Thirdness

Abstract

How can the Third’s entry into the ethical setting (the setting of subject formation) be presented in terms of specular dynamics in general and identification in particular? The question is crucial here because Freud (1920) already marked identification as key to our understanding of the positioning of the subject in the social setting. Much theoretical work has already relied on this notion, a reliance which — by the approach this book offers — has by now exhausted its explanatory power. In a recent article (Hadar, 2010a), I described the entry of the Third into the dyadic setting by means of the idea of inserting a mirror into the specular setting, an idea that extends Lacan’s discussion of the mirror stage. This additional mirror, though, is not placed in front of the subject but behind him, so that its reflections can be perceived by the subject indirectly, in the mirror that faces him. The metaphor of the additional mirror creates a model for understanding how the Third joins the dyadic system, where the front mirror represents the Second (the mother) and the hind mirror represents the Third (the father). This model preserves the conceptual benefits of the dyadic specular model, where the structural features of reflective (mirror) relations provide a skeletal structure for the understanding of the triad as a familial-social setting.