Before one gazes into a mirror, Lacan believes that the have a demented and fragmented idea of the self; for they have not come into contact with a cohesive and coherent idea of their body as a whole. The “self”, that includes the physical body and the mind, would essentially remain in bits and pieces until the subject is able to view the “self” as a whole, by means of their physical image in a mirror. This phase of development precedes what Lacan refers to as the “Mirror Stage”.
The “Mirror Stage” is an important and necessary phase in Lacanian psychoanalysis because it is the stepping stone for creating a whole coherent image of the self, which is necessary for one to become a part of socio-cultural society. Lacan uses the example, and the truth, behind a child seeing him or her “self” in the mirror or a reflection for that matter, for the first time in their lives. This reflection affects the individual to such an extent, that they “misrecognize” their reflection as real coherent “self” because in “actuality” it is merely just an image; therefore an illusion, an idea.
The child sees its own reflection in the mirror, and for the first time he or she begins to believe itself as a whole ‘self’. Lacan says this idea of a ‘self’ is an “illusion” which implies it is visual. For Lacan, the term ‘visual’ is essential to understanding what he calls ‘the Imaginary’ register, which constitutes the visual realm prior to the individuals ability to use language as a means for perceiving what is seen.
Therefore, ‘the Imaginary’ is a key component in the construction of language and building meaning. Prior to language, the infant can only distinguish what it thinks it is from what it is not by pure visual stimulation. This is Lacan’s explanation for ‘the Imaginary’ as being primarily revolved around sight and visual images that in turn allow the individual to distinguish ‘the other’ from ‘the Other’. Thus by seeing the image in the mirror the child sees ‘an other’, but “misrecognizes” this as its own ‘self’. However, this image still leads the child to the idea of ‘the Other’ as a structural possibility, and leads to ‘Otherness’, imposing a relationship that distinguishes things from other things; faces from other faces. Visual distinctions are in fact, what permit the child to recognize things that are not its “self”.
Complications arise when a blind person is introduced into the context of Lacan’s theory. If a blind person cannot see their reflection in the mirror then how would they be able to form any idea, or “illusion,” of a clear identity? Lacan does not seem to take this into account with his essay on the “Mirror Stage” because a key concept to this theory is the child’s recognition upon seeing itself. That is, this seeing itself, allows it to consider its “self” as a whole, and by recognizing this ‘whole’ the individual is capable of realizing that prior to the “Mirror Stage,” they were fragmented bodies in “bits-and-pieces”.
Since a blind person cannot make this visual distinction, and, therefore, does not have the ability to distinguish themselves as either fragmented, or as a coherent self, then theoretically they would be incapable of distinguishing “the other” from “the Other”, which in Lacanian theory relies solely on images. Without the ability to make this distinction a blind person cannot compare their image to that of “the Others”, which means they cannot form the idea, or “illusion,” that is necessary for the subject to create an “identity.”
What Would Lacan think about this objection to his theory? How does a blind person obtain any cohesiveness if they do not have any ideas for what things look like? What sorts of thoughts or images stream through a blind person’s mind when they are thinking?
In order to attempt answers to these questions, we must then bring forth the Lacanian idea that the individual exists within another register, alongside the “Imaginary” known as the “Symbollic”, where these two crucial networks intertwine to constitute the visual linguistic sense of the world. Since these two networks are intertwined it is crucial to note that ‘the Imaginary’ creates the visual apparatus that is described through language, and language itself is a structure known as ‘the Symbolic’. A blind person does not make this connection between the visual-linguistic of ‘the Symbolic’ because they lack the latter.
Yet, as said in Ashelys post, “human beings are constructed through, and as Language,” perpetuating the idea that language is what constitutes our close-to-being-true reality. Therefore, reality for a blind person would still consist of language, but it would not consist of the necessary visual element described as such by Lacan. What this implies is that a blind person cannot exist within ‘the Imaginary’ which is a necessary precursor for entering ‘the Symbolic’. Since a blind person does function within ‘the Symbolic’ without ‘the Imaginary’ in a visual sense, we can assume that they certainly obtain some type of cohesiveness from touch and phonic, and this ‘touching’ and ‘hearing’ constitutes their own, subjective form of ‘the Imaginary’. But since a blind person experiences ‘the Imaginary’ in a different manner from ‘normative culture’ it displays an experience that is subjective, which means their individual experience differs from the norm. However, Lacan states that there is no such thing as true subjective experience, that is to suggest that we all experience the “Imaginary” and the “Symbolic” in similar, highly determined and influenced ways. But then again, for a blind person to exist in this type of symbolic order, would be impossible, as Lacan leaves out, consciously, or unconsciously the recognition of other human senses. This example of a blind person illustrates how “the Imaginary” and “the Symbolic” are not as strict as Lacan makes them out to be, and can, in fact, be experienced differently. Thus this sort of Lacanian philosophy has the potential to become shattered due to the lack of universal structure that it attempts to contain.
you raise a difficult question to answer, never mind ponder about. I feel as though, the visual aspect of thoughts, is nevertheless effected by the thoughts themselves....the emotions. For the blind, they are probably much more emotional than anyone who can see. Their imagination as well, i feel, is the most natural a mind will get, stuck inside its own darkness with all the capabilities, except the acceptance of the visual extensions. Thus, "Feel thoughts" is something to consider ("brain language"). The way their thoughts are composed, is it, less visual? I guess it has to be, unless visuals are created from ideas that sprout from the ideas of the meaning of words..... We have to ask, is it what we hear? is it what we see? is it what we think, that we rely on the most? What composes the imagination the most?
ReplyDelete-Randy