oedipal complex question

metrovelvet

How does this operate in a single mother household?

Or do single mother households prove that the theory holds no water in the first place?

Odysseus

Very simply put, the oedipal situation is about the relationship between the infant and the primary care taker be that male or female. In your example, the important thing is that what we call the No of the Father, which you should know from your reading of Lacan.

This No can happen in many ways, the important thing being that the particular bond called the Oedipus complex is broken in one way. The main point is that something comes between mOther and child, which Lacan calls the Other. The No of the Father is a function rather than a person, so that in Freudian terms the infant/child discovers that they cannot possess their primary care taker, but that one day they will have their own love object.

From a Lacanian viewpoint this is a linguistic process, at this point the child enters the world of language, hence you get Lacan’s belief that the unconscious is structured like a language, and our particular interest in words within psychoanalysis. However, we can leave that for another day.

So to answer your question the father does not need to be present in order for the child to work itself through their OC, rather something needs to function as Lacan’s NO. Does that make sense to you in terms of your question?

I must add that I have described the above process very simply and nothing is simple with Lacan, in one way it can be said that Freud’s downside was his work is in one way quite simple. A lay person can read a lot of Freud and understand it quickly. However, this has lead to various misunderstandings of Freud, hence Lacan’s reading or return to Freud is a far more complex reading of Freud. As I know you have read some Lacan, so you will know that it is not possible to explain fundamental concepts like the OC in a few words in a post. However, the main point is to remember function instead of person.

metrovelvet

Yes and its been a long time since I was au fait with Lacan but what I remember is exactly what you say, that it can be an object like a job, or tasks, or anything really.

But I also remember something vaguely about the name of the father and narcissism. Can you refresh my memory?

Odysseus

metrovelvet wrote: »

Yes and its been a long time since I was au fait with Lacan but what I remember is exactly what you say, that it can be an object like a job, or tasks, or anything really.

But I also remember something vaguely about the name of the father and narcissism. Can you refresh my memory?

Are you thinking of psychosis instead which would be the result a failure of that function? In relation to the OC there are 3 forms of negation, the neurotic represses, the pervert disavows and with the psychotic the form of negation is foreclosure.

In some of the later seminars I think he does make reference to it but would have to check. Is there something specific about it you remember?


Edit: Just though are you asking about narcissism in the neurotic sense and the difference between that and a narcissist psychosis?

metrovelvet

Im not really sure what I am asking. Your response reminded me of something which I cant put my finger on. Its been ten years since I was ensconsed in Lacan.

But thank you because now I am inspired to reinvestigate!

Odysseus

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im not really sure what I am asking. Your response reminded me of something which I cant put my finger on. Its been ten years since I was ensconsed in Lacan.

But thank you because now I am inspired to reinvestigate!

Good stuff, I have to get back into my reading routine myself. If you want to read Lacan a lot of the unpublished seminars are available through Karnac books, they are translated and just for private use. However, jumping straight into Lacan can be difficult.

Odysseus

Metrovelvet, here is a link to a series of Lacanian papers dealing with the family rather that the OC directly http://iclo-nls.org/?page_id=235 Hopefully they will get you started on your question.

JuliusCaesar

metrovelvet wrote: »

Or do single mother households prove that the theory holds no water in the first place?

It depends on whether you believe the construction to exist in the first place. Outside psychoanalysis, there is no belief in it.