What do you think?
Rate this book
Beginner's Guide (Oneworld Publications)
Lacan: A Beginner's Guide
Lacan without the jargon!
Jacques Lacan was one of the most important psychoanalysts ever to have lived. Building upon the work of Sigmund Freud, he sought to refine Freudian insights with the use of linguistics, arguing that “the structure of unconscious is like a language”. Controversial throughout his lifetime both for adopting mathematical concepts in his psychoanalytic framework and for advocating therapy sessions of varying length, he is widely misunderstood and often unfairly dismissed as impenetrable.
In this clear, wide-ranging primer, Lionel Bailly demonstrates how Lacan’s ideas are still vitally relevant to contemporary issues of mental health treatment. Defending Lacan from his numerous detractors, past and present, Bailly guides the reader through Lacan’s canon, from “l'objet petit a” to “The Mirror Stage” and beyond. Including coverage of developments in Lacanian psychoanalysis since his death, this is the perfect introduction to the great modern theorist.
Jacques Lacan was one of the most important psychoanalysts ever to have lived. Building upon the work of Sigmund Freud, he sought to refine Freudian insights with the use of linguistics, arguing that “the structure of unconscious is like a language”. Controversial throughout his lifetime both for adopting mathematical concepts in his psychoanalytic framework and for advocating therapy sessions of varying length, he is widely misunderstood and often unfairly dismissed as impenetrable.
In this clear, wide-ranging primer, Lionel Bailly demonstrates how Lacan’s ideas are still vitally relevant to contemporary issues of mental health treatment. Defending Lacan from his numerous detractors, past and present, Bailly guides the reader through Lacan’s canon, from “l'objet petit a” to “The Mirror Stage” and beyond. Including coverage of developments in Lacanian psychoanalysis since his death, this is the perfect introduction to the great modern theorist.
256 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2009
199 people are currently reading
806 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews
February 2, 2013
This book is fabulous -- For anyone (i.e., most of us) who doesn't know or understand a damn thing about Lacan, and feel guilty about it, this Lacan-for-dummies is written by no dummy. Bailly lays out the theoretical foundations with great clarity (though even here, the material on desire and on 'l'objet petit a' does get rather gritty).
Moreover, Baily stresses, quite rightly (it seem), that in spite of its theoretical interest, Lacan is really about the psychoanalytic practice (and not about the theoretical constructs that are, in the end, only 'constructs').
An excellent introduction.
Chs. 2-4 describe the construction of the ego in the sphere of the imaginary (which should be identified with the older notion of 'phantasia', and not with the contemporary idea of "imagination"), and then discuss ‘the other’ (both little and Big). Ch. 6 then explains the Real, Symbolic (which is the sphere of the Subject) and the Imaginary as a Borromean knot. Chs. 7-8 are the incomprehensible chapters on desire (I'd have to reread these to have any real inkling about them); and ch. 12 deals with Laconian practice, and is quite interesting. There is much other material in this short book, including a final chapter on counseling as opposed to psychoanalysis in the 21st cen.
Drawing on the structuralism of Saussure and Lévi-Strauss, Lacan holds that the Subject, that ‘which speaks’, is not itself actually the source of law, culture, language -- but is actually itself a product of the 'Big Other' (which is language, law, etc.... an almost Burkean realm of accumulated tradition that precedes and forms the individual), and is in this way a product of, and thoroughly ensnared in, the sphere of the Symbolic. The Ego is posterior to the Subject. Once the Subject sees itself in a mirror (around age 2), it forms an identification with this image-double, and then gradually affixes attributes to this 'double' (attributes culled from the Big Other), with which the Subject then identifies. The first mirror, however, is actually the gaze of the mother. The Ego, then, is not the solution (Freud), but the problem. It exists in the realm of the Imaginary, is an illusion, and casts an obscuring shadow -- like an offending tower -- on the true needs (themselves unconscious) of the Subject (himself a construction of the Big Other). One must move the tower, so that those needs can come into the light. The task of the Lacanian analyst is thus like that of trying to breach "a city wall [the Ego] with a herring".
A lot of interesting material here -- and this book gives you enough of a handle to have a real working knowledge of this very strange, influential, and enigmatic writer.
Moreover, Baily stresses, quite rightly (it seem), that in spite of its theoretical interest, Lacan is really about the psychoanalytic practice (and not about the theoretical constructs that are, in the end, only 'constructs').
An excellent introduction.
Chs. 2-4 describe the construction of the ego in the sphere of the imaginary (which should be identified with the older notion of 'phantasia', and not with the contemporary idea of "imagination"), and then discuss ‘the other’ (both little and Big). Ch. 6 then explains the Real, Symbolic (which is the sphere of the Subject) and the Imaginary as a Borromean knot. Chs. 7-8 are the incomprehensible chapters on desire (I'd have to reread these to have any real inkling about them); and ch. 12 deals with Laconian practice, and is quite interesting. There is much other material in this short book, including a final chapter on counseling as opposed to psychoanalysis in the 21st cen.
Drawing on the structuralism of Saussure and Lévi-Strauss, Lacan holds that the Subject, that ‘which speaks’, is not itself actually the source of law, culture, language -- but is actually itself a product of the 'Big Other' (which is language, law, etc.... an almost Burkean realm of accumulated tradition that precedes and forms the individual), and is in this way a product of, and thoroughly ensnared in, the sphere of the Symbolic. The Ego is posterior to the Subject. Once the Subject sees itself in a mirror (around age 2), it forms an identification with this image-double, and then gradually affixes attributes to this 'double' (attributes culled from the Big Other), with which the Subject then identifies. The first mirror, however, is actually the gaze of the mother. The Ego, then, is not the solution (Freud), but the problem. It exists in the realm of the Imaginary, is an illusion, and casts an obscuring shadow -- like an offending tower -- on the true needs (themselves unconscious) of the Subject (himself a construction of the Big Other). One must move the tower, so that those needs can come into the light. The task of the Lacanian analyst is thus like that of trying to breach "a city wall [the Ego] with a herring".
A lot of interesting material here -- and this book gives you enough of a handle to have a real working knowledge of this very strange, influential, and enigmatic writer.
July 18, 2021
Any attempt to simplify Lacan is in for a tough time. It seems that a good introduction to him is one that clarifies lots of things you didn’t quite understand in the previous four introductions you read. Bailly’s ‘Lacan: A Beginner’s Guide’ is not an easy read but it is clear and well written, and if you take your time, it is enlightening. It is one I will certainly reread from time to time.
June 22, 2024
Who’s afraid of LACAN?
Well.
I am.
Or at least I was until reading this.
WARNING: PERSONAL DISCLOSURE ALERT ‼️
I first learned about Lacan in art school.
I went to the San Francisco Art Institute (SFAI) in the early-mid 1990’s. And postmodernism and poststructuralism was the FUCKING RAGE. It was the new punk rock. All of us were trying desperately to get a handle on it. It was as if you couldn’t somehow make a decent painting or drawing w/o being able to quote Baudrillard.
I remember being in a seminar on critical theory, and I had questions about Lacan. One of the other attendees got VERY IRRITATED and barked. “Dude, you can’t understand Lacan, nobody on earth understands Lacan. Not even experts in Lacan understand Lacan.”
That was extremely shame inducing.
Which was bad enough.
But the worst part was.
I actually believed it.
And as such, I avoided Lacan from then on.
In fact, anytime I would hear anyone talk about Lacan. Somewhere in my mind I would think ‘hmmm, this guy/gal is full of bullshit, because “nobody understands Lacan.”
Then in 1996, Alan Sokol managed to get his article Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics published in Social Text (a prominent poststructuralist journal).
The article was actually a HOAX.
It was 100% nonsensical jargon.
It was intended to test the intellectual rigor of the journal.
And to discredit postmodern theory more broadly.
And.
Well…
Social Text fails the test.
And postmodern theory was dealt a KO PUNCH.
Then the first tech boom happened and EVERYONE (especially artists) seemed to be scrambling to jump in and cash in. All that punk rock socialism seems QUAINT.
And then 9/11 happened. And on 9/12 Andrew Coyne famously quipped that “the age of Irony died yesterday.”
And just like that.
The dream on the 1980’s - 1990’s counterculture went dark.
And postmodernism was POSTMORTEM.
But then.
2016 happened (TRUMP)
And then.
2020 happened (COVID/#MeToo/BLM)
And then.
GENZ happened (🤯)
And suddenly.
Its like…
Critical theory became relevant again.
The “CONVERSATION” has been RESURRECTED.
The LIGHTS are BACK ON in the HOUSE of LACAN.
NOTE: many people would argue on ALL OF THESE POINTS.
If that describes you.
Please do so in the comments (#DISCOURSE).
Anyway.
I’m reading this now (30 years later) in a broader effort to understand phenomenological philosophy and its impact/implications for psychotherapy/psychoanalysis. Particularly regarding trauma therapy, specifically EMDR for trauma/addiction.
And I’m VERY glad I did.
It is in fact TOTALLY possible to understand Lacan (at least at a professional level). And Lacan is TOTALLY useful and relevant to psychotherapy and sociopolitical critique.
END OF PERSONAL DISCLOSURE ALERT ‼️
This book brings Lacan down to earth.
It makes his basic assertions COMPLETELY assessable.
It’s a TOTALLY useful and worthwhile firmware upgrade.
Particularly for cutting through the seemingly OPAQUE UNCERTAINTIES of the PSYCHOTIC NOW (2024).
One of the things that sank in while reading this is: the PROFOUND impact that Ferdinand de Saussure had on postmodernism. I think there has been a breakdown of Saussure’s signifier/signified (s/S) in LITERALLY everything on postmodernism I have ever read. It’s apparently ILLEGAL not to mention Saussure’s s/S in POMO anything.
I guess repetition pays off.
Because it’s finally sinking in.
Ferdinand de Saussure is to and French critical theory and psychology (Deridda, Lacan etc), as Charles Darwin is to British psychology (John Bowlby), and Henry Ford is to American psychology (Watson and B. F. Skinner).
ANYWAY…
Lacan is founded on Saussure’s s/S.
I (hopefully) won’t go into TOO much detail here.
But (very briefly, as per my admittedly primitive understanding), the BASICS are as follows:
SIGNIFIER (s)
The signifier refers to the actual form that a given word takes; this could be a spoken sound, a written word, or any other form that can signify something. For example, the "FLOWER" when written or spoken is the signifier.
SIGNIFIED (S)
The signified is the concept or meaning that the signifier represents. Continuing with the previous example, the signified of "FLOWER" would include the mental image or concept of a a flower, or flowers. It’s basically all the imaginal content that we understand/visualize when we hear/read the word "FLOWER."
Saussure emphasized that the relationship between the signifier (s) and the signified (S) is arbitrary. Meaning, the ACTUAL word/sound we use is not inherently meaningful. But rather established by social convention. Different languages have different signifiers for the same signified (e.g., "FLOWER" in English, "FLEUR" in French, and "BLUME" in German).
We can even arbitrarily assign new significance to extant signifiers, (e.g., FLOWER POWER).
Together, the signifier and the signified (s/S) combine to make the SIGN, which is the basic unit of LINGUISTICS.
CROSSING THE BAR (s/S)
Lacan observed that there is a bar (/) between signifier (s) and signified (S). Somehow, the imaginal content (signified), and the word form, have to be connected. In other words. The signified (imaginal content) needs to “cross the bar” to become symbolically associated with the signifier (arbitrary word from). And for Lacan. Crossing the bar is how meaning is made.
OK.
Real talk. I am somewhat unclear whether the notion of “crossing the bar” is actually Lacan’s original idea, or if it was an extant concept. But the idea of crossing the bar is ABSOLUTELY fundamental to understanding Lacan either way.
THE REAL/IMAGINARY/SYMBOLIC (R/I/S)
Lacan introduced the concepts of the Real (R), the Imaginary (I), and the Symbolic (S) as the fundamental structures of human psychology.
THE IMAGINARY
For Lacan, the IMAGINARY (I) is analogous to Saussure signified (s). It’s the psychological realm of unbounded (unassigned) imaginal content, including psychological “mirror” representations of “objects” in the world.
It’s BASICALLY the all the stuff we can IMAGINE.
THE SYMBOLIC
For Lacan, the SYMBOLIC (S) is analogous to Saussure’s signifier (S). It’s the psychological realm of words, language, laws, norms, and social structures.
It’s BASICALLY all the stuff from the IMAGINARY that we can put into words, and meaningfully share/transmit via culture and communication.
THE REAL
For Lacan, the REAL refers to the psychosocial domain of what is (currently or forever) outside the domain of the IMAGINARY or SYMBOLIC.
It’s BASICALLY the aspects of human existence that we are TRAPPED in, and ABSOLUTELY affected by, but simply CANNOT explicitly see, or articulate, or even clearly IMAGINE.
The REAL is associated with things that disrupt our sense of SELF/OTHER/FUTUTE/WORLD, such as unidentified and unprocessed TRAUMA, or larger social structures like CAPITALISM and PATRIARCHY, but are SOMHOW or ANOTHER not explicitly understood or experienced, but rather naïvely experienced as REALITY.
The REAL resists symbolization and remains beyond our conscious grasp, often experienced in moments of anxiety or the breakdown of meaning.
At least until it CAN BE IMAGINED/SYMBOLIZED.
And that is what is SO POWERFUL AND PROFOUNDLY TRANSFORMATIVE about psychotherapy and critical theory.
They enable the conversion of the otherwise implicit “REAL” into explicitly experienceable and expressible IMAGINAL and SYMBOLIC forms.
By IDENTIFYING and NAMING the TRAUMATIC as TRAUMA, we can EXPERIENCE and EXPRESS it.
The same goes for otherwise intractable social structures like CAPITALISM, PATRIARCHY and HETERONORMATIVITY.
They are experienced as the implicit “NATURAL ORDER” i.e., as REALITY, until EXPLICITLY IDENTIFIED and NAMED. Whereby they become explicitly knowable. And we can TALK about it. And even IMAGINE NEW WAYS OF BEING.
THE MIRROR STAGE
Lacan's Mirror Stage is another crucial concept in his psychoanalytic theory. The mirror stage represents an essential phase in human development. It’s the moment we (as children) can suddenly understand that we are a SELF, and that is distinct from OTHERS/WORLD.
Lacan posited that the MIRROR STAGE occurs between 6-18 months, whereby the infant becomes able to recognize and understand their reflection in a mirror, analogous to the theory of mind (TOM) construct in developmental psych.
Lacan posited that the MIRROR STAGE enables EGO formation, whereby the child gains an explicit sense of SELF separate from OTHERS.
THE IDEALIZED SELF
According to Lacan, the MIRROR STAGE initiates the lifelong pursuit of an IDEALIZED SELF. This creates a tension between the IDEAL self and the REAL self, which engenders the PROFOUND sense of SHAME and ALIENATION that is the source of incalculable human suffering, and which can persists throughout the LIFESPAN.
Again. This SHAME/ALIENATION is implicitly experienced as REALITY, until explicitly IDENTIFIED and via PSYCHOANALYSIS and CRITICAL THEORY, and any other manner of PSYCHOSOCIAL and PSYCHOSPIRITUAL exploitation, development and expression.
PSYCHOANALYSIS and CRITICAL THEORY enable the conversion of the intractable implicit REAL, (ACROSS THE BAR) into the tractable and explicit IMAGINARY and SYMBOLIC realms. There by EMPOWERING CAHNGE/LIBERATION from otherwise interactable SUFFERING.
The insights and constructs of THERAPY/THEORY/ART enable us to EXPERIENCE and EXPRESS otherwise INACCESSIBLE aspects of our SELF/WORLD/OTHER.
In this way.
The TEXT creates the AUTHOR.
And VICE VERSA.
DESIRE
For Lacan, desire is not simply a need or a want but something more complex and structured by the symbolic order. Lacan defines DESIRE as the result of the failure of speech to render and express what the subject LACKS.
DESIRE/LACK
Lacan posits that DESIRE is fundamentally rooted in a deep sense of LACK originating in: separation from the mother; and the MIRROR STAGE transition into the symbolic order.
This CORE lack can never be completely fulfilled/satisfied. As such DESIRE continuously seeks OBJECTS/OTHERS to fill the VOID.
DESIRE/OTHER
Lacan posits that DESIRE is always the desire of the OTHER. This means that our DESIRES are shaped by the desires and expectations of OTHERS around us, particularly the SYMBOLIC OTHER (society, language, and cultural norms).
DESIRE/OBJECT
Lacan introduces the concept of "objet petit a" (object small a), which represents the unattainable OBJECT of DESIRE. It is the imagined or EVER ELUSIVE OBJECT that we believe will satisfy our DESIRE. The OBJECT/a is never fully attainable, and the pursuit of it perpetuates the ENDLESS CYCLE OF DESIRE.
I think the implications for CONSUMERIST CAPITALISM are OBVIOUS. And I also feel like the implications for ADDICTION of all kinds is also quite OBVIOUS. We DESIRE out of a DEEP SENSSE OF LACK and born of LONGING for lost CONNECTION, and a sense of ALIENATION.
Because the LACK is WITHIN. We can never satisfy it with EXTERNALITIES. As such, our attempts to FILL THE “GOD SIZED” VOID with OTHERS/OBJECTS is a PERPETUAL FAIL.
As such, we can become SLAVES to STATUS SEEKING, WORK/SPEND/CONSUMERISM DRUGS/ALCOHOL, SEX/LOVE, BINGE/PURGE.
Yes to ALL THAT.
There’s SO MUCH MORE to LACAN.
But for now.
That will have to suffice.
I’m at the current limit of my (professional) understanding.
Circling back to my SFAI colleague.
Non of this is somehow beyond the reach of us mere mortals.
All of this is actually readily understandable.
Thanks in no small part to books like this one.
And furthermore.
It’s very USEFUL and LIBERATING stuff.
My understanding of Lacan is OBVIOUSLY provisional. But after reading this book, I feel EMPOWERED and EXCITED to continue on my Lacaniean learning ADVENTURE.
This book was a fantastic.
It undid 30 years of unnecessary FEAR and LOATHING of LACAN.
5/5 ✨
Well.
I am.
Or at least I was until reading this.
WARNING: PERSONAL DISCLOSURE ALERT ‼️
I first learned about Lacan in art school.
I went to the San Francisco Art Institute (SFAI) in the early-mid 1990’s. And postmodernism and poststructuralism was the FUCKING RAGE. It was the new punk rock. All of us were trying desperately to get a handle on it. It was as if you couldn’t somehow make a decent painting or drawing w/o being able to quote Baudrillard.
I remember being in a seminar on critical theory, and I had questions about Lacan. One of the other attendees got VERY IRRITATED and barked. “Dude, you can’t understand Lacan, nobody on earth understands Lacan. Not even experts in Lacan understand Lacan.”
That was extremely shame inducing.
Which was bad enough.
But the worst part was.
I actually believed it.
And as such, I avoided Lacan from then on.
In fact, anytime I would hear anyone talk about Lacan. Somewhere in my mind I would think ‘hmmm, this guy/gal is full of bullshit, because “nobody understands Lacan.”
Then in 1996, Alan Sokol managed to get his article Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics published in Social Text (a prominent poststructuralist journal).
The article was actually a HOAX.
It was 100% nonsensical jargon.
It was intended to test the intellectual rigor of the journal.
And to discredit postmodern theory more broadly.
And.
Well…
Social Text fails the test.
And postmodern theory was dealt a KO PUNCH.
Then the first tech boom happened and EVERYONE (especially artists) seemed to be scrambling to jump in and cash in. All that punk rock socialism seems QUAINT.
And then 9/11 happened. And on 9/12 Andrew Coyne famously quipped that “the age of Irony died yesterday.”
And just like that.
The dream on the 1980’s - 1990’s counterculture went dark.
And postmodernism was POSTMORTEM.
But then.
2016 happened (TRUMP)
And then.
2020 happened (COVID/#MeToo/BLM)
And then.
GENZ happened (🤯)
And suddenly.
Its like…
Critical theory became relevant again.
The “CONVERSATION” has been RESURRECTED.
The LIGHTS are BACK ON in the HOUSE of LACAN.
NOTE: many people would argue on ALL OF THESE POINTS.
If that describes you.
Please do so in the comments (#DISCOURSE).
Anyway.
I’m reading this now (30 years later) in a broader effort to understand phenomenological philosophy and its impact/implications for psychotherapy/psychoanalysis. Particularly regarding trauma therapy, specifically EMDR for trauma/addiction.
And I’m VERY glad I did.
It is in fact TOTALLY possible to understand Lacan (at least at a professional level). And Lacan is TOTALLY useful and relevant to psychotherapy and sociopolitical critique.
END OF PERSONAL DISCLOSURE ALERT ‼️
This book brings Lacan down to earth.
It makes his basic assertions COMPLETELY assessable.
It’s a TOTALLY useful and worthwhile firmware upgrade.
Particularly for cutting through the seemingly OPAQUE UNCERTAINTIES of the PSYCHOTIC NOW (2024).
One of the things that sank in while reading this is: the PROFOUND impact that Ferdinand de Saussure had on postmodernism. I think there has been a breakdown of Saussure’s signifier/signified (s/S) in LITERALLY everything on postmodernism I have ever read. It’s apparently ILLEGAL not to mention Saussure’s s/S in POMO anything.
I guess repetition pays off.
Because it’s finally sinking in.
Ferdinand de Saussure is to and French critical theory and psychology (Deridda, Lacan etc), as Charles Darwin is to British psychology (John Bowlby), and Henry Ford is to American psychology (Watson and B. F. Skinner).
ANYWAY…
Lacan is founded on Saussure’s s/S.
I (hopefully) won’t go into TOO much detail here.
But (very briefly, as per my admittedly primitive understanding), the BASICS are as follows:
SIGNIFIER (s)
The signifier refers to the actual form that a given word takes; this could be a spoken sound, a written word, or any other form that can signify something. For example, the "FLOWER" when written or spoken is the signifier.
SIGNIFIED (S)
The signified is the concept or meaning that the signifier represents. Continuing with the previous example, the signified of "FLOWER" would include the mental image or concept of a a flower, or flowers. It’s basically all the imaginal content that we understand/visualize when we hear/read the word "FLOWER."
Saussure emphasized that the relationship between the signifier (s) and the signified (S) is arbitrary. Meaning, the ACTUAL word/sound we use is not inherently meaningful. But rather established by social convention. Different languages have different signifiers for the same signified (e.g., "FLOWER" in English, "FLEUR" in French, and "BLUME" in German).
We can even arbitrarily assign new significance to extant signifiers, (e.g., FLOWER POWER).
Together, the signifier and the signified (s/S) combine to make the SIGN, which is the basic unit of LINGUISTICS.
CROSSING THE BAR (s/S)
Lacan observed that there is a bar (/) between signifier (s) and signified (S). Somehow, the imaginal content (signified), and the word form, have to be connected. In other words. The signified (imaginal content) needs to “cross the bar” to become symbolically associated with the signifier (arbitrary word from). And for Lacan. Crossing the bar is how meaning is made.
OK.
Real talk. I am somewhat unclear whether the notion of “crossing the bar” is actually Lacan’s original idea, or if it was an extant concept. But the idea of crossing the bar is ABSOLUTELY fundamental to understanding Lacan either way.
THE REAL/IMAGINARY/SYMBOLIC (R/I/S)
Lacan introduced the concepts of the Real (R), the Imaginary (I), and the Symbolic (S) as the fundamental structures of human psychology.
THE IMAGINARY
For Lacan, the IMAGINARY (I) is analogous to Saussure signified (s). It’s the psychological realm of unbounded (unassigned) imaginal content, including psychological “mirror” representations of “objects” in the world.
It’s BASICALLY the all the stuff we can IMAGINE.
THE SYMBOLIC
For Lacan, the SYMBOLIC (S) is analogous to Saussure’s signifier (S). It’s the psychological realm of words, language, laws, norms, and social structures.
It’s BASICALLY all the stuff from the IMAGINARY that we can put into words, and meaningfully share/transmit via culture and communication.
THE REAL
For Lacan, the REAL refers to the psychosocial domain of what is (currently or forever) outside the domain of the IMAGINARY or SYMBOLIC.
It’s BASICALLY the aspects of human existence that we are TRAPPED in, and ABSOLUTELY affected by, but simply CANNOT explicitly see, or articulate, or even clearly IMAGINE.
The REAL is associated with things that disrupt our sense of SELF/OTHER/FUTUTE/WORLD, such as unidentified and unprocessed TRAUMA, or larger social structures like CAPITALISM and PATRIARCHY, but are SOMHOW or ANOTHER not explicitly understood or experienced, but rather naïvely experienced as REALITY.
The REAL resists symbolization and remains beyond our conscious grasp, often experienced in moments of anxiety or the breakdown of meaning.
At least until it CAN BE IMAGINED/SYMBOLIZED.
And that is what is SO POWERFUL AND PROFOUNDLY TRANSFORMATIVE about psychotherapy and critical theory.
They enable the conversion of the otherwise implicit “REAL” into explicitly experienceable and expressible IMAGINAL and SYMBOLIC forms.
By IDENTIFYING and NAMING the TRAUMATIC as TRAUMA, we can EXPERIENCE and EXPRESS it.
The same goes for otherwise intractable social structures like CAPITALISM, PATRIARCHY and HETERONORMATIVITY.
They are experienced as the implicit “NATURAL ORDER” i.e., as REALITY, until EXPLICITLY IDENTIFIED and NAMED. Whereby they become explicitly knowable. And we can TALK about it. And even IMAGINE NEW WAYS OF BEING.
THE MIRROR STAGE
Lacan's Mirror Stage is another crucial concept in his psychoanalytic theory. The mirror stage represents an essential phase in human development. It’s the moment we (as children) can suddenly understand that we are a SELF, and that is distinct from OTHERS/WORLD.
Lacan posited that the MIRROR STAGE occurs between 6-18 months, whereby the infant becomes able to recognize and understand their reflection in a mirror, analogous to the theory of mind (TOM) construct in developmental psych.
Lacan posited that the MIRROR STAGE enables EGO formation, whereby the child gains an explicit sense of SELF separate from OTHERS.
THE IDEALIZED SELF
According to Lacan, the MIRROR STAGE initiates the lifelong pursuit of an IDEALIZED SELF. This creates a tension between the IDEAL self and the REAL self, which engenders the PROFOUND sense of SHAME and ALIENATION that is the source of incalculable human suffering, and which can persists throughout the LIFESPAN.
Again. This SHAME/ALIENATION is implicitly experienced as REALITY, until explicitly IDENTIFIED and via PSYCHOANALYSIS and CRITICAL THEORY, and any other manner of PSYCHOSOCIAL and PSYCHOSPIRITUAL exploitation, development and expression.
PSYCHOANALYSIS and CRITICAL THEORY enable the conversion of the intractable implicit REAL, (ACROSS THE BAR) into the tractable and explicit IMAGINARY and SYMBOLIC realms. There by EMPOWERING CAHNGE/LIBERATION from otherwise interactable SUFFERING.
The insights and constructs of THERAPY/THEORY/ART enable us to EXPERIENCE and EXPRESS otherwise INACCESSIBLE aspects of our SELF/WORLD/OTHER.
In this way.
The TEXT creates the AUTHOR.
And VICE VERSA.
DESIRE
For Lacan, desire is not simply a need or a want but something more complex and structured by the symbolic order. Lacan defines DESIRE as the result of the failure of speech to render and express what the subject LACKS.
DESIRE/LACK
Lacan posits that DESIRE is fundamentally rooted in a deep sense of LACK originating in: separation from the mother; and the MIRROR STAGE transition into the symbolic order.
This CORE lack can never be completely fulfilled/satisfied. As such DESIRE continuously seeks OBJECTS/OTHERS to fill the VOID.
DESIRE/OTHER
Lacan posits that DESIRE is always the desire of the OTHER. This means that our DESIRES are shaped by the desires and expectations of OTHERS around us, particularly the SYMBOLIC OTHER (society, language, and cultural norms).
DESIRE/OBJECT
Lacan introduces the concept of "objet petit a" (object small a), which represents the unattainable OBJECT of DESIRE. It is the imagined or EVER ELUSIVE OBJECT that we believe will satisfy our DESIRE. The OBJECT/a is never fully attainable, and the pursuit of it perpetuates the ENDLESS CYCLE OF DESIRE.
I think the implications for CONSUMERIST CAPITALISM are OBVIOUS. And I also feel like the implications for ADDICTION of all kinds is also quite OBVIOUS. We DESIRE out of a DEEP SENSSE OF LACK and born of LONGING for lost CONNECTION, and a sense of ALIENATION.
Because the LACK is WITHIN. We can never satisfy it with EXTERNALITIES. As such, our attempts to FILL THE “GOD SIZED” VOID with OTHERS/OBJECTS is a PERPETUAL FAIL.
As such, we can become SLAVES to STATUS SEEKING, WORK/SPEND/CONSUMERISM DRUGS/ALCOHOL, SEX/LOVE, BINGE/PURGE.
Yes to ALL THAT.
There’s SO MUCH MORE to LACAN.
But for now.
That will have to suffice.
I’m at the current limit of my (professional) understanding.
Circling back to my SFAI colleague.
Non of this is somehow beyond the reach of us mere mortals.
All of this is actually readily understandable.
Thanks in no small part to books like this one.
And furthermore.
It’s very USEFUL and LIBERATING stuff.
My understanding of Lacan is OBVIOUSLY provisional. But after reading this book, I feel EMPOWERED and EXCITED to continue on my Lacaniean learning ADVENTURE.
This book was a fantastic.
It undid 30 years of unnecessary FEAR and LOATHING of LACAN.
5/5 ✨
September 27, 2022
This was clearly written for an audience of practitioners, but Bailly lays out Lacan’s theoretical topography in such a lucid and accessible manner that I would recommend it for anyone who is unfamiliar with or (understandably) struggling to parse Lacan.
October 30, 2014
This is the perfect book for anyone completely new to Lacan. Bailly assumes the reader knows practically nothing about Freud, the history/context of French psychoanalysis, philosophiy, structural linguistics, etc. and yet still manages to discuss the broad arc of Lacan's career in a concise way. He hits all the major topics with remarkable clarity.
Great as this book is, the beginning reader should know that this is of course only an introduction. Virtually every topic is boiled down and explained with such clarity, that it's actually quite different than what you'll find reading Lacan himself (or disciples like Bruce Fink or Slavoj Zizek). Bailly explains things in such a way that they make perfect sense, but such neatness is not only impossible reading the primary source material, but Lacan himself would find it abhorrent to what he was trying to say all along.
So just keep in mind that this is the beginning, and by no means the end, of approaching Lacan. This will enable you to move onto some heavier stuff with confidence.
Great as this book is, the beginning reader should know that this is of course only an introduction. Virtually every topic is boiled down and explained with such clarity, that it's actually quite different than what you'll find reading Lacan himself (or disciples like Bruce Fink or Slavoj Zizek). Bailly explains things in such a way that they make perfect sense, but such neatness is not only impossible reading the primary source material, but Lacan himself would find it abhorrent to what he was trying to say all along.
So just keep in mind that this is the beginning, and by no means the end, of approaching Lacan. This will enable you to move onto some heavier stuff with confidence.
January 14, 2018
Hay vãi chưởng. Tuy hơi thiên tả. Nhưng rất hợp với xã hội VN đương đại. Mà bất cứ nhân vật show biz nào, hay chính trị gia bê bối nào, cũng có thể hiểu tìm hiểu được phát triển tâm lý của họ nhờ phân tâm học Lacan. Thậm chí có thể hiểu được tại sao cơ bọn mê Blackberry, có bọn mê Apple. Và tất nhiên hiểu được việc làm tình nam nữ mang lại cho ai cái gì. Mỗi tội đọc mệt vãi.
September 9, 2014
The biggest excuse for dismissing Lacan's work has always been that it is obfuscating, opaque, obscurantist nonsense that can't be properly critiqued because there's nothing there to engage with. The only engagement I've had with Lacan has been via Zizek, Laclau, Butler and Badiou- all of whom did a good job of convincing me that there may be nothing to his work, but maybe they created something interesting out of the mess, like a great remix of a bad song. However, this book convinced me that Lacan is saying something, that it isn't obscure (there's great stuff in here explaining how it seems nonsensical outside of the context of clinical psychiatry) and that it has something to say. Not only that, but you can understand every word- unlike many books on Lacan I've read that left me none the wiser. Even if you don't agree with him, this books shows that the usual easy criticism doesn't hold.
July 26, 2017
Among the better introductions to Lacan out there. However, I wonder if I found this book clear and concise because I've already read Lacan. Perhaps some of the mathemes may require more explanation for people who are not acquainted with this side of Lacan. Lacan's use of synecdoche, metonymy and metaphor are also explained perhaps too quickly and not deeply enough. Otherwise, the book presents basic concepts as coherently as it's possible considering what a messy thinker Lacan was and what I especially liked is that Bailly tried to illustrate Lacan's concepts with clinical examples.
I still think you can't really "understand" Lacan without actually working your way through his dense and insanely incoherent work, but this is a good starting point.
I still think you can't really "understand" Lacan without actually working your way through his dense and insanely incoherent work, but this is a good starting point.
February 24, 2024
Very good overview !!!! But also the author is very weird about autism and gay people!!!!! (Which is not to say Lacan wasn't himself, but Bailly make uncritical recourse to some very contemporary stigmas and associations which was kind of icky!!!)
March 15, 2024
(3.9)
January 5, 2021
For me, this was an excellent introduction to the 'abstruse, infuriating, brilliant, and honest' Lacan.
Greatly challenging in parts, but Bailly does not patronise, and assumes a degree of reflective and cerebral ability on the part of the reader. Without overwhelming, he gives us enough to properly chew over for a while (if you will pardon the lingual pun - Lacan just loves all things linguistic).
I particularly enjoyed the final musings on the legacy and future of Lacanian thought, and the very balanced assessment of more prevalent modalities of therapy (CBT, counselling) versus the fanaticism and authoritarianism of the cult of psychiatry (though Bailly is himself a psychiatrist).
My only (editorial) quibble would be with the incessant use of the 'he/she, him/her, his/her' operation, which sometimes crams up whole paragraphs and disrupts the otherwise stylish flow of the writing. For the sake of parsimony, and broader gender parity, it would be easier to simply read 'their', or, if one must adhere to an archaic binary, to select one operation (he or she) and alternate every chapter or so.
Greatly challenging in parts, but Bailly does not patronise, and assumes a degree of reflective and cerebral ability on the part of the reader. Without overwhelming, he gives us enough to properly chew over for a while (if you will pardon the lingual pun - Lacan just loves all things linguistic).
I particularly enjoyed the final musings on the legacy and future of Lacanian thought, and the very balanced assessment of more prevalent modalities of therapy (CBT, counselling) versus the fanaticism and authoritarianism of the cult of psychiatry (though Bailly is himself a psychiatrist).
My only (editorial) quibble would be with the incessant use of the 'he/she, him/her, his/her' operation, which sometimes crams up whole paragraphs and disrupts the otherwise stylish flow of the writing. For the sake of parsimony, and broader gender parity, it would be easier to simply read 'their', or, if one must adhere to an archaic binary, to select one operation (he or she) and alternate every chapter or so.
February 10, 2016
I was exposed to the very basic tenets of Lacanian philosophy in grad school, and when I tried to learn more, I found myself faced with the daunting task of unraveling the various threads Lacan weaves together, and it left me very confused. I tried an Introducing Lacan graphic novel, but that really didn't help matters, so I wrote off Lacan as a thinker who I would never get to know.
Until this book. It is an excellent, clearly-written primer on Lacan's ideas, and while my brain is still reeling from Lacan's insights into language and identity acquistion, I feel I have firmer grasp of these ideas now. The only downside to this book, and it is a very minor one, that the chapters on Lacan's theories in the clinic feel kind of dry and causes the book to lose some momentum. I understand why they did this, but it just fell flat for me.
I highly recommend this to anyone wishing to understand the complexities of Lacan. Even if you've tried other introductory Lacan texts and found them obtuse, try this one.
Until this book. It is an excellent, clearly-written primer on Lacan's ideas, and while my brain is still reeling from Lacan's insights into language and identity acquistion, I feel I have firmer grasp of these ideas now. The only downside to this book, and it is a very minor one, that the chapters on Lacan's theories in the clinic feel kind of dry and causes the book to lose some momentum. I understand why they did this, but it just fell flat for me.
I highly recommend this to anyone wishing to understand the complexities of Lacan. Even if you've tried other introductory Lacan texts and found them obtuse, try this one.
May 8, 2017
“You have turned your back on common men—on their elementary needs and their restricted time and intelligence, and you have elaborated. What is the result? Vast riddles.”A schism of disappointment. On one side, those who deride Lacan and his thought as poisonous sophistry. On the other, those convinced these others cement themselves in regressive dogma. “Who is right?” is, at this point in history, too elementary a question to be posed, its range of answers useless for any purpose aside from fulfilling one’s desire for an answer.
-H.G. Wells, to James Joyce (on Finnegan’s Wake)
But this fundamental curiosity which drives many a soul can, for some, be categorized as a motivation in itself. Thus “What is interesting?” needs no answer, as it is always already being answered by our actions; any oral or written response must ergo be not only a rationalization but also, paradoxically, the answer in the moment. I dare claim that if we combine the falsely derived and statistically suspect (but nevertheless literarily interesting) Myers-Briggs typology and, secondly, the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the “Intuitive” will answer noumena while the “Sensory” will prefer phenomena, though neither is, of course, absolute. Absolute, in my own typology I’ve constructed for the context of this book review, locates its noumenal element in solipsism and its phenomenal in animal hedonism.
Before we get ahead of ourselves, let’s not forget one fact: The brain named itself. And, for that matter, everything else. Psychology concerns itself with a particular named object called the mind. Can’t you see that trying to analyze its mechanics using the process (language) through which it exists in the first place is a little like using air to cut itself? Insane, futile, pointless; rightful categorizations perhaps, but they do not preclude the effort, which thus becomes, in the Nietzschean turn, righteous and honorable: to strive for the impossible because it is impossible.
That’s right, my friends, my readers: Lacan is ars gratia artis.
Viewed this way, his Écrits become a noumenal labyrinth and you get to imagine yourself Theseus. Find and kill the minotaur (does he exist?) before you starve and hope your string doesn’t tangle on the way back out. I’m not quite so heroic, though, as I decided to play the game on easy mode. Hence Lionel Bailly.
The five-star rating, mind you, is a reflection of Bailly’s elucidatory talent and not my commentary on Lacanian psychology. To take an esoteric jumble of confused, self-contradictory obscurantism and craft of it something not only legible but intelligible, and then to convincingly defend its merits against numerous multipolar accusations, is at once a sign that considerable reflection has taken place and a resolute conviction in the intellectual substance of the source material.
That’s right, Bailly is an archaeologist. And the dinosaur he has revealed is tremendously captivating; it took all of two days for me to devour these pages. Suffice it to say that I believe biological reductionism, the position that declares a wholly mathematical understanding of the mind as a mix of neurons, cortisol, dopamine, and other such nomenclature, is a bankrupt Luddite scientism. Is it so ridiculous to believe that epiphenomena can be understood better—vastly better—through epiphenomenal tools than through brute force elemental analysis?
Good luck using quarks and protons to demonstrate why Lola uses the word “headphones” instead of “earphones.” Good luck using string theory to show how hearing “albatross” causes Alejandro to wince with disgust while Melissa thinks of pink-beaked seabirds. I’m not saying it’s impossible; I’m saying the Singularity isn’t here yet. Before it arrives, we need literature. We need narratology. We need psychoanalysis. Because that’s what these things amount to: an epiphenomenal toolbox. And for my part, I will say that of every model I've thus far encountered, Lacanian theory cuts closest to my current model of the psyche.
Favorite Quotes
“There is always a tendency to lavish words upon what cannot be described, in the hope that some of them might stick – a little like throwing paint in the direction of the Invisible Man in order to make him out.” [p.98]
“But why cannot love be demanded directly? Lacan would say that it is because love consists in ‘giving what one doesn’t have’ – in other words, it can only be seen in the effort put in by the giver of love.” [p.115]
“The word is full of individuals who have worked or studied within institutions and come to realise that they learn more outside, and that the main interest of the institution is in perpetuating its fantasy of itself – in maintaining, brightly polished, its master signifiers. It is equally full of people who have adopted the master signifiers of their institutions as their own, in a position of hysterical identification, imagining that in belonging to a ‘venerable’ or ‘dynamic’ or ‘powerful’ institution, they too acquire these characteristics.” [p.159]
“The choice of ‘ego’ – void of commonplace meaning – meant that it could be quickly filled with new meanings that innovators in the English-speaking psychoanalytical world might wish to affix to it; moreover, the little meaning it did have (for those with schoolboy Latin) was the derisory one of self-centredness and being puffed up. This was a bad beginning for the nascent concept; ‘ego’ was simply too weak to defend itself against appropriation.” [p.39]
Postscript
Six years ago, I happened upon a Wikipedia article titled FP Top 100 Global Thinkers and clicked through a few of them. Having been a militant atheist, I instantly recognized and proudly identified with figures like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. But who was this guy with a weird name that preceded Daniel Dennett?
Reading his page was absolutely mystifying. The words were in English, alright, but it was as if I’d been reading some kind of hieroglyphic code—indecipherable. Frustrated, I quit, knowing that whatever he was, he was utterly and totally beyond my comprehension.
…History elapsed, and now we have come full circle.
Slavoj Žižek. I see what you are doing, and I know why you are doing it; my condolences.
May 15, 2025
Jacques Lacan's work is engaging yet often challenging to navigate. This book, while insightful, did not significantly ease that complexity, which is why I rated it four stars instead of five. Nevertheless, exploring Lacan's ideas has been a rewarding experience, deepening my understanding of myself and those around me.
November 25, 2022
From reading this book after reading Žižek’s “How to Read Lacan”, I highly recommend you read this book first. Bailly gives a proper introduction, a broad topology to work with in approaching this rather frustrating and elusive psychoanalyst
January 20, 2018
A brief introduction to the work of a psychoanalyst.
I couldn’t get into this book.
I couldn’t get into this book.
August 16, 2024
After I slowed the speed of the audiobook down to 0.85% I could follow the ideas more easily. I didn't agree with everything, which was fun.
December 29, 2020
Unfassbar komplexe aber auch ebenso gewinnbringende Einführung in das Werk von Lacan.
Lionel Bailly ist Psychoanalytiker und dementsprechend ist seine Perspektive eine klinisch-psychologische, und weniger die eines Kulturtheoretikers. Dafür ist die Sprache sehr verständlich und alle Konzepte werden so vorgestellt, als hätten die Leser*innen zuvor weder von Psychoanalyse noch von Lacan je etwas gehört. Trotz alledem keine einfache Lektüre (was aber Lacan und nicht dem Autor dieser Einführung geschuldet ist).
Lionel Bailly ist Psychoanalytiker und dementsprechend ist seine Perspektive eine klinisch-psychologische, und weniger die eines Kulturtheoretikers. Dafür ist die Sprache sehr verständlich und alle Konzepte werden so vorgestellt, als hätten die Leser*innen zuvor weder von Psychoanalyse noch von Lacan je etwas gehört. Trotz alledem keine einfache Lektüre (was aber Lacan und nicht dem Autor dieser Einführung geschuldet ist).
April 1, 2017
While this is the most accessible work to Lacanian psychoanalysis, it's still the most challenging introductory text I've ever read on a topic (and I have already read a few other primers on Lacan's idea.) At any rate, I appreciate the historical context and the effort to illuminate the dense writing of Lacan. It's a comprehensive survey (on the history, model and application) that I am yet to find in any other work. Still, this volume may benefit with a brief chapter on the limitation and strength of Lacan's approach.
If you just want to understand Lacanian analysis in the field of humanities(say, you have read too much Zizek), you may just want to read the first half (more accessible) on the model. The second half is rewarding if and only if you are into the clinical application.
Probably the first primer that I'll revisit.
If you just want to understand Lacanian analysis in the field of humanities(say, you have read too much Zizek), you may just want to read the first half (more accessible) on the model. The second half is rewarding if and only if you are into the clinical application.
Probably the first primer that I'll revisit.
August 30, 2012
The older I get the more important I believe it is to have a functioning understanding of psychology to cross-fertilize with other interest. Lacan took Freud's ideas to the next level but oddly his popularity is among students in the philosophy and linguistic departments and not in psychiatric studies. My interest in having a deeper understand of Slavoj Zizek's ideas led me to Lacan, Hegel and Marx and this is what the joy of reading is all about. PS. I have about ten of these Oneworld beginner's guides and they are AWESOME!
August 16, 2018
Excellent introduction to Lacan. Very readable style and some helpful clinical examples to illustrate some of the concepts and the approaches.
I read this again in August 2018. Liked it even more than the first time. Definitely an excellent introduction. Actually left me feeling that I am on the way to a reasonable understanding of Lacan - so proof that I am definitely stuck in the realm of the imaginary :-)
I read this again in August 2018. Liked it even more than the first time. Definitely an excellent introduction. Actually left me feeling that I am on the way to a reasonable understanding of Lacan - so proof that I am definitely stuck in the realm of the imaginary :-)
Read
November 15, 2017I found the a book a very great introdction to Lacan. I think the author does a brilliant job in communicating Lacan's ideas, which are at times extremely complicated, in a manner that is as straightforward as possible.
April 24, 2024
Sometimes I wish I'd stuck to reading math and science books because this stuff makes no sense.
October 11, 2022
This provides a really nice clinician based approach to Lacan. This contrasts the semiotic introduction I’ve had through the humanities. I am far from a well read audience, and yet the concepts were generally explored in well grounded examples. One that comes to mind is the 11 year old girl who was always ‘lucky’. This was used to demonstrate Desire, the Master Signifier, and the important tension of repression.
There were a few nuances I didn’t quite follow. Namely the le petit objet a as it’s relation to the Phallus. In short, object of desire v object cause of desire. I only have a very loose hold on the distinction.
There was also some rather interesting psychotherapy history at the start of the book, and speculations over the trajectory of the field at the conclusion. The former detailing how American ego psychology emerged from a mistranslation of a notoriously complex German word vorstellung in Freud. The latter in contrasting the divergent schools of CBT and even ‘counselling’ against the crude materialists of much anglo psychiatry, and the shared belief in the mental realm as existing.
The glossary at the end was also a nice capstone to remind me of some terms that were of importance primarily in building or contrasting other realms - such as the RSI(S) triangle.
A thoroughly enjoyable listen, and in a style that makes me very open to further works from this author.
There were a few nuances I didn’t quite follow. Namely the le petit objet a as it’s relation to the Phallus. In short, object of desire v object cause of desire. I only have a very loose hold on the distinction.
There was also some rather interesting psychotherapy history at the start of the book, and speculations over the trajectory of the field at the conclusion. The former detailing how American ego psychology emerged from a mistranslation of a notoriously complex German word vorstellung in Freud. The latter in contrasting the divergent schools of CBT and even ‘counselling’ against the crude materialists of much anglo psychiatry, and the shared belief in the mental realm as existing.
The glossary at the end was also a nice capstone to remind me of some terms that were of importance primarily in building or contrasting other realms - such as the RSI(S) triangle.
A thoroughly enjoyable listen, and in a style that makes me very open to further works from this author.
February 21, 2022
I've been searching for a clear, concise, and illuminating introduction to Lacan for a while, and this book delivers. Not only are Lacan's major concepts well-explained, but Bailly provides clear examples to solidify the concepts. Also impressive, Bailly does an amazing job connecting all the concepts together in such a way that made me appreciate how all the parts combined and added up. "Greater than the sum of their parts," and so on. He combines practically every major concept in all their permutations in such a way that was extremely illuminating.
By no means is this Beginner's Guide an easy read, though -- at least for me. This introduction to Lacan is certainly easier than reading the man himself, but I did find myself pausing and reflecting quite a bit out of necessity. Re-reading several chapters twice. In truth, I read this book at a rate about 3 times slower than my typical reading rate. This is not the fault of Bailly, though -- it just speaks to the complexity and depth of Lacan's thought.
Bailly is clearly Lacanian. I did wish there was more critical analysis. In the end, though, this is one of the best introductions to a major psychoanalytic or even philosophical figure I've read.
By no means is this Beginner's Guide an easy read, though -- at least for me. This introduction to Lacan is certainly easier than reading the man himself, but I did find myself pausing and reflecting quite a bit out of necessity. Re-reading several chapters twice. In truth, I read this book at a rate about 3 times slower than my typical reading rate. This is not the fault of Bailly, though -- it just speaks to the complexity and depth of Lacan's thought.
Bailly is clearly Lacanian. I did wish there was more critical analysis. In the end, though, this is one of the best introductions to a major psychoanalytic or even philosophical figure I've read.
March 9, 2021
I am grateful that the author had compressed the main concepts of Lacan in such a way that you can actually 'get them'. Terrific job, bravo !
I am so impressed about this theory of human subjectivity that words won't make justice.
Before you even bother to check out one of the 1200 or so 'evidence-based' psychotherapies read this one 1st and forget about common sense CBT, counselling IF what you want is truth, insight and true knowledge of what the f**k is going on with your life.
I really enjoyed the last chapters of the book in which Lionel Bailly mentioned the perils, struggles, vision of Lacanian psychoanalysis and it's aims in treatment/cure.
Wonderful job, all the bullseye have been hit.
Make yourself a favor and read this quickly.
I am so impressed about this theory of human subjectivity that words won't make justice.
Before you even bother to check out one of the 1200 or so 'evidence-based' psychotherapies read this one 1st and forget about common sense CBT, counselling IF what you want is truth, insight and true knowledge of what the f**k is going on with your life.
I really enjoyed the last chapters of the book in which Lionel Bailly mentioned the perils, struggles, vision of Lacanian psychoanalysis and it's aims in treatment/cure.
Wonderful job, all the bullseye have been hit.
Make yourself a favor and read this quickly.
March 28, 2021
Very clear and helpful introduction to Lacan (helpful for the general reader). When it comes to Lacan, it's good to begin with reading a sympathetic overview of his theoretical work, especially from someone with practical experience. Bailly's book elucidates some of the other material Lacan draws from when constructing his own ideas, including structuralism, Hegelian dialectic, and a few of Marx's concepts. Learning about the "four discourses", the Other, the name-of-the-father, the need-demand-desire distinction, the Real-Symbolic-Imaginary distinction, Lacan's idea of the Subject, the ego, and so forth would benefit anyone who wishes to think critically with culture, education, and social life. I'd recommend it.
August 31, 2025
This book is incredibly repetitive.
Early on there’s a false etymology for the word ‘Autism’ which really made me question the rest of the content. There’s also harmful rhetoric suggesting that autism is caused by the lack of a mother’s love.
There’s also a strange comparison of faeces with money, with a suggestion that we try and hoard faeces like money.
I have little to knowledge about psychoanalysis, (and therefore the target market for a ‘Beginners Guide’ surely?) so perhaps these are principles I am not familiar with and don’t understand, but as some of the book is factually inaccurate and makes wild assertions, I cannot recommend it.
I have no way of knowing of the fault lies with Lacan or the author!
Early on there’s a false etymology for the word ‘Autism’ which really made me question the rest of the content. There’s also harmful rhetoric suggesting that autism is caused by the lack of a mother’s love.
There’s also a strange comparison of faeces with money, with a suggestion that we try and hoard faeces like money.
I have little to knowledge about psychoanalysis, (and therefore the target market for a ‘Beginners Guide’ surely?) so perhaps these are principles I am not familiar with and don’t understand, but as some of the book is factually inaccurate and makes wild assertions, I cannot recommend it.
I have no way of knowing of the fault lies with Lacan or the author!
November 13, 2018
This is maybe the best introductory guide I've ever read on any subject, particularly given the fact Lacan's thinking is a lot harder to explain than a lot of things. I was really impressed by Bailly's ability to do just what is often advertised (but rarely delivered on) for these sorts of "For Dummies" books: really break down complex topics into something easily digestible. Not only did he make Lacan "click" for me, he really helped me fall in love with his ideas. Really can't imagine a better introduction to Lacanian theory and I'm curious to check out other books in this Beginner's Guide series to see if the quality of its other books is consistent.
June 13, 2023
A really fantastic primer on Lacan. I don’t think it’s the fault of the author that I thought some sections could be a lot clearer (Lacan is famously difficult to understand and interpret) but overall this really helped me clarify some concepts I had read about but either had no understanding of or complete misinterpretations of what they meant. Lacan has his own vocabulary that you have to memorize to understand his insights and this is definitely a book I will continue to reference while reading Lacan’s Seminiars.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews