper soil, underground, so to speak, which is the subject of what he calls the archeology of thought. Behind the Real Men and real relations, and ideologies behind their imaginary relations, Louis Althusser discovers a deeper domain as an object of science and philosophy. We
and many parents in psychoanalysis: first a real father, but also images of father. And all our dramas as they were happening within the usual tense relations between the real and imaginary. Jacques Lacan reveals a third parent, more fundamental, symbolic father or father-Name. Not only the real and imaginary, but their relations, and disruption of these relationships should be thought of as the limit of a process in which those relations and conditions are established from the symbolic. In Lacan, and other structuralists also symbolic as the structure element is at the beginning of a genesis: the structure is embodied in the reality series following images and determinable; besides, she is incarnated the there, but not derived from them, they still deeper, subsurface soil both for all of the real as all the skies of imagination. Conversely, some disasters own structural symbolic order account for the apparent disruption of the real and imaginary: thus, for example, in the case of the Wolf Man to Freud, as Lacan interprets it, is because the subject of castration is not symbolized ("foreclosure") which returns in the real, in the form hallucinatory severed finger. We can list
[put a number to] the real, imaginary and the symbolic: 1, 2, 3. But we can say that these figures are both cardinal and ordinal value. Because the real in itself is not separable from a certain ideal of unification and aggregation: the real thing tends to make one, is one in its "truth." Since we see two "one", since unfolded, the imaginary appears in person, even if in reality that exerts its action. For example, the real father is one, or wants to be according to law, but the father image is always double in itself, divided (clivée) following a dual law. She is projected onto two persons at least one game takes on the father, father-buffoon, the other the father working and ideal as the Prince of Wales, Shakespeare, passing of a father image to another, from Falstaff to the crown. Is defined by the imaginary mirror games, splitting, identification and inverted projection provided in the dual mode. But, for its part, the symbolic is three. It is only the third beyond the real and imaginary. There is always another to look at the symbolic himself, the triadic structure is at least, not what she does not "circulate", while third unreal, and therefore unimaginable.
will see why, but the first criterion is this: the establishment of a symbolic order, irreducible to the order of the real, the imaginary order, and deeper them. Do not know yet what this symbolic element. We can at least say that the corresponding structure is not related to a sensitive nor a figure of the imagination, nor a intelligible essence. Nothing to do with a way: as the structure is not defined in any way by a range of all by a pregnancy of the whole over the parts, a Gestalt that exercise in reality and in perception, the structure is defined contrary to the nature of atomic elements that are intended to account both for the training of all and the variation of its parts. Nor anything to do with imagination figures, although structuralism is entirely penetrated with reflections on the rhetoric, metaphor and metonymy, as these figures themselves involve structural shifts that must account both for the proper and the figurative. Nothing to see, finally, with an essence, because it is a combination that falls on formal elements that are not themselves or form or meaning, or representation, or content, or empirical reality given or hypothetical functional model, or intelligibility behind the appearances, no one better than Louis Althusser has assigned the status of the structure as identical to the "theory" itself, and symbolism must be understood as the production of original and specific theoretical object.
Structuralism is both aggressive: when reporting the general ignorance of the latter category symbolic, beyond the imaginary and real, as interpretation: when renewing our interpretation of works from this category and aims to discover an original point where language forms, the works are made, ideas and actions are tied. Romanticism, symbolism, but also Freudianism, Marxism also become the object of profound reinterpretation. Moreover, the work is legendary, the poetry, a philosophical work, works very practices which are subject to structural interpretation. But this reinterpretation applies only to the extent that it encourages new works are today, as if it were a fountain symbolic, inseparably, interpretation and creative living.
Second criterion: local or position
What is the symbolic element of the structure? We feel the need to go slowly, and once again say that it is not the first. Different from the real and imaginary, can not be defined either by pre-existing realities which forwarded, and appoint or imaginary or conceptual content-involving, and that would give a meaning. The elements of a structure have no extrinsic designation [to that structure] or intrinsic meaning [outside of the structure]. What's left? As Levi-Strauss points out rigorously, they have nothing else than a sense: a sense that is necessarily and only "position." This is not a place in a real extension, extensions or imaginary places, but of sites and places itself in a space structure, ie topological. What is structural, the space, but unextended space, pre-extensive, pure spatium up over time as order neighborhood, where the notion of neighborhood is specifically and primarily an ordinal sense and no significance in the extension. Or in genetic biology: genes are part of a structure as they are inseparable from "loci" more capable of changing relationships within the chromosome. In short, places a purely structural space are first in relation to things and real people who come to occupy, the first also in relation to the roles and the events always a little imaginary necessarily appear when they are busy.
structuralism scientific ambition is not quantitative, but topological and relational Levi-Strauss constantly raised this principle. And when Althusser speaks of economic structure, states that the true "subjects" are not there those who occupy the places, particular individuals or real men, nor the real objects are not there the roles they have and the events that occur, but first places in a space defined by topological and structural relations of production . When Foucault defines determinations such as death, desire, work, play, does not consider them as dimensions of human existence empirically, but first the qualifications of places or positions that will make mortal and dying, or desiring, or workers , or players who come to occupy, but they shall not occupy more than secondary, taking their roles in order of neighborhood which is the same structure. That is why Foucault can propose a new distribution of the empirical and the transcendental, being the latter defined by an order of locations regardless of those who occupy them empirically. Structuralism is inseparable from a new transcendental philosophy, which dominated on the places that fill them. Father, mother, etc., Are the first places in a structure, and if we are mortal, is taking a row, coming from a particular site, marked in the following order topological structure of the neighborhood (even if we move in our circuit).
"not only [a] subject, but the subjects taken as intersubjectivity, which are made in line ... and shaping their very being on the time that runs from the signifying chain ... the displacement of the signifier determines the subjects in their acts, their fate in their refusals, in their blindness [blind spot] in its success, and his fate, despite their innate abilities and social achievement, regardless to the character or sex ... "Can not say better than empirical psychology is not only justified, but is determined by a transcendental topology. This approach
based on position, an additional number of consequences. And first, if no designation symbolic elements extrinsic or intrinsic meaning, but only a sense of position, it is necessary to establish the principle that the meaning is always a combination of elements that are not themselves [by themselves or in themselves] significant. As Levi-Strauss says in his discussion with Paul Ricoeur, the meaning is always a result, an effect: an effect not only as a product, but an optical effect, an effect of language, a position effect. There is a non-deep sense of meaning, which is the very meaning. Thus becomes not what is called philosophy of the absurd. As for the philosophy of the absurd, is the sense that is lacking, essentially. Structuralism To the contrary, there is always much sense, overproduction, an overdetermination of meaning, always produced in excess by the combination of sites in the structure. (Hence the importance, in Althusser, for example, the concepts of overdetermination). The non-sense is not at all the absurd or the opposite of meaning, but what makes it worth and what causes circulating in the structure. Structuralism owes nothing to Albert Camus, but much to Lewis Carroll.
The second consequence is the taste of structuralism for certain games and some theater, some play areas and a theater. It is no coincidence that Levi-Strauss often relates to game theory, and of such importance to the playing cards. And Lacan, metaphors of games, that are more than metaphors: not just the passing-pass running in the structure, but the place of the dead that circulates in the bridge. Noblest games like chess are those who organize a combinatorial pure spatium places infinitely more profound than the actual extent of the board and the imaginary extension of each figure. Or cut your comment Althusser Marx theatrically speaking, but a theater that is not reality or ideas, pure theater of places and positions whose principle is in Brecht, and that perhaps today would find its most advanced Armand Gatti. In short, the manifesto of structuralism itself must be sought in the famous formula eminently poetic and theatrical thinking, is to make a play.
The third consequence is that structuralism is inseparable from a new material, a new atheism, a new anti-humanism. For if the place is first in terms of what occupies it, certainly not enough to put people in the place of God to change their structure. And if this place is the place of the dead, the death of God means the man's favor, we hope, of something coming up, but that can come only in the structure and its mutation. Thus it appears the imaginary character of man (Foucault), or the ideological character of humanism (Althusser).
Third criterion: the differential and the singular
What are, finally, these symbolic elements or units of position? Returning to the linguistic model. What is different both from the sound parts, and associated images and concepts is called a phoneme. The phoneme is the smallest linguistic unit capable of separating two words of different meaning: for example pool and catch. It is clear that the phoneme is embodied in words, syllables and sounds, but not limited to that. Moreover, the letters, syllables and sounds give independence, while itself is inseparable from the relationship that binds phonemic other phonemes: b / p. Phonemes do not exist relationships regardless of where they enter and which mutually determine.
We can distinguish three types of relationships. The first type is between elements that are independent or autonomous, for example 3 +2, or even 2 / 3. The elements are real, and these relationships should consider themselves real. A second type of relationship, for example x2 + y2 - R2 = 0, is established between terms in which the value is not specified [variables], but must in each case but have a certain value. Such relationships can be called imaginary. But the third type is between elements that do not themselves have any value, and which nevertheless determine each other in the relationship: well XDY + XDx = 0 or dy / dx = x / y. Such relationships are symbolic, and items are taken from a differential relation. d is completely unknown in connection with, and dx is completely unknown in relation to x: each of them has no existence or value or significance. And yet the relationship dy / dx is completely determined, the two elements interact in determining the relationship. It is this process of mutual determination of the relationship within which to define the symbolic nature. Happen to be looking for the origin of structuralism side axiomatic. It is true that Bourbaki, for example, uses the term structure. But it does, it seems, in a very different sense of structuralism. Then it comes to relationships between elements not specified, even qualitatively, rather than items specified reciprocal. The axiomatic in this regard would be even imagined, and not strictly speaking symbolically. The mathematical origin of structuralism should be sought on the side of the differential calculus, and just to the interpretation that it will Weierstrass and Russell, static and ordinal interpretation, finally freeing the calculation of any reference to the infinitely small, and integrates in a pure logic of relations.
A determinations of the differential relations corresponding singularities, distribution of singular points or curves that characterize the figures (eg a triangle has three singular points). Thus the determination of phonemic relations characteristic of a given language in which assigns the unique neighborhood are the sounds and meanings of language. The mutual determination of symbolic elements is extended since then in the complete determination of the singular points that provide a space for these items. The notion of uniqueness capital, taken to the lyrics, seems to belong to all domains where there is structure. The general formula "think, is to make a dice roll" itself refers to the singularities represented by bright spots on the dice. Every structure presents the following two aspects: a system of differential relations according to which the symbolic elements are mutually determined, a system of singularities corresponding to these relations and paving the area of \u200b\u200bthe structure. Every structure is a multiplicity. The question: Is there any domain structure? It should be specified as follows: can this or that domain, clear symbolic elements, differential relations and singular points that are themselves? The symbolic elements are embodied in beings and real objects in the domain considered, the differential relations are updated in real relations between these beings, the singularities are so many places in the structure, roles and attitudes distributed imaginary beings or objects that come to occupy.
is not about mathematical metaphors. In each domain is necessary to find the elements, relationships and points. When Levi-Strauss undertakes the study of the elementary structures of kinship, not only considers real parents in a society, or pictures of father who enrolled in the myths of society. He aims to discover real "phonemes" parentage, ie parentemas, position units not exist independently of the differential relations where they fit and determine each other. So the four relationships brother / sister, husband / wife, father / son, uncle, mother / sister's children, are the simplest structure. And this combination of "parental appeals" under, but a similar and complex way, "attitudes among relatives" who made certain singularities in the system. It can also proceed in reverse: from the singularities to determine the differential relations between symbolic elements last. Thus, taking the example of the Oedipus myth, Levi-Strauss of the singularities of the story (Oedipus marries his mother, kills his father, slain the Sphinx, is called the foot-swelling, etc..) To induce the differential relations between "mythemes" identified one another (over-estimated kinship, kinship underestimated denial of the autochthonous, persistence of the autochthonous). In any case always the symbolic elements and their relationships determine the nature of beings and objects come to embody [made, sustained], while the singularities are an order of the places that simultaneously determines the roles and attitudes of these beings While the deal. The determination of the structure is just a theory and attitudes that express their operation.
The singularities correspond to the symbolic elements and their relationships, but they seem. It would say that they "symbolize" with them. They are derived from them, and that any determination of differential relations implies a distribution of singular points. But for example: the values \u200b\u200bof differential relations are embodied in species, while the singularities are embodied in the organic parts for each species. The variables are few, the other functions. Nails are in the domain structure of appeals, the other, the attitudes. Levi-Strauss has insisted on two aspects, Bypass and yet of irreducibility, attitudes regarding appeals. A disciple of Lacan, Serge Leclaire, as shown in another domain of the unconscious symbolic elements necessarily refer to "libidinal movements of bodies, embodying the peculiarities of the structure in this or that place. Every structure in this sense is psychosomatic, or rather represents a complex class-attitude.
Consider the interpretation of Marxism Althusser and his collaborators: first, the relations of production are determined differential relations there as down, not real men or particular individuals, but between objects and agents having primarily a symbolic value (the subject of production, means of production, labor, workers immediate, immediate non-workers as they are taken in property relations and ownership). Each mode of production is then characterized by singularities that correspond to the values \u200b\u200bof relationships. And if it is clear that real men come to occupy the places and make [embody] the elements of the structure is holding the structural role assigned place (eg the "capitalist"), and serving as media relations Structural although "the real subjects are not those occupiers and those officials ... but definición y la distribución de estos lugares y de estas funciones». El verdadero sujeto es la estructura misma: lo diferencial y lo singular, las relaciones diferenciales y los puntos singulares, la determinación recíproca y la determinación completa.
Cuarto criterio: el diferenciante, la diferenciación
Las estructuras son necesariamente inconscientes, en virtud de los elementos, relaciones y puntos que los componen. Toda estructura es una infraestructura, una micro-estructura. En cierta forma ellas no son actuales [fenoménicas]. Lo que es actual, es aquello en lo que la estructura se encarna o más bien lo que ella constituye encarnándose. Pero en sí misma, ella no es neither actual or fictitious or real or possible, Jacobson raises the issue of the status of the phoneme: it is not confused with a letter, syllable or sound current, and there is also a fiction, an associated image. Perhaps the term virtuality designate exactly how the structure or object of the theory. A condition to terminate its vagueness, because the virtual is a reality of its own, but not confused with any actual reality, any past or present, there is an idealism that is proper, but not confused with any image possible, no abstract idea. Structure will be told: real without being actual, ideal without being abstract. Is why Levi-Strauss has often the structure as a sort of reservoir or ideal repertoire, where virtually all coexist, but where the updating is done according necessarily unique addresses, which always involve partial combinations and unconscious choices. Clear the structure of a domain is to determine an entire virtual coexistence with pre-existing beings, objects and works of this domain. Every structure is a multiplicity of virtual coexistence. L. Althusser, for example, shows in this sense that the originality of Marx (his anti-Hegelianism) lies in the way the social system is defined by a coexistence of elements and economic relations, without being able to engender enthusiasm on the following of a false dialectic.
What coexisting in the structure? All elements, relationships and values \u200b\u200bof relationships, all the peculiarities of the domain considered. Such coexistence does not imply any confusion, no uncertainty: are relationships and different elements that coexist in a perfectly and completely determined. Is that all is not updated as such. What updates, here and now, are such relationships, such values \u200b\u200bof relationships, such a distribution of singularities, others are updated elsewhere or at other times. No total language, which embodies all possible phonemes and phonemic relations, but the whole language virtual is updated following exclusive addresses in different languages, of which each embodies certain relationships, certain values \u200b\u200bof respect and singularities. No total society, but each embodies social form elements, relationships and production values \u200b\u200b(eg "capitalism"). We must therefore distinguish the overall structure of a domain as a set of virtual coexistence, and the substructures that correspond to the various updates in the domain. As virtual structure, we must say that she is still undifferentiated (indifférenciée), but is wholly and fully differentiated (differentiée). Structures that are embodied in one form or another current (present or past), we say that they differ (différencient), and updated, for them, is precisely differentiate (differencies). The structure is inseparable from this double aspect of this complex or can be designated under the name of differentiation (different / ciation), where t / c is universally given phonemic relationship.
Any differentiation, any update is done in two ways: species and parts. The differential relations are embodied in qualitatively distinct species, whereas the corresponding singularities are embodied in the extended parts and figures that characterize each species. Thus the species of languages, and parts of each in the vicinity of the singularities of linguistic structure, social modes of production specifically defined and organized parts that correspond to each of its modes, etc. Note that the update process always involves a temporary internal variable as it is updated. Not only every kind of social production is a global temporary internal, but their parties have organized special rates. Structuralist position with respect to time is thus very clear: time is always there an update time, according to which they are made at rates different elements of virtual coexistence. As time goes virtual the current, ie the structure to its updates, and not an actual form to another. Or at least the time conceived as a relation of succession of two current forms is content to express abstractly the internal time structure or structures that are made in depth in these two forms, and the differential relations between these times. And precisely because the structure is not updated undifferentiated in space and time, no distinction because of that species and parts that made, we must say in this sense that the structure of these species produce these parts them. She produces them as distinct species and parts. Although it can not oppose the genetic to structural as the time structure. The genesis, as time goes from virtual to actual, of the structure to its update, the two notions of temporality inner manifold, and static ordinal origins are inseparable in this respect the game of the structures.
is necessary to insist on that role differentiation. The structure is itself a system of elements and differential relations, but it also differentiates species and parts, people and functions in which it is updated. She is a differential in itself, and divisive in its effect. Commenting on Levi-Strauss, Jean Pouillon defined the problem of structuralism: can develop "a system differences do not drive their simple juxtaposition, or its artificial erasure? "From this perspective the work of Georges Dumezil is exemplary, from the point of view even of structuralism: no one has analyzed more generic and specific differences between religions, and the differences of parties and functions between the gods of the same religion. Is that the gods of a religion, for example, Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus, embody the elements and differential relations, while they find their attitudes and positions in the vicinity of the singularities of the system or "parts of society" considered , are therefore essentially different from the structure that updated or made them, and that the updated results. It is true that each of them considered only in today attracts and reflects the role of others, though it runs the risk of not finding anything original that this differentiation occurs from the virtual to actual. But it is precisely here that the border passes between the imaginary and the symbolic imagination tends to reflect and regroup on each term the total effect of a joint mechanism, while the symbolic structure ensures the differentiation of the terms and differentiation effects. From which structuralism hostility with regard to the methods of the imagination: criticism of Jung by Lacan, Bachelard's critique of the "new criticism." Imagination unfolds and reflects and identifies projects, games are lost in mirrors, but both the distinctions made, such as operating assimilations are surface effects that obscure the more subtle differential mechanisms of symbolic thought. Commenting on Dumézil Edmond Nettles says it well: "When you approach the material imagination, the differential function decreases, the tendency towards equivalence, when one approaches the forming elements of society, the differential function increases, it tends to distinctive valence. "
are unconscious structures, while [being] necessarily covered by their products or effects. Economic structure there is never pure, but the relationships covered by legal, political, ideological, in which it is embodied. Unable to read, find, find again that the structures from these effects. The terms and relationships that update, species and parts that made, are both expressions interference. It is a disciple of Lacan, J.-A Miller is the concept of a "metonymic causality" or Althusser, that of structural causality itself, to account for the presence of a very particular structure in their effects, and how they differ these effects, while these assimilate and integrate. The unconscious of the unconscious structure is a differential. One might think that structuralism and return to a pre-Freudian conception: Did not Freud conceived the unconscious in the way of conflict or opposition forces of desire, while the proposed Leibnizian metaphysics and the idea of \u200b\u200ban unconscious differential small perceptions? But Freud himself, there is a whole problem of the origin of the unconscious, its constitution as "language", which exceeds the level of desire, associated images and links to object. Conversely, the unconscious differential is made of small perceptions of the real and the passages to the limit, but variations of differential relations in a symbolic system based on distributions of singularities. Levi-Strauss is right to say that the unconscious is neither desires or representations, that is "always empty, consisting only in the structural laws imposed by both the representations as to the wishes.
is that the unconscious is always a problem. Not in the sense that its existence is doubtful. But is it the same problems and issues that are resolved only to the extent that the corresponding structure is made, which are always resolved in the manner in which it is made. As a problem is always the solution it deserves based on how it is raised, and the symbolic field which is available for planting. Althusser may have the economic structure of society than the range of problems she raises, she is determined to pose, and she resolves on its own means, ie according to the lines of differentiation according to which the structure updated. Taking account of the absurdities and cruelties ignominy these "solutions" behave because of the structure. Similarly Serge Leclaire, after Lacan, can distinguish between psychosis and neurosis, and neurosis among them, not so much types of conflicts and the modes of questions, which are always the answer they deserve in terms of the symbolic field where raised: that the hysterical question is not the obsessive. In all this, problems and issues but do not designate a provisional and subjective time in the development of our knowledge, but rather a category perfectly objective, "seek" full and complete than are those of the structure. The unconscious is both structural differential problem posing, cuestionante. In short he is, as we shall see, serial.
Fifth criterion: serial
All this however still seems unable to function. Is that we could not define more than one half of structure. A structure does not start moving, not encouraged, rather than whether we'll replace your other half. Indeed, the symbolic elements defined above, taken in their differential relations are necessarily organized in series. But, as such, are related to another series, consisting of other symbolic elements and other relationships: This refers to a second series is easily explained if we recall that the singularities arising from the terms and relations of the former, but not content with to replicate. As they themselves are organized in a series capable of autonomous development, or at least the first necessarily forwarded to that other series. So phonemes and morphemes. Either the economic series, and other social series. Or the triple series of Foucault, linguistic, economic, biological, etc. The question of whether the first set forms a basis and in what sense, if it is significant, the others being only meant, is a complex issue whose nature we still can not pinpoint. Should only note that any structure is serial, multi-serial, and would not work without this condition.
When Levi-Strauss takes up the study of totemism, shows how the phenomenon is poorly understood as it is interpreted in terms of imagination. For the imagination, as His law totemism necessarily conceived as the operation by which a man or a group is identified with an animal. But symbolically, it is another thing: no imaginary identification of a term with another, but the structural homology of two sets of terms. On the one hand a number of species taken as elements of differential relations, on the other hand a number of social positions covered themselves symbolically in their own relationships: confrontation is "between these two sets of differences," these two sets of items and relationships.
The unconscious, according to Lacan, is neither individual nor collective, but intersubjective. Ie which involves a series development: not only the signifier and signified, but at least the two series are organized in a very variable depending on the domain considered. One of the most famous texts of Lacan says "The Purloined Letter Edgar Poe, showing how the" structure "staged two series whose sites are occupied by subjects variables: the king who does not see the letter - Queen who boasts of having it so much better hidden since has left little doubt - minister who sees everything and that takes hold of the letter (first series), police found nothing in the house of the minister - minister who claims to have hidden the better the letter in both leaves evidence - Dupin who sees everything and recovering the letter (second series). Already in an earlier text, Lacan commented on the case of The Man of rats on the basis of a double series, paternal, filial, in which each put into play on four terms in order of places: debt-friend, Female rich-poor women.
Obviously the organization constitute a structure series are a true staging, and requires in each case accurate evaluations and interpretations. There is absolutely no general rule, we played here the point at which structuralism is both a true creation, as an initiative and discovery are not without risk. The determination of a structure is not only a choice de elementos simbólicos de base y de las relaciones diferenciales donde entran; no solamente tampoco por una distribución de puntos singulares que les corresponde; sino aún por la constitución de una segunda serie, al menos, que mantiene relaciones complejas con la primera. Y, si la estructura define un campo problemático, un campo de problemas, es en el sentido en que la naturaleza del problema revela su objetividad propia en esta constitución serial, que hace que el estructuralismo se sienta a veces próximo a una música. Philippe Sollers escribe una novela, Drame, pautada por las expresiones “Problema” y “Fallado”, en el curso de la cual se elaboran series vacilantes («una cadena de recuerdos Marine goes to his right arm ... left leg, however, seems to work for mineral clusters') a. Or attempting to Jean-Pierre Faye Analogues, concerning coexistence narraciónb serial modes.
"Now that's what the two series empid simply reflect one another, and since then identify their terms one by one? The entire structure would fall on the status of a figure of the imagination. The reason that conjures a risk that is strange in appearance. Indeed, the terms of each series are inseparable in the gaps themselves, or who suffer displacement in relation to the terms of the other, are thus inseparable variation of differential relations. For the purloined letter, the minister, in the second series comes to occupy the place that the queen had at first. In the series subsidiary of The Rat Man, the poor woman who comes to take the place of his friend in connection with the Debtco. Or in a double set of twins birds and quoted by Levi-SRAUSS, twins who are the "top people" in relation to people below, are necessarily the place of the "birds of below", not the birds above. This relative displacement of two series is not entirely secondary, not to affect a term comes from the outside and secondly, to give an imaginary costume. By contrast, the displacement is itself a structural or symbolic belongs essentially to the places in the area of \u200b\u200bthe structure, and rules and all the costumes imaginary beings and objects that are secondary to occupy these places. That is why structuralism gives much attention to metaphor and metonymy. These are in no way figures of the imagination, but first structural factors. There are even two structural factors in the sense that they express the two degrees of freedom of movement, from one series to another and within the same series. Far from being imaginary, preventing the series encourage imagination confused or duplicate its terms. But what then these movements are related, if absolutely part of the places in the structure? Sixth
criteria: the empty box
turns out that the structure involves a completely paradoxical object or element. Consider the case of the letter in Poe's story as Lacan says, or for debt, in The Man of rats. It is evident that this object is mainly symbolic. But we say "essentially" because it does not belong to any particular series, the letter is nonetheless present in the two series of Edgar Poe, the debt is present in both sets of The Rat Man. This object is always present in the corresponding series, walk in and moves in them, continues to circulate in them, and each other, with extraordinary agility. It seems that is his own metaphor, and metonymy itself. The series in each case consist of symbolic terms and differential relations, but he seems otherwise. Indeed, it is in relation to the variety of terms and the variation of the differential relations are increasingly determined. The two sets of a structure are always different (under the laws of differentiation). But this particular object is the point of convergence of divergent series as such. It is "essentially" symbolic, but precisely because is inherent in the two series simultaneously. How do you call it, but object = x, object or large mobile guessing? We have doubts anyway: what J. Lacan invites us to discover in two cases, the particular role of a bill or debt - Is it an artifact, with the rigor applied in these cases, or it is a truly general method, valid for all domains-structural, approach for any structure, as if a structure is not defined without the allocation of an object = x that continues to explore its series? As if such a literary work, or work of art, but also other works, works of society, the disease, life in general, to wrap this particular object as governing structure. And as if it were always find out who is H, or discover an x \u200b\u200binvolved in the work. Thus for the songs: the saying relates to an object = x, while the songs are divergent series in that it circulates. It is true that the songs have an elementary structure.
A disciple of Lacan, André Green points to the existence of tissue that circulates in Othello, covering all series of the piece. We also spoke of two series of the Prince of Wales, Falstaff or jester father, Henry IV and the real father, the two parent images. The crown is the object = x that runs the two series, with terms and under different relations, the time trial crown prince, his father died while still marks the passage from one series to another, changing the symbolic and the variation of differential relations. The dying old king is angry, and you believe your child wants to identify with him early, but the prince can answer, and show a wonderful speech that the Crown is not the object of an imaginary identification, but rather the term essentially symbolic that runs all series, the series infamous Falstaff and the large real number, which allows the passage of one another within the same structure. There was, as we have seen, a first difference between the imaginary and the symbolic: the role of the symbolic differentiator, as opposed to assimilating reflective role, and drummer desdoblante imaginary. But the second border appears better here: from the dual character of the imagination, the Third essentially involved in the symbolic system, which distributes the series, the relative movement, the report makes even preventing one imaginatively folded over the other. Debt
, letter, or crown tissue, the nature of this object is specified by Lacan, is always displaced in relation to itself. Its property can not be where he is wanted, but also revenge to be found where no is. It will say "kick in his place" (and by no means is real). Also missing in his own likeness (and it is therefore not an image) - is lacking in his own identity (and therefore not a concept.) "What is hidden is never more that what is needed instead, as it says the search tab of a volume when the library is missing. And this even though it was hidden on the shelf or in the box next to that would be hidden, and there appeared visible. Can not be said of the letter (to the letter (à la lettre) that this lack in place rather than what you can change, that is symbolic. As for what concerns the real, regardless of the shock that he can contribute, is always there in any case, what has stuck to the soles of her shoes, but we know nothing to exile him there. "If the series that the object = x runs necessarily present the relative displacement relative to one another, is it because the relative locations of the structure dependent terms in the first place overall in each in every moment, in relation to the object = x sow circulating always shifted in relation to itself. It is in this sense that the displacement, and more generally all forms of change, a character is not added from outside, but the fundamental property that defines the structure and order of the locations under the change of relations. The whole structure is moved by the original Third-but lacking in their own home. Differences distributed throughout the structure, by varying the differential relations with their movements, the object = x is the differentiating of the difference itself.
games need of the empty box, without which nothing would advance or work. The object = x is not distinguished from its place, but it belongs to this place for travel all the time, as the empty box jump without ceasing. Lacan calls the place of the dead on the bridge. In the pages that open admirable words and things, he describes a painting by Velazquez, Foucault invoked the king's place, under which everything moves and slides, God, then man, never fill it. No structuralism without this degree zero. A Philippe Sollers and Jean-Pierre Faye likes to invoke the blind spot, a point designating the mobile always behaves blindness, but from which writing is possible, because it is organized as true literemas series. J.-A. Miller, in an effort to develop a concept of structural causality or metonymic Frege making a zero position, defined as missing in their own identity, which determines the constitution serial numbers. E even Levi-Strauss, that in some respects is the most positivist of the structuralists, the less romantic, less inclined to support a fugitive element, recognized in the "mana" or its equivalent, the existence of a "floating signifier" of symbolic value zero circulating in the structure. The well reached the zero phoneme Jakobson, which itself does not involve any differential character or phonetic value, but in relation to which all phonemes are in their own differential relations.
If it is true that the structure is critical to determine the language of "virtual" pre-exist the work the work is structural itself when it proposes to express their own virtues. Lewis Carroll, Joyce invent "tagline" esoteric words or more generally, to ensure sound verbal match series and the simultaneous series of related stories. In Finnegans Wake, is even a letter (lettre) is Cosmos, which brings together all the world series. In Lewis Carroll, the tagline connotes two sets of base at least (speaking and eating, food serial number and verbal) that may themselves branch, and the Snark. It is wrong to say that such a word has two meanings, in fact, is of another order that words have meaning. It's nonsense that encourages at least two series, but provides them with meaning flowing through them. Is it, in its ubiquity, in its perpetual movement, which produces the sense in each series, and one of a series to another, and continues to offset the two series. = X is the word as denoting the object = x, the object problematic. As word = x, through a series of determined as significant, but at the same time as object = x, runs the other series given as the meaning. Does not stop at a time of deepening and filling the gap between the two series: Levi-Strauss shows him the way of "mana", assimilated to the words "trick" or "machine" [French]. Is actually thus, as we have seen, that nonsense is not the absence of meaning, but on the contrary, the excess of meaning, or what provides meaning to the meaning and significance. The effect appears here as the effect of operation of the structure in its series of animation components. And indeed, the tagline is not just a procedure among others to ensure that circulation. The techniques of Raymond Roussel, as Foucault has analyzed are of different nature: based on differential relations phonemic, or even more complex relationships. In Mallarmé, are systems of relations between sets, and mobile than encourage, and even otherwise. Our Objective is to analyze all the procedures are done and modern literature, playing with a whole topography, with a whole typeface "future book", but only to note that in all cases the effectiveness of this box empty double face, both word and object.
What is this object = x? "It is and must remain the perpetual object of a riddle, an enigma, the perpetuum mobile? This would be a way to remember the objective consistency that takes the category of the problem within the structures. And it's good finally to the question "what is recognized as structuralism?" Leads to the position something that is not recognizable or identifiable. Consider Lacan's psychoanalytic answer: the object = x is determined as a phallus. But the phallus is not the real body, nor the series of related images or associations: it is symbolic phallus. It is however certainly that sexuality is not just another thing here, unlike the pious ever new temptations in psychoanalysis recant or minimize sexual references. But the phallus appears, not as a sexual figure and as the empirical determination of one sex, but as the symbolic body entirely based sexuality as a system or structure, and in relation to which the occupied sites are distributed variably by men and women, and also the series of images and realities. Designating the object = x as phallus, no question as to identify this object, this object confer an identity that is repugnant in nature, for, on the contrary, the symbolic phallus is what is lacking its own identity, always found there where it is and that is not where he is wanted, always displaced in relation to itself, the mother's side. In this sense it is certainly the letter and the debt, the tissue or the crown, the Snark and the "manna." Father, mother, etc. Are symbolic elements taken into differential relations, but the phallus is something else, the object = X that determines the relative place of the elements and the variable value of relationships, sexuality that make a structure entirely. Is a function of displacement of the object = x that relationships vary, as relations between "partial drives" constitutive of sexuality.
The phallus is clearly not a final answer. The place is even a question, a "demand" that characterizes the empty box of the sexual structure. The questions and the answers vary depending on the structure considered, but never depend on our preferences, nor an abstract causal order. It is clear that the empty box of an economic structure, in exchange Merchandise must be determined in another way: is "something" that can not be reduced or the terms of trade, or exchange the relationship itself, but forms a third eminently symbolic in perpetual movement, and depending on which will define changes relationships. Such is the value as an expression of a "work in general, beyond empirically observable qualities, rather than the issue that crosses or runs the economy and structure.
It follows a more general result, concerning the different "orders." There should be no doubt, from the perspective of structuralism, resuscitate the problem: is there a structure that determines all other ultimately? For example, what comes first, the value or the phallus, the fetish economic or sexual fetish? For various reasons these questions are meaningless. All structures are infrastructures. Arrays of structures, linguistic, familial, economic, sexual, etc., Are characterized by the shape of its symbolic elements, the variety of differential relations, the kind of singularities, finally and above all by the nature of object = x presiding operation. But we could not establish a causal linear order of a structure to another, rather than giving the object = x in each If gender identity which essentially repugnant. Between structures, causality can not be more than one type of structural causality. In each order of structure, indeed, the object = x is not in any way an unknowable, a pure indeterminate is perfectly determinable, including their displacement and displacement mode that characterizes it. It just is not assignable, ie not fixable in an identifiable location in a genus or species. It is because he is the last kind of structure or place total: there is therefore identity rather than to fail to this identity, or rather more than to move in relation to any place. Therefore, the object = x is for each structure order the empty place or perforated to allow the order link up with the others in a space that brings so many directions and orders. Arrays of structures are not reported in the same place, but all communicate with each other by empty space or object = X respectively. That's why, despite some hasty pages of Levi-Strauss, not a privilege claim to the social fabric ethnographic, psychoanalytic sexual structures referring to the empirical determination of an individual more or less desocialized. Even the linguistic structures can not pass symbolic elements or significant past: precisely to the extent that the other structures are not content to apply by analogy methods borrowed from linguistics, but discover their own true languages, although they were not verbal, always brings his significant, its symbolic and differential relations. Foucault, placing for example the problem of relations ethnography, psychoanalysis, is right then to say "they are cut at right angles as the signifying chain by establishing an individual's unique experience is perpendicular to the formal system from which are the meanings of culture. In every moment of the structure of both the individual experience in the systems of the society a number of possible choices (and of excluded possibilities) are inversely social structures in each of its points of choice a number of possible individuals (and others are not). "
And in each structure, the object = x must be capable of accounting: 1 the way they are subject in the order the other orders of structure, these are not involved rather than as dimensions of update, 2 of the way which he is subordinate to the other orders in his (and not only involved in their own update); 3 of the way in which all objects = xy all levels of structure are reported each with others, each order defines a dimension of space that he is absolutely first, 4 second conditions in which, at some point in history or in certain cases, certain size that corresponds to a certain order of the structure is not displayed by her but remains subject to the update of another order (the Lacanian concept of "foreclosure" would have here again a critical). Latest
criteria: the subject to practice
In a sense, places are not filled or occupied by real people but to the extent that the structure is "updated." But in another sense we can say The places are already filled or occupied by the symbolic elements at the level of the structure, and are the differential relations of these elements that determine the order of places in general. There is therefore a primary symbolic filled before any filling or any secondary occupation for real people. Only, we are meeting with the paradox of the empty box, since this is the only place that can not be filled, even for a symbolic element. She should keep her empty perfection to move in relation to itself, and to cycle through the elements and varieties of relationships. Symbolically, it must be for itself its own symbol, and free forever from his own half that would likely come to occupy. (This gap is however not not be, or at least this is not the be negative, be positive is the "problem", the objective being a problem and a question). That is why Foucault might say, "You can not think of a vacuum and the missing man. For this void does not prayed a failure, does not require a gap to fill. Is nothing more and nothing less than the deployment of an area in which it is finally possible to think again. "
But if the empty place is filled by a term, this does not cease to be accompanied by an eminently symbolic following all movements, accompanied not be occupied or filled. And both the body and place, never cease to fail one another, and thus accompanied. The subject is precisely the body that follows the empty place: as Lacan says, is less subject to subject-subject to the empty box, attached to the phallus and its movements. Her agility is unmatched, or should be. Also the subject is essentially intersubjective. Announce the death of God, or even the death of man is nothing. What matters is how. Nietzsche showed because God dies in various ways, and that the gods die, but laugh when listening to a god who says he is the One. Structuralism is not all thought that suppresses the individual, but a thought that makes crumbs and distributed systematically answering the subject's identity, it dissipates and passed from place to place, subject always nomadic, makes individuals, but impersonal singularities but pre-individual. In this sense Foucault speaks of "sprawl" and Levi-Strauss can not define an instance of subjective rather than as a dependent object conditions under which certain systems of truth become convertible and therefore "acceptable to several subjects simultaneously '.
two major accidents since the structure is left undefined. Or the empty box and mobile is no longer accompanied by a nomadic subject underlining its travel, and its emptiness becomes a real lack a gap. Or is the opposite full, busy so that accompanies it, and mobility is lost in the full effect of a sedentary or fixed. One could also say, in linguistic terms, while "significant" has disappeared, as the flow of meaning is no longer significant element that spelled, while the "meaning" is gone, the chain is not significant as meaning that the scroll: two pathological aspects of psychosis. You could even say, theo-anthropological terms, that as soon as God grows the desert and dig a pond on earth, man full, it occupies the site, and in this vain permutation we passed an accident to another: that is why man and God are the two diseases [fundamental] land, ie the structure.
important thing is to know under what factors and at what times these accidents are certain structures of a given order. Consider again the analysis of Althusser and his collaborators: firstly show how, in the economic sphere, the adventures of the empty (value as object = x) are marked on the goods, money, fetish, capital, etc. that characterize the capitalist structure. On the other hand, show how well the contradictions arise in the structure. In short, how the real and imaginary, that is the real people who come to occupy the places and the ideologies that express the image that they themselves are closely determined by the interplay of these adventures and structural contradictions derived from them. Certainly not because the contradictions are imaginary: they are properly structural and qualify the effects of the internal time structure of its own. Do not say because of the contradiction is apparent, but is derived: derived from the place empty and its future in the structure. Generally, real, imaginary and their relationships are always secondary engendered by the operation of the structure, which begins to have its primary effects in itself. That is why it is not at all from outside which we called just now "accidents" comes to the structure. This is as opposed to a "trend" immanent. These events are ideal as part of the structure, affecting symbolically empty box or the subject thereof. We call them "accidents" to draw better, not a contingency basis or exteriority, but this character very special event, inside the structure as long as this does not ever reduce to a simple essence.
From there, a set of complex problems posed by structuralism, concerning the "mutations" structural (Foucault) or "transitional forms" of a structure to another (Althusser). It is always based on the empty box to the differential relations are susceptible to new values \u200b\u200bor variations, singularities, able to deliver new, constitute another structure. It remains that the contradictions are "resolved", ie the empty place is cleared of symbolic events that hide or fill, which is returned to the subject that must accompany new paths, without occupy or abandon. There is also a structuralist hero: neither God nor man, neither personal nor universal, is without identity, made up of individuals not personal and pre-individual singularities. Ensures the outbreak of a structure affected by excess or defect, he opposes his own ideal event to the events just defined ideals. Belonging to a new structure would not start again similar to the old adventures, not to revive fatal contradictions, that depends on strong and creative force of this hero, his agility to pursue and safeguard the movement, its power to several relations and to redistribute the singularities, provided by a dice roll. This point mutation define precisely a practice, or rather the very place where the practice should be installed. For structuralism is not only inseparable from the works he creates, but also a practice in relation to the goods he plays. That this practice is therapeutic or political, it designates a point of permanent revolution, or permanent transfer.
latter criteria, the subject and practice, are the darkest-criteria of the future. Over the preceding six characters, we wanted to just pick up a system of echoes between authors very independent from each other, exploring many different domains. And also the theory that they they propose to these echoes. A different levels of the structure, the real and the imaginary, the real people and ideologies, the meaning and contradiction are "effects" that should be included in the output of a "process" itself a differentiated production structure: genesis strange static "effects" physical (optical, sound, etc.). Books against the structuralism (or those against the new novel) are not strictly not matter, they can not prevent that structuralism has a productivity that is of our time. No book to ever have anything important, just have the books "for" something new, and who can afford it.
+1,20+x+0,90+mts.jpg)
