A reply?

The sinthome is not a positive identity that can be located, but is rather a performance of itself. Therefore although the sinthome has an undoubted influence on symbolisation, it cannot be symbolised itself. Rather, it ‘appears’ every time an identity performs. The big question here for me revolves around the relationship between the three registers; imaginary, symbolic and real (with the sinthome as a fourth), and universality (abstract universal, particular, singular and concrete universality as a fourth). With my recent work on universality, I tend to forget that it is R, S, I that constitutes the basic Lacanian form of the social. In a basic sense, in this formation it is the imaginary that makes the symbolic appear full, even though it can necessarily never be so, as the presence of the real reveals.

I believe that this concept can be translated onto universality. Universality is the process of making the social appear full; hence the intimate relationship between universality, fantasy and jouissance. Therefore, the symbolic is the particular. In the symbolic, no identity is constituted in-itself. Rather identities are formed by reference to something outside of them; they can never be full. This negativity is the driving force of the social. Ideological fantasy, the symbolic component of the imaginary, has the role of presenting the symbolic as full. This occurs through a hegemonic abstraction, both in presenting a particular as full and externalising the symptom to an external cause.

The symptom is that while reveals the presence of the real. Of course the real is outside of the symbolic and can only be seen in its effects. As such it is an effect without (known) cause. This effect- of showing the limits of the discursive- is the symptom/singular of universality. If one accepts-as is suggested in the psychoanalytic process- that this symptom is not an impediment to the fullness of the social/abstract universality, but rather a condition of its existence, we enter the realm of concrete universality. Thus concrete universality provides a fourth which, in a dialectically negative manner, provides a suture to the social. Thus politically, it is thus element that should be identified with. Witness the recent pro-immigrations protests in America. The main banner held by the immigrant protesters was ‘We are America’. Here the protesters appeal has taken the form of concrete universality. The immigration (alien) workers have been under attack in the United States as an impediment to the fullness of the social- as a source of crime, taking jobs etc. However, what the workers are trying to suggest is that they are a necessary condition of U.S society, and should be treated as such. The workers perform a major role in taking the underclass jobs that maintain the American economy; without them the economy would fall. Therefore the immigrants are a condition, not impediment to the system. Hence the appeal ‘We are America’.

Having developed this link between universality and the registers, I have rather lost my way on the final link; between concrete universality and the sinthome. My basic point is that both provides a suturing role, but in a radically different way. I am still trying to get my head around the idea of the topological approach. I do have some readings stacked up which I can hopefully get through by tomorrow (Thursday).


Again I am left with the thought, What are the political implications of the sinthome? This mainly relates back to the problem of the limits to discourse. As Laclau notes, dislocations ( the external limit) can only show themselves through internal failings. Does this suggest that it is the discursive itself which is responsible for the failure of a discourse. Therefore from this we could suggest that it is the failure of the universal, in the symptom that reveals the presence of the sinthome, or at least the performance of the sinthome, much like the real. But unlike the real, which is fully implicit in the failure of the discursive, the sinthome reveals the structure itself. Thus we come very close to concrete universality; it is through the failure of the universal that the truth of the universal is revealed. However, the concrete universal is well imbedded in the symbolic. The sinthome, instead is a structure, or at least a structuring effect that is only performed. Yet, importantly from a discursive point of view, it is the sinthome that also reveals the limits of our discourse. Again though, we must distinguish between the real and the sinthome. While the real reveals the limits of signification (in that every universality must necessarily excludes element to constitute itself; the symptom), the sinthome is implicit in the very structuring of this exclusion.

So, from the alternative perspective could we say that it is the sinthome that it structuring the discursive and introducing limits? I am not sure how this would work, given that the sinthome is outside of signification. The question I am driven to ask is ‘Where would the sinthome come from then?’ But, as you note, this kind of question suggests an impossible positive positioning to the sinthome, and I believe I am roughly back where I started!