Those who have prior knowledge of the mirror test might believe it will be a smooth journey into understanding what Lacan is getting up to in his paper “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience.” They would be wrong, and I would suggest they buckle up because Lacan goes where no “monkey” (1112), man, or magpie has gone before when he takes the otherwise ordinary event of an infant encountering their image in a mirror and synthesizes from it a moment which “would seem to exhibit in an exemplary situation the symbolic matrix in which the I is precipitated in a primordial form” and claims it is when “the agency of the ego” (1112) is manifested. 

Lacan emphasizes the “imagos of one’s body” (1113) is of particular potency for the child who before encountering it exists as Gestalt; a form (or formlessness, rather) defined by the infant’s very lack of the necessary “imago…to establish a relation between the organism and its reality” (1114). So it is the “drama” of the mirror phase which transfers the child from a state of “insufficiency to anticipation—and which manufactures for the subject…the succession of phantasies that extends from a fragmented body-image to a form of its totality” (1114). In short, this experience works to manufacture a sort of dialectical relationship between self and image which leads to a “fragmented body” (1114). That our bodies and notions of self are built upon the “misrecognitions” (1116) apparent to the child who, in their reflection, see a capable, whole being even when they remain “sunk in [their] motor incapacity and nursling dependence” (1112) or Gestalt is something which Lacan argues must lead to a resolution. This fundamental tension or “alienation” (1115) between the Gestalt and the Imagos is precisely where the child learns to associate with the image they are confronted with; “which [they] must resolve as I” (1112). Thus, it is through the process of identification that we are alienated… 

But… also through the process of alienation that we are… identified…

And, I think this contradiction might be my major problem with this moment that Lacan signals as being vital for subject formation. He spends a great deal of time emphasizing this point of visual contact and has to continuously rely on the ineptitude of the child in the Infans stage to legitimize his claim. However, I think that there is something a bit reductive in believing that the child has no contact with or notion of “self” prior to the body fragmentation that transpires in the mirror. There are, of course, quite obvious examples when we think of blind children, children without regular access to mirrors, and so forth who all still come to develop a robust sense of self. But, perhaps more generally, I get the feeling that Lacan doesn’t seem to recognize the manner that other bodily senses are very much so happening for children before (or if) they find their own reflection and that these experiences are developmental. The child feels and hears and tastes and has preferences for certain sensory input. A child knows its own voice and its own desires. And, I think it is for this reason that the infant can be identified (and thus alienated) at all! They are already more than the abstracted Gestalt Lacan makes them out to be by the time their Imagos appears before them.

This isn’t to say that I disagree with Lacan, though. We are alienated from ourselves to a certain extent. There is a dual relationship between the body and the ego and we exist neither as one nor the other and, yes, obviously something important does happen when a child realizes that they are more than the sum of their “jubilant activity” (1112). But, there seems to be something far more relevant going on when we stop viewing the mirror stage as a one off event and start thinking of it as something ongoing and multifaceted. For example, I love thinking about the mirror stage in relation to my virtual identity. I think body fragmentation was/is more real for me not when I looked in the mirror, but when I used avatars on video games or logged onto social media. In a similar vein, what does “gaze” have to do with subject formation? Is ego something that develops from the self and the mirror alone? What about the other subjects around us that confirm what we see in the reflection?

There’s a lot more that can be said and a lot more I still want to gain from this piece. But, for now, I’ll leave with a quote from The Eyes of the Skin by the brilliant Juhani Pallasmaa whose work I was reminded of after reading Lacan:

“The gradually growing hegemony of the eye seems to be parallel with the development of Western ego-consciousness and the gradually increasing separation of the self and the world; vision separates us from the world whereas the other senses unite us with it.”

Sigmund Freud, an Australian neurologist and someone who was the founder of psychoanalysis, write the piece “The interpretation of Dreams” in which he introduces his theory on the concept of dreams, their meaning and the effects they have. Freud became an important figure in psychology as he brought up his theories to the world and introduced new meanings, ideas on how the mind works and interpretations of dreams.

Freud believes that our desires and emotions in the awake life are the reason why we have certain dreams. He believed in this connection between the conscious and unconscious mind, where our unsaid thoughts and desires in life, in our conscious mind, turned to symbols and images in our dreams, unconscious mind, as a way to express ourselves . In his belief, our dreams all have meanings behind them, and are most likely desires of ours not said aloud. To support his theory he brings up the idea of the process that transforms our unconscious thoughts into a content of dreams, also known as “Dream-work”. Dream work is made up of 4 parts, condensation, displacement, symbolization, and secondary revision. Condensation, a number of ideas combined into one. Displacement, emotion being detached from one idea and attached to another, most likely something that is seen as socially acceptable. Symbolization, an object representing a desire. And lastly, secondary revision, the creation of a narrative coherence.

Freud also describes dream work as the operations that transform the latent content into the manifest content. Manifest content in Freud’s theory is the visuals, the images and content in the dream, whereas the latent content, or in other words the dream thoughts are the “conclusion of our enquiry”(793). Freud mentions how these dream thoughts are the reason why we understand the meaning behind dreams. Dream thoughts and dream content are related as we see the dream-content as a transcript of the dream-thoughts. Manifest content is used to hide meanings , hence why it’s the symbols and images in the dream. Whereas latent is the hidden psychological meaning, the desires and thoughts that we unconsciously interpret it into dreams. Lastly, Freud compares dreams to a picture-puzzle, where he sees that each piece is needed to complete the entire meaning.

Freud has become really important to psychology , as his ideas are bringing to light the connections of unconsciousness and conscious mind of a person. His ideas became known as one of the mnay influential writings in psychology.

Dreams are tricky to pin down; they’re not like butterflies to a lepidopterist. A dream’s interpretation depends on many factors and contexts, all not knowing if what the dream is trying to tell you is actually what the dream is trying to tell you — and who knows if the dream’s trying to tell you something? Dreams are bewildering— and who can you blame? Dreams are there, we made them, and we are there within them, somehow and in all-hows. However, all this obscurity does not stop psychiatrists and thinkers from attempting to become the lepidopterists of dreams, pining them down with meanings, interpretations, and signs.

Before Freud — indeed, before Freud — a dream’s interpretations were not so much brimming with sexual urges, and not everything was a phallus. Psychiatrists merely interpreted the superficial layer of the dream, not looking deeper — screw the abyss, signs, all that jazz. Psychiatrists interpreted the manifest content “as it’s presented in our memories.” You dreamed of walking through a supermarket with Walt Whitman, catching Garcia Lorca fondling some watermelons (Allen Ginsberg, Supermarket in California). The psychiatrist said you wanted to go to the supermarket or needed to go to the supermarket and were probably reading too much Whitman and Lorca (ain’t nothing wrong with that, in my humble opinion.) But as with Ginsberg’s poem, dreams were brimming with meaning.

After Freud — don’t dream about bananas, recorders (they mean — you know what they mean,) or purses or peaches (you, too, know these meanings) — don’t dream about anything because you wished (dreams are wish fulfillment, now) to kill your father and shack up with your mother. No, in all seriousness, as outlandish and outdated — and misogynistic — some of Freud’s ideas are in The Interpretation of Dreams, it’s these ideas (not so much about the Oedipal complex and high libido, in my opinion) that help alter psychoanalytic (think Jung,) but also presents psychiatrists with a different way to analyze the human psyche.

In The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud presents his “new task which had no previous existence: the task, that is, of investigating the relations between the manifest content of dreams and the latent dream-thoughts, and of tracing out the processes by which the latter have been changed into the former.” Freud is saying that the former psychiatrists are wrong in their approach of psychoanalytic. There is no longer just the manifest content, but “a manifest content of dreams and the latent dream-thoughts, (let us call this latent content.) And Freud’s task and the new psychoanalytic approach is to see how the latent has transformed into (or effects) the manifest (and, in my opinion, vice versa.)

The manifest content is the remembered narrative that plays out in the dream. As I mentioned, itself is superficial, only surface deep. On this level, dream language is often from memories. The manifest content is jumbled, jumpy, and all over the place. The latent content (or dream-thought) is the underlying meaning of the dream; it’s usually parts of the dream we do not remember after waking. The latent content is like the unseen details on a page when a teacher says to read between the lines. Freud’s interest lies in the relationship between the two, and he believes the answers to dreams (as well as the self) sit between the manifest and latent content.

Through Freud’s task of investigating the relationship between manifest and latent content, to this writer, he becomes part of an over-arching theory of psychological two-ness, and thus, socially two-ness, that spans generations and multiple disciplines.

Sigmund Freud, a world-renowned Austrian neurologist/psychologist touches upon The Oedipus Complex within his text, “From The Interpretation of Dreams.” The Freudian phenomenon emphasizes a son that unconsciously murders his father due to an attraction to the opposite sex and mother. Although both parents share in the child’s conception, formation, and nurturing, the father is absent and scientifically forbidden from its development in the mother’s womb. After fertilization, the mother establishes an umbilical cord that attaches herself to her child on an internal level. The cord not only aids in the inauguration of the child but galvanizes intimacy between them. Moreover, once birthing is complete, the child will rely on the mother’s breastfeeding for several months. In particular, this catalyzes a child’s emotional attachment to the activity. Sudden termination of intimacy, such as breastfeeding, can leave a child in a bewildered state of mind. As mentioned by (Freud, 790), “it is the fate of all of us, perhaps, to direct our first sexual impulse towards our mother and our first hatred and our first murderous experience wish against our father.”
For example, over time, a cis-gendered masculine child conceptualizes his father as denoting a higher threshold of intimacy with his mother that involves sexual intercourse. On an unconscious level, the child portrays frustration toward his parents due to his attraction to the opposite-sex parent. Freud explains that this phenomenon and other human complexities occur from privatized dreams. Dreams themselves indicate our positive or negative wishes, thoughts, hopes, and admirations. Daily, individuals interact with stimuli such as educational institutions, religious gatherings, sporting events, concerts, discourse with family/friends, etc. Whether the interaction provides a positive or negative spin on a spirit, dreams are formed to figure out the severity of a situation, and how a man or woman should act in front of the individual he/she seeks to date. Having said that, the person may not necessarily desire an observed experience but is processed by way of its association with one’s existence.
Parents are the first mode of influence a child grapples with in its development. From a subconscious and scientific perspective, human beings inherently desire reproduction to continue their existence as a species. Unconsciously, men and women form bondage to partners that portray acts of their opposite-sex parent. In my opinion, due in part to the area that permits such behavior and the survival of the fittest analogy. Freud notes that a child productively develops a mechanism that inhibits them from portraying their peculiar desire for intimacy with the opposite-sex parent by channeling that emotional significance elsewhere.

In a piece called “The Interpretation of Dreams” by Sigmund Freud he introduces a revolting connection. To the a complex known as the Oedipus which relates to the content and structure of dreams. The Oedipus complex is when a child has anger for their same sex parents but have feelings of pure desire for the opposite sex parent. Their are two discussions that can be had through Freud ideology based on the Oedipus complex. The first one being is that dream themselves are seen as something that is to reveled a person deepest desires as express by Freud. When people find themselves longing for something in the physical world then it transported into the psychic. Freud strongly believes that dreams are the sole credit to tell what is one desires. To prove this he uses the weird topic of a child desires and emotions to their own parents. Their is a strange truth to this stance Freud stands by their is a discussion that Men tend to like/be with women that resemble their mother, Women are drawn to men who are like their dad.

Just like Freud that question is ask what is the reason behind this? Are the men and women who are like this have some deep attraction for their parents as Freud insist. Which leads to another structures of dreams the two terms are displacements and condensation. These two terms are meant to keep at bay our desires so that we don’t act upon them. “In the process of transforming the latent thoughts into the manifest content of a dream we have found two factors at work: dream-condensation and dream-displacements”(795)When it comes to Condensation Freud describes as when a multitude of thoughts and images are fused into one single dream image. Displacement is when emotions are all of sudden shifted to something else in a dream, a necklace belonging to your late mother and that feeling being projected on a book.

Dreams are thoughts put in a situation of fiction. What people dream are the things we found in our life and that doesn’t always means a person has desires or want to do certain things. Its more about how our dreams are gateway or beginnings to make these dreams a reality. “Each train of thought is almost invariably accompanied by its contradictory counterpart, linked with it by antithetical association.”(795)  Freud admits that dreams are not all based in some type of desires or needs but that desire of something is more than a fruitless dream. Even when you don’t dream of anything pertaining to your desires their is still another side of that dream that has of Easter egg of it roaming around.

Freud’s “The Interpretation of Dreams” is one of the most influential writings in the subject of psychology. The piece lays out Freud’s theory of the the unconscious mind and its influence on human behavior.

It is important to know that Freud believed that the unconscious mind was the key to understanding human behavior, he argued that our thoughts, feelings and behavior were not just determined by decision making but also influenced by unconscious desires and conflicts. This idea was revolutionary at the time and challenged the belief in rationality and free will.

To understand the “unconscious mind” Freud developed the concept of the “dream work” which he strongly believed was the process by which the unconscious mind expresses itself through dreams. According to Freud, dreams are never random and always have a meaning. Dreams are highly symbolic representations of our unconscious desires, fears and conflicts. The “dream work” consists of four main processes; Condensation, displacement, symbolism, and secondary elaboration.

Condensation, (not what happens in the water cycle), refers to the way that multiple ideas or concepts are compressed into a single image or symbol in a dream. Displacement Occurs when the true object of our desires or fears is replaced by a less threatening or more socially acceptable symbol in the dream. Symbolism, is the use of the images or objects that represent hidden or repressed desires or conflicts. Secondary elaboration refers to the way that the dreamer creates a story or narrative around the symbolic elements of the dream, which helps to make it more understandable and memorable.

Freud believed that by interpreting our dreams, we can gain insight into our desires and conflicts. He argued that dreams provide a road to the unconscious mind, as they are free from the constraint of social norms. By examining the imagery and symbolism in our dreams, it helps uncover hidden fears and desires that we may not know of when we are woken.

“The Interpretation of Dreams” was a groundbreaking piece of work that paved the way for the development of psychoanalysis and modern psychology. It challenged traditional views of human behavior and offered a new way of understanding the role of the unconscious mind in our lives. Today, Freud’s ideas continue to influence the field of psychology and inspire ongoing research and exploration into the human mind.

Freud’s Ideas have inspired many other thinkers and philosophers and continue to shape our understanding of the human mind. Whether you agree with Freud’s theories or not, there not denying that “The Interpretation of Dreams” is a landmark in its history. It is a fascinating glimpse into the the most influential mind of the modern era.

When Grasmsci speaks on intellectuals he distinguishes it with the concept of reality, falling into the categories of a “social function”. He therefore initiates two kinds of “intellectuals” and breeds them as “traditional” and “organic.” With traditional intellectualism, Gramsci brings forth how it is more so associated with high class, and is institutionally based. Traditional organics shears off and is more likely to become organic. Examining organic intellectualism, he highlights how it’s associated with the social class, those who fight through the system of ideological struggles. With social class, its barriers are endless, stemming from race, identity, gender, and so on. “Organic” intellectually fits in with the metaphor of what organic means. What makes an intellectual organic is that they are growing out of a “class” situation. Gramsci paints this picture pertaining to being an intellectual, that it’s our social class that places us in which we define as, whether we’re intellectual or not. Diving deeper into that motive, Gramsci does not buy it. He believes it’s a veil that is placed over all of this and essentially is placed over the hegemony. We must preserve our autonomy. Gramsci goes beyond simplicity within an intellectual structure by infusing the demonstrations of how applicable it is towards distinguishing who benefits from it or not. But more in-depthly he yearns to grasp it and shiut down the motives of seeing “good” within any of it.

Growing into the topic of Gramsci and his assessment on education and its impact, he yields an argument that education has its necessary function of contributing to a new form of intellectuals. Its ability to ‘multiply and narrow the various specializations’ brings forth an abundance of understanding. With education, the more it spreads throughout communities, schools, the world, etc. the more complex the cultural world could become. The industrialization pertaining to society could be well acquainted with manufacturing, production, and much more accuracy towards innovations. With a mindset on education, I could say Gramsci would be quite fond of education and its system in todays society. Its purpose of imposing institutionalized based education upon thousands of students paves a way towards an upgraded world, with highly intellect minds. Stating, “the more extensive the area covered by education and more numerous vertical levels of schooling, the more cultural, the civilization, of a particular side.” Imagining a more institutionalized education amongst many people, society could move forward in terms of ways of a beneficial economy, as opposed to backwards where they were numerically declining in intellectual specializations. Gramsci understands that with education abundances of organizations could be formed in terms of providing defense of, “professions, unemployment, overproduction in the schools, emigration, etc.” and with that defense, much more beneficial gains could be tended towards providing a mechanism which adheres to the struggles faced.

According to Foucault, Disciplinary power revolves around the individual body and micromanagement of the human body. Biopolitics refers to how power operates through the management and regulation of populations and involves the use of power to control all of life rather than individual bodies.

One example of a disciplinary system in effect would be a prison where individuals that are a part of this system are continuously reprimanded and eventually internalize the discipline to no longer have the capacity to resist punishment. Individuals in the prison system are “docile bodies”, according to Foucault, and are used as commodities to serve the ideology that the government is capable of maintaining power through force. Although prisons are a good representation of disciplinary power being used, this is also an extreme form of discipline. As individuals, we encounter Disciplinary power in less noticeable ways in our daily lives through educational institutions, workplaces, and in the family.

In Foucoult’s later thinking, he developed an ideology revolving around the basis of Biopolitics and specifically the use of sexuality as “a technology of power”(according to Foucault) in controlling and regulating populations. Foucault attributed a lot of power to sexuality because of the willingness people have to make sacrifices for sex, and some to the extent of sacrificing themselves for sex. The government knowing the vulnerability individuals feel under sexual pressure uses this to their advantage. One example of this behavior would be China’s government regulating child-bearing in the country by restricting each family to only having two children. Another example of Biopolitics in play is Eugenics. Policies about regulating what individuals are allowed to reproduce, or which individuals should be sterilized are highly controversial and nevertheless implemented around the world to “improve the quality of the genetic population” and potentially eliminate genetic issues. The practice of Eugenics was implemented and utilized in the early 1900’s to sterilize certain mental patients to prevent their disorders or illnesses from being passed down to further generations. The government uses population statistics to regulate the population and because the general population is essentially powerless against the system that runs the country, they will oblige and submit to the authority.

Biopolitics is built upon the foundations of discipline but it extends power beyond solely individual bodies to entire populations. Bio power utilizes the concept of Individual discipline and Bio politics and incorporates multiple technologies of power to control populations. Sex is a common theme where discipline and bio politics intersect because control of individual bodies is associated with reproduction, and population control is associated with statistical analysis and surveillance such as through selective breeding and creating birthing limitations.