ABSTRACT
The chapter begins with a recapitulation of the third type of identification that Freud had differentiated in “Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego”, addressing the question of social links in the collective following his discovery of the forces that go against linking. It states that Freud’s thesis is categorical: only de-sexualised love can link, whereas jouissance, what he calls the direct sexual drive, separates.
It explains that this identification is based on an “affective commonality” – the same love for the same idealised object without any libidinal link – which is a common and homogenising factor that allows for narcissistic renunciation and makes cohesion possible at the price of de-individualisation.
It then states that Lacan took the question of the social link a step further, using his hypothesis of language as an operator and formulating the structure of discourse. It shows that discourse, although marked by an irreducible disparity, S1-S2, allows for the accommodation of both the collectivising and singular forms of jouissance to the individuals apparolés to it, making possible a social link between differences. Discourse, therefore, does not constitute individuals into a class but into a set, which allows for diverse places. This is demonstrated by Lacan’s use of drawings representing the structure of the set, taken from Peirce.
It concludes with the question of the possible link between peers and Lacan’s hypothesis on the function of Freud’s third identification, in which he recognised the “participative identification” of hysteric libido, in creating an “identification to the group” which does not de-individualise, and enabling transference of work.
