The story of Michel Foucault raising his hand during one of Jacques Lacan’s seminars and saying, “Monsieur Lacan, I have no lack,” is widely circulated in intellectual anecdotes, but its authenticity is uncertain. It may be apocryphal or exaggerated. Nonetheless, the anecdote captures an important philosophical divergence between their views on subjectivity, particularly around the concept of lack, which is central to Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory but largely absent in Foucault’s framework.
1. What Did Lacan Mean by “Lack”?
• Lack as Fundamental to Subjectivity:
Lacan’s theory of subjectivity is built around the concept of lack (manque). For Lacan, lack arises because human beings are constituted through language (the symbolic order), which introduces a division between the subject and its desires.
• The subject is perpetually incomplete, desiring what it cannot fully attain.
• This lack originates in the mirror stage (the misrecognition of self) and is reinforced by the symbolic order, where language imposes limits and alienation.
• Lack and Desire:
For Lacan, desire emerges from lack. It is the pursuit of something the subject perceives as missing, creating a ceaseless cycle of longing that defines human existence.
2. Foucault’s Rejection of “Lack”
• Subjectivity Without Lack:
Foucault does not engage with the concept of lack as fundamental to subjectivity. Instead, his view of the subject is historical and constructed. Subjectivity, for Foucault, is shaped through power relations, discourses, and practices, rather than through an inherent or universal structure like Lacan’s symbolic order.
• Critique of Universal Structures:
Foucault would likely reject Lacan’s notion of lack as overly abstract and ahistorical. He was skeptical of psychoanalysis in general for positing universal psychic structures (such as the Oedipus complex or lack) without accounting for their historical and cultural contingencies.
• Subjectivity as a Product of Power:
In Foucault’s framework, the subject is not defined by lack but by the ways it is constituted through power and knowledge systems. For example:
• In Discipline and Punish, the subject is shaped by disciplinary mechanisms.
• In his later works, the subject emerges through practices of the self, ethics, and resistance.
3. “Lack or Not” as a Key Divergence
The divergence over “lack” reflects deeper philosophical differences between Foucault and Lacan:
Lacan’s Subjectivity:
• Ontology: Lacan’s theory is rooted in an ontological framework, emphasizing the universal and structural aspects of human subjectivity.
• Psychoanalysis and Desire: The subject is always desiring, alienated, and incomplete, perpetually seeking to fill the void created by lack.
Foucault’s Subjectivity:
• Historicity: Foucault’s subjectivity is contingent, shaped by historical forces, discourses, and institutional practices.
• Rejection of Ontology: Foucault does not posit an inherent or universal structure of the subject, such as lack. Instead, he focuses on how power and knowledge produce the subject in specific contexts.
Key Difference:
For Lacan, lack is intrinsic to being human and drives desire. For Foucault, subjectivity is produced through external forces (power, discourse) and does not depend on an essential or universal notion like lack. In this sense, the statement “I have no lack” could symbolically reject the very premise of Lacan’s theory.
4. Possible Interpretations of “I Have No Lack”
If Foucault did make the statement (or if the story reflects his views):
• Rejection of Lacanian Ontology: Foucault might be asserting that his view of the subject does not require lack as a foundational concept.
• Political or Epistemological Stance: The statement could also be read as a critique of psychoanalysis as a system of knowledge that imposes lack as a normative category, reinforcing certain power dynamics.
• Irony or Playfulness: Foucault was known for his wit and provocations. The statement might have been less a serious critique and more a playful jab at Lacan’s abstract language and theoretical rigidity.
Conclusion
The anecdote of Foucault saying, “I have no lack,” whether true or not, encapsulates a profound philosophical divergence between Foucault and Lacan. While Lacan’s subject is defined by lack and desire within the symbolic order, Foucault’s subject is historically contingent and constructed through power relations and practices. This difference highlights their contrasting approaches to subjectivity: Lacan’s universalism versus Foucault’s historical specificity. The statement can be seen as Foucault’s rejection of psychoanalytic frameworks and a declaration of his commitment to analyzing subjectivity through the lenses of power and discourse rather than ontology.
