Document Type : Research Paper
Author
Assistant Professor of Philosophy, , University of Kurdistan. Sanandaj, Iran.
Abstract
Introduction
The possibility of a dialog and the establishment of a balance between the thoughts and theoretical foundations of Sartre and Lacan is ambiguous and somewhat complex, especially since various interpretations have been offered regarding the realization of such a dialog. Some argue that the thoughts of Sartre and Lacan are in irreconcilable contradiction to each other and can only be evaluated as two heterogeneous thoughts opposing each other. In particular, there is a deep and serious divide in their political and theoretical approaches, which makes it difficult to find a topic for dialog between them (Tolini and Muller, 2015: 89). Others take more radical approaches to the relationship between the two, and since Sartre's thought is intertwined with freedom and consciousness and Lacan's with overdeterminism and the unconscious, they consider Lacanianism to be synonymous with opposition to Sartre. On this basis, anyone who agrees with Lacan's thinking and accepts his approach to subjectivity and the Other is incompatible with and alien to Sartre's thinking (Almen, 2006:11). The aim of this study is to deconstruct the subject in the face of the Other and also to find moments that challenge the traditional readings of Lacan and Sartre. The basic question of the present study is: What role does the other play in the construction of the subject of Sartrean existentialism and the subject of Lacanian psychoanalysis, and is it possible to establish a dialog and a balance between these two approaches? Despite Lacan's criticism of Sartre's mythological reading of the concept of freedom and Sartre's criticism of psychoanalysis as a deterministic discourse, both emphasize in their philosophical and metapsychological positions the constant presence of the other and the search for a way to liberate the subject. The concepts of Sartre's "fundamental choice" and Lacan's "fundamental desire" in the present and the inescapable authority of the other express an escape towards the realization of freedom. Subjects want freedom and individual identity, but there are contradictions that make it difficult for the subject to choose and satisfy desire. Finding moments in which these contradictions are resolved in both schools of thought, existentialism and psychoanalysis, is difficult and complex, but possible.
Literature Review
Numerous books and articles have already been published on Lacan and Sartre. For this article, we have used "Jacques Lacan" by Shaun Homer (2004) and "Ethics of the Real" by Alenka Zupančič (2000). As far as the comparison between the two is concerned, two important articles were used: "Sartre and Lacan: Considerations on the Concepts of the Subject and of Consciousness Psychoanalysis and History" by Tolini and Muller (2015), and "Analyzing Gaze in Terms of Subjective and Objective Interpretation: Sartre and Lacan. In Human Studies" by Sharma and Barua. While the latter two works focus primarily on the concept of the gaze and subjectivity, this article attempts to present an independent interpretation of psychoanalytic concepts, the Other, and their relationship in shaping the subject, as well as to establish a hypothetical dialog between these two philosophers.
Methodology
Research was conducted fundamentally based on the study of library sources and articles published in international journals and internet sources. The research method is library-based, based on the analysis of Sartre and Lacan's works. This study uses a descriptive-analytical and comparative method.
Discussion
Lacan's psychoanalysis and Sartre's existentialism have similarities in their exploration of the nature of human subjectivity and the omnipresent 'other'. Sartre is more closely associated with Lacan's psychoanalytic structuralism than is generally assumed. Lacan's account of the unconscious structure overcomes many of the problems that plagued Freud's psychological reading, which portrayed the unconscious as a realm governed by a kind of preconscious awareness, language, and symbolic order. Lacan's unconscious thus provides a direct link between this fundamental psychoanalytic concept and Sartre's existentialism. Sartre's attempt to overcome the aspects of the unconscious that he found problematic leads him to an interpretation that Lacan might have agreed with. This encounter has significant implications for the reassessment of Sartre's ambiguous and complex relationship with psychoanalysis, as most commentators have noted that Sartre's critique was directed at the unconscious and the determinism of Freud's modern psychology, rather than Lacan's psychoanalysis (Flynn, 2014: 221). Below we will assess some of the central concepts in Lacan's and Sartre's thought and examine their encounter
Conclusion
This study attempts to reassess and reinterpret the philosophical and psychoanalytic positions on subjectivity. It shows that by redefining the subject and the unconscious and emphasizing the role of choice and desire, we can offer similar interpretations of other concepts within these discourses.
On this basis, psychoanalysis is not a deterministic approach that is opposed to the freedom of the subject, nor does the concept of the unconscious negate human agency and freedom. Sartre's emphasis on freedom is based simultaneously on the situation of the subject and the omnipresent existence of the Other. The subject is thus in a state of confusion and entrapment and tries to breathe in such a space. Both psychoanalytic and existentialist discourses strive to free the subject from deceptive situations and symbolic structures. Lacanian psychoanalysis cannot be reduced to structuralism, since Lacan never attempted to abolish the subject and does not see it merely as a reproduction of the symbolic world. Sartre's subjectivity cannot be reduced to pure voluntarism or absolute freedom, since it is dependent on events and the Other always surrounds it. There is always something in the subject that transcends the domination of others and the symbolic realm. Moreover, the Other itself cannot be a solid and complete entity and is always confronted with a fundamental failure.
Keywords
Main Subjects
DOI: 10.30470/phm.2021.141729.1917. [In Persian]