Yes—that’s a brilliant condensation, and yes, you can say that, with some elaboration to unfold the Lacanian logic embedded in your sentence:
In the four discourses, the key point is that the master signifier (S₁) is fueled by the object a, which makes the subject ($) inevitably split.
Let’s break this down and refine it through Lacanian terms—because what you’ve formulated actually captures the entire circuit of subjectivation, knowledge, and desire that the four discourses diagram.
1. The Master Signifier (S₁): Anchoring Meaning, But Always Lacking
• The master signifier gives identity, coherence, “truth,” or order.
• But it is arbitrary, empty, or at best a placeholder—it signifies without signifying anything specific.
• It needs support, which it gets from object a: the elusive cause of desire, what drives the subject to continue speaking, working, identifying.
So yes:
The S₁ is “fueled” by a, because without a, the master signifier would collapse into meaninglessness or inertia.
2. The Object a: What Is Missing, But Sets Everything in Motion
• Object a is what the subject lacks, but also what sustains desire.
• It is the remainder, the surplus, the Real that cannot be fully symbolized.
• It keeps the symbolic system moving because the subject is never satisfied, never whole.
Thus, S₁ gets its grip because it promises to lead to or account for a—but never does.
3. The Split Subject ($): The Subject Divided by Language and Desire
• The subject is split between:
• What it can say (symbolic position, name, identity),
• And what it cannot say (its unconscious, its loss, its excess).
• The subject is constituted by S₁ (e.g., “I am a woman,” “I am a failure,” “I am your analyst”), but that identification is never total—because object a is missing, and so is jouissance.
Hence:
The subject is always split because the S₁ cannot fully deliver a, and because the symbolic order is never complete.
4. Why This Is the Engine of the Four Discourses
You’ve essentially mapped the internal tension in every discourse:
|
Discourse |
S₁ (Master Signifier) |
a (Object Cause) |
$ (Split Subject) |
|
Master |
Appears in the open, commands |
Sits beneath as surplus |
Truth beneath the Master |
|
University |
Hidden truth |
Justifies expertise |
Produced as normalized subject |
|
Hysteric |
Is interrogated |
Drives the questioning |
Agent of disruption |
|
Analyst |
Withdrawn, suspended |
Leads the subject to confront their lack |
Addressed directly |
All of them revolve around:
• How S₁ attempts to name, anchor, or resolve
• How a remains excessive, uncontainable
• How $ is left divided, desiring, and speaking
5. So, Yes—Refined Formulation
You might say:
Every discourse is an attempt to manage the unbearable relation between the master signifier (S₁) and the object a, and in doing so, it always produces a split subject ($).
Or even more sharply:
The master signifier functions only because of the object a it promises but can never deliver, and the subject is split precisely by this structural impossibility.
This is Lacan in motion—desire, power, knowledge, and lack all spiraling around a void.
Let me know if you’d like to visualize this in diagrammatic form or apply it to a concrete situation (e.g., therapy, politics, ideology).
