The Dead Father and Symbollic Order

Well, this time I am fascinated by dear Jacques Lacan (and to think how I hated him before with all his difficult framework). My research leads me to read his concept of Name-of-the-Father. It is started as a psychoanalytical theory, but then it becomes really popular in literature. After careful observation, it turns out to be really interesting.

So, what is this Name-of-the-Father? According to Lacan, human grows because of the separation from the 'mother' and the taking up of a position with respect to the Law of the Father. 'Mother' here refers to the primordial sense of comfort and joy. Well, if we would refer to Freud, mother is the source of warmth and food while we are still in the infancy stage. However, the father then 'castrated' the child through the separation from the mother. Of course, this is done to nurture the child, right? But this separation will create a trauma for the child and led to an intense hatred. (Ooops, I'm going too far to Freud. Let's revert back!)

The main thing with Lacan is that in order to grow, the infant should be separated from the comfort of the mother and kill the Father. Yep! Killing the father. However, unlike Freud who took it literaly, everything in Lacan is symbolic. Well, we cannot deny that a dead father in many stories will open a possibility for the hero to harness and wield a greater power. I guess, the death of the father is a primordial desire nesting in our subconsciousness. No matter what you do, an offspring can never really escape from the shadow of the predecessor. The only way to stand on their own is to 'erase' the predecessor.

Now, in the concept of the 'Father', Lacan called it the figure of Law. As a figure of Law, 'father' is the determiner of everything. In some ways, some Lacan scholars compared the concept of 'Father' with Freud's Jewish God Yahweh. Both are the upholding yet demanding agency which never reveals its true face. A great authority, in short. Furthermore, Nobus (2000) defined Name-of-the-Father as a "culturally determined regulation of the natural order of things." The Order!

Well, if we see Name-of-the-Father as 'regime of the normal', then it justifies the movement of feminism and queer theory. Both talk about the struggle against norm. And what is the characteristic of norms? Dictating, regarded as a natural order, and full or authority. And in relation to Young Adult's text (which is my research object), the rebellion of adolescent is directed against various institution such as school, law, and religion.

Then, if we assume that human being is a group of adolescents, it is quite normal for them to rebel against the 'Father'. Afterall, without the rebellion, they will never trully understand their position within the power structure. Robert Samuels mentioned that "[i]t is through the castration complex that each subject must accept the intervention of the law and the desire of the Other, by either affirming or denying the role of the phallus in the determination of identity" (1993: 27). Some decided to succumb with following the oppression, and some decided to live outside the structure.

True, if we kill the father, we will be immersed into the order. Afterall, the death of the father is the entry to the symbolic Order, the so-called-pseudo-stability. Yeah, I am being sceptic here, since there is no such thing as a perfect stability. That is just a utopia!

In respect to my last article about drag and religion, the rebellion against Name-of-the-Father can also be paralleled with questioning the norm in religion. When we see the religion as the 'ultimate' law of humankind (which is happening right now by people worshiping religion and not God), therefore the growth can only be achieved through the death of religion. Afterall, in the evolution of religion, they are diminishing each other, by trying to kill the predecessor. Seeing the concept of Uber-man and Superman in Nietzsche, I guess it can be said that they have kill their 'father' as in religion. And why are they called super? Because they've already risen to the status of hero, just like in Campbell's Heroic Monomyth (1949).

But what is the consequence? Being fatherless means conquering the phallic figure but there is a shift from the oppressed into oppressor. When one kill one's father and rise to the symbolic order, one will be 'father' for other. Thus, other people will try to kill. (See, this is why I never thought that utopia will never happen). In terms of rebellion against religion (let's just say the atheist or agnostic), when they successfully topple the religions right now, automatically they will form new symbolic order.

I guess, that's why Pippi Langstrump although empowered by the absence of his father still maintain the fact that his father is still alive. Afterall, no challenge and resistance will make life's dull, eh?

(Again, what am I writing here???)