Chinese smoked and salted ham

Explain the imaginary identification and symbolic identification of Chinese smoked and salted ham.

Lacan's "imaginative identification" and "symbolic identification" are key concepts in his psychoanalytic theory.

• Imaginary identification (identification imaginaire) originates primarily from the “mirror-image stage” of childhood. During this stage, the child identifies with the image of the self in the mirror and thereby forms the self. However, this image is only external and superficial, and it is not the same as the real self. In other words, this is the process of constructing a subjective “I” by identifying with an ideal image of self or the image of others.

• Identification symbolique refers to identification in the “symbolic world,” such as language and social norms. People identify themselves and build relationships with others through the roles and language they are given in society. Symbolic identification emphasizes structural and social aspects more than imaginary identification, and is the process by which identity is established through the subject’s association with others and the symbolic order of society.

Briefly, imaginative identification concerns the individual’s image or ideal image, while symbolic identification concerns self-identification through social and linguistic systems.

Does it have anything to do with “behind the world” or “capitalized others?”

Lacan’s “imaginative identification” and “symbolic identification” are also closely related to “behind the world” and the “capitalized other.”

First, the “capitalized other (Autre)” is an important concept in Lacanian theory, and refers to the very symbolic order that surrounds the individual, such as “language,” “law,” and “norms” in the symbolic world. This “capitalized other” plays a central role in the process of symbolic identification, whereby individuals form themselves through social rules and language defined by the “capitalized other. In other words, symbolic identification proceeds in the context of a relationship with a capitalized other, and the existence of this other becomes the foundation of the individual’s identity.

On the other hand, “behind the world” is often used in philosophical and psychoanalytic contexts, and in Lacan it can refer to a longing for the hidden reality or truth behind the imaginary or symbolic world. The images of self and others that one creates through imaginary identification are superficial and incomplete, and the desire to find out what the “true self” or “true world” is behind them leads to the search for “behind the world. This quest is created between the symbolic order and the imaginary images that make up reality.

Thus, imaginative identification can be seen as the process of seeking the ideal or truth “behind the world” and symbolic identification as the process of forming the self through identification with the social and linguistic order given by the “capitalized other.” These concepts are involved in how the subject constructs reality and understands the relationship between self and others.

Identifying with the capitalized other means looking at the world from behind from that perspective?

Identification with the “capitalized other” does not necessarily mean having the perspective of “looking at the world from behind” itself. However, the process does include an element of perceiving the self and the world through the “perspective of the other” and the “norms of society.

The capitalized other (Autre) is the totality of the symbolic order and encompasses the “social things” that influence our actions and thoughts, such as language, norms, and laws. Symbolic identification is an individual’s understanding of his or her position, role, and identity through this “capitalized other” and the social signification of the self.

In this identification, the subject looks at himself/herself from the perspective of the “capital “other. In other words, it is a process of understanding how one is viewed by others and how one is positioned in society through the “capital “other. Therefore, the subject defines himself/herself from the perspective of the “capitalized other” and relates to the world.

On the other hand, the expression “looking at the world from behind” suggests that we are only trying to reach deeper truths and hidden structures beyond the perspective of order by the “capitalized other. From a Lacanian perspective, we always see the world in the symbolic order constituted by the “capitalized other,” and it is basically impossible to see outside or “behind” that order.

Thus, to “identify with the capitalized other” is to view the world and self according to the perspective of the “capitalized other,” and this is the primary process of symbolic identification. However, this is not the same as looking directly “behind the world” itself, but rather seeing the world within the social and linguistic framework presented by the “capitalized other.”

• General Will 2.0 p.302

What do you think about Hiroki Azuma's diagram on Lacan that says "behind the world = capitalized others"?

Hiroki Azuma’s interpretation of “behind the world = the capitalized Other” is an interesting perspective. This interpretation is thought to be that Lacan’s “capitalized other” is the symbolic order itself, functioning as “behind the world” that we cannot understand.

In Lacanian theory, the “capitalized other” influences the subject’s self-perception and understanding of reality through the symbolic order. This is the part of the world that is out of the reach of the individual, and at the same time, it is the framework through which the world is perceived and understood by the norms and language of society. Therefore, Hiroki Azuma’s identification of “behind the world” with the “capitalized other” is based on the view that the symbolic order itself functions as something “behind the world” to which we have no direct access.

However, in Lacanian theory, the truth or reality “behind the world” does not necessarily correspond exactly to the “capitalized other. The difference is that the “capital Other” represents the symbolic order and does not cover all of reality. Therefore, while it is possible to equate the “capital Other” with “behind the world,” it may be in some respects a simplistic view of the structure of Lacan’s symbolic world.

What Hiroki Azuma’s diagram illustrates is the perspective that the symbolic order has great significance for the consciousness of the subject as “that which we cannot attain,” and it is an easy to understand emphasis on certain aspects of Lacan’s theory.

What does Lacan explain about the imaginary and symbolic worlds?

In psychoanalysis, Lacan identifies “l’imaginaire” and “le symbolique” as different aspects of the human psyche. Each is explained as follows.

• Imaginaire

  • The imaginary world is mainly revealed in the “mirror-image stage (stade du miroir),” the area in which self-image, identification with others, and imaginary relationships are formed. It is created when the infant recognizes his or her reflection in a mirror and perceives himself or herself as a “total image”. This self-image is the basis for learning to distinguish oneself from others, but at the same time the distinction between self and others is blurred and is composed of idealistic and illusory images that reflect self and others.
  • In this imaginary world, we are always governed by the image of “identification with the other” or “ideal self” to perceive reality. Therefore, the imaginary world serves as a kind of mirror, a place where illusions of the subject and ideal projections of the self are produced.

• The symbolic world (le symbolique)

  • The symbolic world is the system by which humans make sense of and order reality, including language, law, and social norms. The foundation of the symbolic world is language, and it is in the symbolic world that individuals understand their relationships with others and the role of the self. According to Lacan, the symbolic world functions as a “capitalized other” that unconsciously determines the actions and desires of the individual.
  • Unlike the imaginary world, the symbolic world is a set of social rules by which we communicate and relate, providing a framework for our interpretation and experience of reality. As individuals grow up, they become embedded in the symbolic world, interacting with the world through language and shaping their identities.

• Relationship between the imaginary and symbolic worlds

  • Lacan believes that while the imaginary world is involved in the formation of self-images and desires, the symbolic world provides a framework for making sense of reality beyond those images. By being positioned in the symbolic world, the subject establishes a social and linguistic self that is independent of his or her imaginary self-image and establishes relationships with others.

Hiroki Azuma says that postmodernity is the problem that the capitalized other has ceased to exist, what do you think?

Hiroki Azuma’s view of “postmodern” as “the problem that the capitalized Other has ceased to exist” is considered a very astute point when critiquing postmodern society based on Lacanian theory. This includes a reference to the transformation and collapse of the Lacanian “symbolic order as the capitalized other” in the postmodern context.

The “capitalized other” in Lacan represents the symbolic order that serves as the basis for the subject’s identity and desires. However, postmodernity is characterized by a situation in which the social norms, values, and cultural frameworks that previously functioned as the “capitalized other” have become uncertain, diversified, and relative. In other words, a sense of the absence of absolute standards and universal values characterizes postmodernity.

Hiroki Azuma’s view focuses on the fact that due to the collapse of this symbolic order, the “capitalized other” can no longer provide clear meaning and direction to the subject, which is a problem for the subject. In the postmodern era, the symbolic order to which the subject is drawn has become diverse, and since none of them can be established as absolute, it becomes difficult for people to establish their identities and values within it.

This view seems to respond well to the confusion of identities, the diversification of values, and the increasing instability of social relations in contemporary society. In postmodernity, with the loss of the “capitalized other,” the subject is faced with a search for solid meaning and order “behind the world” but is unable to find it.

How to perceive and overcome this situation is an important issue in postmodernity, and Hiroki Azuma’s points accurately capture the problems of identity and social relations that modern subjects face.

He argues that when there is no capitalized other, there is no more symbolic identification, only imaginary identification with the politician on the screen, and criticality is lost and populism becomes populism, what do you think?

Hiroki Azuma’s point of view that “the absence of the capitalized Other makes symbolic identification difficult and only imaginary identification remains, resulting in the loss of criticality and the rise of populism” is very suggestive in capturing the contemporary political situation and social psychology.

• Loss of symbolic identification

  • In Lacan, symbolic identification is the process of establishing the identity and social positioning of the subject through the relationship with the “capitalized other. However, when the “capitalized other” is absent under postmodern conditions, the individual loses the stable framework that defines one’s position in society. When symbolic identification does not work well, individuals have difficulty identifying themselves according to social rules and values and, as a result, tend to rely on more superficial images and feelings.

• Imaginary Identification and Populism

  • Imaginative identification is a process in which the subject is drawn to the image or charisma of another and identifies with or imitates it. The visual and sensory aspects of this identification are emphasized, and the critical and rational aspects of symbolic identification are weakened. The contemporary media environment, especially on-screen communication such as television and social networking, facilitates this imaginative identification. When politicians are visually staged and attracted by their charisma and emotions, emotional responses to individual politicians and images are more likely to take precedence over rational judgments and social norms.
  • Therefore, when the critical perspective and framework of rational judgment that the “capitalized other” provided to the subject through symbolic identification is lost, the subject directly imaginatively identifies with the on-screen politician or populist staging and is unable to take a critical distance. As a result, Hiroki Azuma’s argument that populism, which is easily influenced by emotions and images, is on the rise, is very persuasive in considering the contemporary political and social situation.

• Loss of Criticality and Postmodernity

  • This mindset is directly related to postmodern issues such as the loss of critical thinking and publicness. The absence of the “capitalized other” creates instability in the social norms and foundations that govern the subject’s actions and opinions, and tends to produce judgments biased toward imaginary empathy. Therefore, Hiroki Azuma’s point of view, “the loss of symbolic identification and the dominance of imaginary identification,” is an appropriate perspective to explain the social psychology behind contemporary populism.

---

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/ラカン using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.