1 Theorising Agency in International Relations In Hobbes's Wake ...
1 Theorising Agency in International Relations In Hobbes's Wake ...
1 Theorising Agency in International Relations In Hobbes's Wake ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>In</strong> Lacanian thought, one signifier <strong>in</strong> particular performs a similar function, which he terms<br />
‘the name of the father’. 24 Lacan (1956) elaborates the concept notion <strong>in</strong> the same sem<strong>in</strong>ar III where<br />
he co<strong>in</strong>s the concept of ‘quilt<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>ts’. He realises that there is a signifier more fundamental still,<br />
one that ‘holds no signifier’ (Lacan 1975, 74 my translation). This is properly the master signifier, or<br />
‘pure signifier’ as Juranville (1984) captures it, <strong>in</strong> that it attaches to no particular signified but <strong>in</strong>stead<br />
encompasses them all. It is the <strong>in</strong>stance underwrites all other signifiers, all cha<strong>in</strong>s of signification. It is<br />
what makes mean<strong>in</strong>g possible <strong>in</strong> the first place.<br />
Return<strong>in</strong>g to developmental perspective to flesh out this complex concept, the father is the<br />
<strong>in</strong>stance that triangulates the mother-child relationship and thereby opens it up to the symbolic.<br />
The father breaks the symbiosis between mother and child. This constitutes an essential loss; but it is<br />
also what ushers the child <strong>in</strong>to the symbolic order and thereby <strong>in</strong>stitutes the possibility of<br />
symboliz<strong>in</strong>g, of speak<strong>in</strong>g. Subsequently, this <strong>in</strong>stance detaches from the actual father <strong>in</strong> this<br />
primordial configuration, and becomes the Other that supports all social relationships, all possibility<br />
of <strong>in</strong>teraction between a ‘self’ and an ‘other’. Hence why it a signifier, ‘the name of the father’. It is<br />
the signifier that designates the order of Other and, <strong>in</strong> do<strong>in</strong>g so, underwrites the possibility of<br />
signification itself. <strong>In</strong> Hobbes’s world that signifier is none other than the Leviathan, the <strong>in</strong>stance that<br />
makes possible two units <strong>in</strong>teract<strong>in</strong>g with one another with a set of shared mean<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />
25<br />
The State as Speak<strong>in</strong>g Subject: Conclusions For IR Theory<br />
24 To be specific, Lacan terms it at different stages of theoretical development, ‘The Name-of-the-<br />
Father’, ‘master signifier’ or ‘S1’. These terms are thus <strong>in</strong>terchangeable at this f<strong>in</strong>al stage of my<br />
argument.<br />
25 To clarify, the mother (once aga<strong>in</strong>, as a figure <strong>in</strong> the structure of the relationship, not as a real person)<br />
is the imag<strong>in</strong>ary other, that is, the very first other, <strong>in</strong> the realm of identification and imag<strong>in</strong>ary capture;<br />
where as the father constitutes properly the Other).<br />
35