Beginning with the first diagram, we find need comprehended by demand. In a sense, pure need becomes swallowed by demand, which is to say language, once the subject enters into the symbolic register soon after birth. In the second diagram, we find desire, but we do not find it as a substantive something; rather, we see it as something like a hole, one into which we (think we) want to dive. This whole is equivalent to the difference produced once need is subtracted from demand. The “hole” is both something and not. Consider the example of the baby that cries because it needs something. The mother, accustomed to feeding the baby, offers a breast and begins feeding the baby. The baby’s cry, however, was signifying a need other than hunger (e.g., it signified the need of being held). The baby (Subject) both gets a need met and doesn’t. It receives food, which is a need, but it does not get the primary need (e.g., being held) because it has not gained fluency in the interplay of signifiers and signifieds. We can imagine questions arising for the baby: Is this my need? Do I know my own needs? Is the breast equivalent to being held and I just don’t understand that yet? With these questions, the need has been subtracted, or voided, from demand. Desire results, but the baby doesn’t really know what desire is. If it is anything, it is equal to a lack of comprehension (i.e., not seeing one’s face in the reflection of the mirror). Throughout life, the Subject who was that baby will project fantasies upon that lack in an effort to reach desire. This will never happen, but various drives will ensure that the Subject never gives up the search. Lacan says that the most a Subject can do is “to not give ground to desire,” which means, phrased positively, to allow for desire to attract us while we throw up as few obstacles as possible so as not to impede the attraction. Societal demands, however, or at least symbols one perceives to be demands, will thwart the Subject repeatedly.
Addiction, again, offers multiple glimpses of this process in action. Consider again the alcoholic. In particular, a Subject who, when intoxicated, tends to “black out.” (Keep in mind the blacked out hole in the diagram of desire.) The next day, he is told that he was enraged, that he broke furniture, that he yelled at the dog about something having to do with God and promises. What’s more, this is his pattern. He frequently enters this blacked-out state. But both the Subject and his loved ones who tell him about his behaviors have difficulty understanding where this all comes from. When sober, the Subject is a friendly, if meek, individual who seldom asserts his wants and needs. I frequently hear, “It’s like he’s a completely different person.” From the Subject I hear, “I don’t know who that person is, but he isn’t me.”
Of course, it is one and the same Subject. The two personas are indicative of the imbalance of positive and negative forces that shape the Subject. 1 + 1 = 3.
Performance of Self in Everyday Life + Hulked-Out Rager = Symbolic-Subject + Real-Subject + Desire.
In scenarios such as these, desire shows itself through the form, not the content, of the Subject’s language while blacked-out. This form is first of all marked by an internal difference, that difference between the affective force of the rage and the Subject’s meek presentation when “sober.” What appears first to the family, and then to the Subject himself when he hears of his drunkenness? Precisely the way in which it is NOT like him, the Uncanny Self. A non-thing has appeared, and that tips us off that desire is close. Second, the form is marked by what I think of as firehose speech. Opposed to the laminar flow of speech within the transactions of everyday life, this speech explodes with such force that it would appear to be an attempt at extinguishing a raging fire. And there is something like a fire present at all times in one’s life, the fire of desire. For this Subject, however, he only lets himself interact with it directly when intoxicated and, in a sense, turned off. Alcohol enables rebellion against the dominant discourse of the Symbolic Order (what Lacan calls the Name of the Father, which is a “quilting point” that produces what Deleuze refers to as the “sense” of discourse). When acceding to the Symbolic Order, the Subject is Symbolic-Subject. The drive to no longer participate in that discourse—to become Real-Subject—is in fact a motive force propelling alcohol abuse. The alcohol itself, however, is a fantasy, one that the Subject “knows,” unconsciously, can move him closer to Desire. The fantasy is in part authentic. Alcohol can move him closer, but, at the same time, the fantasy stands in for Desire and actually bars the Subject from Desire. When conscious and sober, the Subject does not permit himself to rebel against the Symbolic Order, likely because he believes the Other desires him to be submissive. (This is the whole problem with being-in-language and entranced by the Discourse of the Other.) But the attraction of Desire will not relent and so the Subject cedes to the part or version of himself that will speak the Truth and thus obtain, he thinks, what he desires. Alcohol (as fantasy) is the medium required to accomplish the secession. But desire will not be reached, and the coup of self, if we can call it that, will fail, precisely because the form and content of the speech and its object of desire does not “make sense” to anyone, not even to the Subject or the dog. This is how we know alcohol is or provides only a fantasy. Alcohol seems to offer access to what the Subject desires, but it only perpetuates a misunderstanding that further frustrates the Subject and moves him away from desire. The drive propelling the return to the fantasy is only capable of this trajectory: propel toward desire, miss it, and return. Then, repeat.
What does the Subject desire? What is being sought while blacked out? The answer to that question is variable and unique to each Subject. The only way the Subject can get closer to knowing what that desire is will be to translate the form and content of the blacked-out speech into the speech of the Symbolic-Subject in daily life. This is another way of saying that the client needs to enact the coup of self without the fantasy of alcohol. The problem that clinicians and the Subject himself will no doubt encounter is that the Subject doesn’t actually want to know what that desire is. (Recall the mantra “I don’t want to know” that Lacan puts in place of the Aristotelian “I want to know” that founds the classical Subject.) As such, at least initially, therapy will resemble the Magritte painting: the Subject will go to therapy to look himself in the mirror only to find himself looking at himself looking toward a mirror. But slowly over time, if the Subject speaks freely (a la parrhesia), the desiring Subject will produce stones that the clinician and Subject can cobble together to form a path away from the painting and toward desire, one that no longer requires alcohol.