Radiophonie: recorded on 8th April 1970 : transmitted 5th, 10th, 19th, and 26th June 1970 : Jacques Lacan

by Julia Evans on April 8, 1970

There are 4 versions of this:

  1. a) Radiophonie recorded : 8thApril 1970
  2. b) Radiophonie: Seminar XVII: Session of 9thApril 1970
  3. c) Radiophonie: June 1970: the broadcast
  4. d) Radiophonie: December 1970: written version published

Published in English:

 

Notice :

7th December 2018 : To request a copy of any text whose weblink does not work, contact Julia Evans: je.lacanian@icloud.com : For fuller details, see Notice : Availability of texts from LacanianWorks by Julia Evans or here or see e)

 

PS It is worth comparing all four translations, as there are discrepancies.

a) Sign

(First three pages of Lacan’s 1970 text ‘Radiophonie': Scilicet: 1970 2/3: p55-58)

Translated by Stuart Schneiderman

P203-206 of M. Blonsky (ed.), On Signs, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, 1985.

Available here

b)  Radiophonie

Translated by Jack W. Stone.

Published by M.I.T.: University of Missouri: here

Available here

& also here

Footnote 1 from Jack Stone’s translation: The first four of these answers were broadcasted by the R.T.B. (3rd program) on the 5th, 10th, 19th, and 26th June 1970. They were re-broadcasted by O.R.T.F. (France-Culture) on June 7, 1970.

c) Seminar XVII: 9th April 1970: Radiophonie – the oral version

The 1st (an oral version) as presented during the 9 April 1970 session of Seminar XVII. In fact, it comes second with respect to the version recorded the day before by Belgium radio.  [JE adds: Details of Cormac Gallagher’s translation are available here  (Ch X)]

d) Radiophonie is p130-132 a supplement to Chapter VIII: From myth to structure: The Other side of Psychoanalysis, The seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XVII: translated by Russell Grigg

NOTE: This replaces 44 pages of text in the Scilicet version which is referenced at the end, with under 1.5 pages of text.

Publication details available here

e) Translations by Jack W. Stone & Anthony Chadwick are on Richard G. Klein’s website, Freud2Lacan.com, see below for links.

Richard G. Klein notes : Lacan read the first four questions and his provisional or tentative answers toRobert Georgin, who will later interview him on Belgian radio, in his Seminar XVII on Thursday, April 9, 1970, the date which the official version of his seminar has assigned it. Staferla, École lacannienne, Version Monique Chollet, Valas etc. give the date of this seminar meeting as Wednesday, April 8, 1970.

The interview with Robert Georgin was recorded on June 1, 1970 and broadcast in Belgium on R.T.B. on June 5, 10, 19 and 26, 1970 (the first 4 questions and responses). Later, presumably in the following weeks, the remaining 3 questions and responses were broadcast in France on O.R.T.F. The journal, Scilicet 2/3, published the entire Radiophonie interview in September 1970, pages 55-99. Autres écrits republished it in 2001, pages 403-447. There are differences in his responses to the first 4 questions which he read in his Seminar XVII and in the published version in Scilicet 2/3 and Autres écrits.

Question & Answer 1 : here

Question & Answer 2 : here

Question & Answer 3 : here

Question & Answer 4 : here

Question & Answer 5 : here

Question & Answer 6 : here

Question & answer 7 : here

Published in French:

a) Radiophonie:

In Scilicet 2/3: Paris, du Seuil: 1970: p55-99

b) Radiophonie:

In Autres Écrits: 2001 : Jacques Lacan, see here

c) Both written & spoken (MP3) versions are available here, published by www.valas.fr

General information

From the site, www.valas.fr in English translation :

NOTE: Richard G. Klein’s account disputes these dates.

“There are 3 versions of Radiophonie.

The 1st (an oral version) as presented during the 9 April 1970 session of Seminar XVII. In fact, it comes second with respect to the version recorded the day before by Belgium radio.  [JE adds: Details of Cormac Gallagher’s translation is available here (Ch X)]

The 2nd version (recorded 8 April 1970) was first broadcast on Belgium radio on 5 June 1970.

The 3rd version is the written version by Lacan and first published in Silicet 2/3 in December 1970.

On the link called HELP, on the ‘Radiophonie’ page on this site, you will find a presentation of the variations between the 3 versions.”

More background

From the site,  About No Subject – Encyclopedia of Lacanian Psychoanalysis  or here. The following is quoted from the Radiophonie page. For a full version, consult here.

1970 -RADIOPHONIE-1970 (45 pages in the du Seuil edition).

This is an interview with Lacan conducted by Robert Georgin, with seven questions and answers.

The first four were broadcast in Belgium, and then in France.

Scilicet (2/3) published the entire interview, including the passages that shed light on the four discourses (p73, p76) and, most importantly, the note that gives the complete algebraic schemas (p. 99).

However, the aim of the interview was wider: it was to assess the Freudian and Lacanian contributions, the notion of structure, the place of psychoanalysis in the humanities, its consequences “on the level of science, philosophy and more particularly Marxism, indeed communism,” in order to conclude finally with the question, “To what extent are knowledge and truth incompatible?”

If “to govern, to educate, and to psychoanalyse are three wagers impossible to make,” [JE notes: Freud,???] how “do you resolve the contradiction” between “the perpetual contesting of all discourse,” even of “analytic knowledge,” and the necessity to “hang on to it”?

Is it through the “status of the impossible,” because “the impossible is the real”?

This was a standard interview in the media-with a lot of general and abstract problems-and it was characteristic of the 60s and 70s. The point was to allow a broader audience to know what Lacan’s theses had been since 1953.

What was new?

First, there is the following statement: if “language is the condition of the unconscious” (a thesis that had been reaffirmed, p75), “the unconscious is the condition of linguistics.” Freud anticipated the researches of Saussure and the Prague circle by sticking to the letter of the patient’s word, to jokes, to “slips” of the tongue, and by bringing to light the fundamental importance of condensation and displacement in the production of dreams. The unconscious is simply the fact “that the subject is not the one who knows what he says.” “Whoever articulates it [the unconscious], in Lacan’s name, must say that it is either that or nothing.”

Besides, metaphor and metonymy do not have the same functions in the two disciplines. No, the notion of “structure” does not allow us to create a “common field” uniting linguistics, ethnology, and psychoanalysis. Linguistics has “no hold over the unconscious,” because “it leaves as a blank that which produces effects in the unconscious, the objet a, ” the very focus of the psychoanalytic act-and of any act. Such is the “linguist’s shortcoming” (an allusion to Benveniste). The two discourses also differ in the position of the subject: “Only the discourse that defines itself in the terms given by psychoanalysis manifests the subject as other, that is, gives him the key to his division whereas science, by making the subject a master, conceals him, to the extent that the desire that gives way to him bars him for me, as for Socrates, without remedy.”

As opposed to ethnology, psychoanalysis “does not have to make an inventory of the myths that have conditioned a subject. ” There is only one myth in Lacan’s discourse, the Freudian Oedipus complex.

On the other hand, “in psychoanalysis (as well as in the unconscious), man knows nothing of woman, and woman nothing of man. The phallus epitomizes the point in myth where the sexual becomes the passion of the signifier.” For Lacan, the structure is the body of the symbolic. The Stoics “were abled, with the term’ incorporeal,’ to mark how the symbolic relates to the body.” “The function that at once makes the reality of mathematics, the use of topology whose ,effect is similar, and analysis in a broader sense for logics, is incorporeal.” Lacan added, “It is as incorporeal that structure creates the affect [ … ], thereby revealing that it [the affect] is second to the body, be it dead or alive.” Moreover, the structure in analysis entails” a rift-and a structural one”! “… There is no “appropriate signifier to give substance to a formula of sexual relation.”

Thus, Lacan brought into play the “undecidable,” which belongs to the order of a real that makes a hole in the structure. Ultimately, Marx, with the “surplus-value,” made a discovery that Lacan’s plus-de-jouir surpasses because it exposes the operative mechanism of the surplus-value: “When one recognises the kind of plus-de-jouir (surplus enjoyment) that makes one say ‘this is truly somebody,’ one will be on the right track towards a dialectical material that may be more active than the Party flesh, used as history’s babysitter. Psychoanalysis can shed light on this track with its passe” (66,76).

In the end, it can be said without any hesitation that this carefully thought text establishes psychoanalysis both as fundamental and hegemonic. This is indeed what the four discourses (Master, Hysteric, University, Analyst) attempt to establish in the relations that tie them together and in the passages from one to the other.

More background

Quote from Lacan.com available here

“Radiophonie” (Autres écrits) is an interview recorded while L’envers… is taking place. In it Lacan declares that if “language is the condition of the unconscious, the unconscious is the condition of linguistics.” Freud anticipates Saussure and the Prague Circle when he sticks to the patient’s words, jokes, slips of the tongue, and brings to light the importance of condensation and displacement in the production of dreams. The unconscious is the fact “that the subject is not the one who knows what he says. Whoever articulates the unconscious says that it is either that or nothing.” Linguistics has no hold on the unconscious since it leaves as a blank that which produces effects on the unconscious, the objet a, the focus of the analytic act – of any act. “Only the discourse that defines itself in terms given by psychoanalysis manifests the subject as other, whereas science, by making the subject a master, conceals him, so the desire that gives way to him bars the subject for me without remedy.”

There is only one myth in Lacan’s discourse: the Freudian Oedipus complex. “In psychoanalysis, as well as in the unconscious, man knows nothing of woman, and woman nothing of man. The phallus epitomizes the point in myth where the sexual becomes the passion of the signifier.” There is, however, no algebraic formula for the unconscious discourse: “…the unconscious is only the metaphorical term designating the knowledge only sustained when presented as impossible, so that it can conform by being real – real discourse.”

Notice

7th December 2018 : To request a copy of any text whose weblink does not work, contact Julia Evans: je.lacanian@icloud.com : For fuller details, see Notice : Availability of texts from LacanianWorks by Julia Evans or here

 

Julia Evans

Practicing Lacanian Psychoanalyst in Earl’s Court, London

 

Related Text

Autres Écrits: 2001 : Jacques Lacan or here

Further posts:

Lacanian Transmission here

Some Lacanian history here

Of the clinic here

Topology here

By Sigmund Freud here

Notes on texts by Sigmund Freud here

By Jacques Lacan here

Notes on texts by Jacques Lacan here

Jacques Lacan in English or here

Translation Working Group here

Use of power here