G1 - The Narrative Arts and Lacan's Four Discourses

Course Summary:

This graduate course explores how the narrative arts (literature, film, drama, etc.) interact with Lacan’s four discourses—Master, Hysteric, University, and Analyst—to maintain or destabilize cultural power structures. Each discourse represents a distinct framework of meaning, authority, and relational dynamics. By examining how narratives uphold or challenge these frameworks, the course invites students to critically engage with the ways storytelling shapes and is shaped by cultural, psychological, and ethical forces. Students will explore not only the transformative and destabilizing potential of narrative but also its complicity in reinforcing dominant ideologies.

1. Discourse of the Master

The "discourse of the master" revolves around authority, control, and the imposition of meaning. In the West, this discourse has historically privileged white, male, heterosexual, cisgender, and capitalist-elitist values, presenting them as natural, universal, and inevitable. The master seeks to establish order and uphold these dominant ideologies while concealing the gaps, contradictions, artifice, and injustices that underlie their authority.

Narrative Maintains: The narrative arts maintain the discourse of the master when they reinforce dominant ideologies, glorify authority figures, or naturalize hierarchical structures. Epics, propaganda, or canonical narratives often serve this purpose, perpetuating the same values privileged by the master. Moreover, the very form of narratives that are celebrated—such as linear plots with clear resolutions and strong central protagonists—can reproduce these values by mirroring the master’s imposition of order and control. For example, stories that prioritize white male heroes or capitalist ideals frequently exclude or marginalize alternative perspectives, maintaining the symbolic authority of the master.
Narrative Destabilizes: The narrative arts challenge the master’s discourse not by relying solely on absurdist or postmodern techniques. Instead, they do so through narratives that engage with the master’s framework while simultaneously subverting its values. Compelling stories—whether realist, historical, or speculative—can reveal the arbitrariness or injustice of power structures by exposing their contradictions, hypocrisies, and systemic failures. Narratives that center marginalized voices or employ innovative forms disrupt the master’s control by challenging the dominant values encoded in traditional storytelling conventions.
Narrative Limitations: Even when narratives critique the master’s authority, they can unintentionally reproduce hierarchical structures by framing resistance as illegitimate or by glorifying rebellion as a new form of mastery. For instance, stories of heroic revolution often replace one master with another, leaving the underlying structure of power intact. As The Who famously captured in the lyric, “Meet the new boss; same as the old boss,” narratives that fail to address the systemic foundation of the master’s discourse risk perpetuating its dynamics, even when ostensibly subversive.
Course Goals in this Section: To examine how narratives sustain or disrupt the discourse of the master by interrogating both their content and their form. Students will critically analyze works that reveal the master’s contradictions, explore alternative modes of resistance, and question how storytelling conventions themselves can reinforce or challenge dominant ideologies, particularly those rooted in white, male, heterosexist, and capitalist frameworks.

2. Discourse of the Hysteric

The "discourse of the hysteric" is a structure of speech and relationship in which the subject challenges authority and interrogates the foundations of knowledge and power. It is driven by a fundamental dissatisfaction or a sense of lack, which propels the hysteric to question the master and expose the inconsistencies, contradictions, or inadequacies in the master’s claims to authority or knowledge. The hysteric does not seek closure or resolution but instead thrives on the process of questioning itself, keeping the master in a state of perpetual response. This discourse positions the hysteric as both subject and object of desire: the hysteric desires to know but also to be desired as the cause of the master's response. Through this dynamic, the hysteric's questioning reveals the master's own lack—demonstrating that the master, too, is incomplete and dependent on the hysteric to sustain their position. While the hysteric may appear subversive, the structure also binds them to the master in a dialectic of dependency and resistance. The discourse of the hysteric can thus be seen as both a critique of authority and a paradoxical form of engagement with it, where the hysteric seeks to displace the master’s certainty without entirely escaping their orbit.

Maintains: The narrative arts maintain the hysteric’s discourse by voicing dissatisfaction or personal grievance without fully challenging the structures of authority. Melodramas or confessional literature may articulate discontent but seek resolution within existing systems, reinforcing their limits.
Destabilizes: Narratives destabilize the hysteric’s discourse when they amplify its subversive potential, refusing closure or exposing the master’s reliance on repression. Feminist and queer literature, for example, often destabilize authority by centering marginalized voices and unresolved tensions.
Limitations: The hysteric's discourse centers on questioning and challenging the master’s knowledge, demanding answers but never truly arriving at a place of resolution. While it exposes the inconsistencies or limitations in the master’s authority, the hysteric’s endless cycle of doubt and questioning lacks the structure needed for effective praxis or techne. Instead of producing actionable insight or transformative practice, it loops endlessly, destabilizing without constructing a viable alternative. The use of "techne" here emphasizes its classical meaning as a form of practical knowledge or craftsmanship that results in creating something concrete or actionable. In ancient Greek philosophy, techne refers to skill, craft, or art that is oriented toward producing or achieving specific outcomes. By contrasting the hysteric's discourse with techne highlights that the hysteric's questioning lacks the directed, constructive capability needed to produce actionable results or a coherent framework.
Course Goals in this Section: To explore how narratives rooted in dissatisfaction can either sustain or challenge dominant frameworks. Students will examine the transformative potential of unresolved tensions and consider how hysteric resistance might move toward generative change.

3. Discourse of the University

The "discourse of the university" concerns the production, codification, and dissemination of knowledge. It often serves the master’s authority by legitimizing dominant ideologies under the guise of objective scholarship. A salient example is the denial of the "truth of the unconscious" (Lacan) within American psychology departments, which have historically favored behaviorist and cognitive models over psychoanalytic theories. This resistance echoes Sigmund Freud's reputed remark during his 1909 visit to Clark University. Allegedly, Freud said he was "bringing the plague" to America by introducing psychoanalysis—a profound challenge to established Enlightenment-founded academic norms based on a conception of subjectivity centered on agency and consciousness.

Maintains: The narrative arts maintain this discourse by aligning with canonical traditions and reinforcing dominant epistemologies. Historical novels, classical dramas, or works taught as "great literature" often validate the authority of academic frameworks and exclude marginalized perspectives, including those that explore the unconscious or critique institutional limitations.
Destabilizes: Narratives destabilize the university discourse by rejecting traditional canons, challenging established knowledge systems, or exposing the ideological underpinnings of education. Works that incorporate psychoanalytic concepts, delve into the unconscious, or employ surreal and avant-garde techniques disrupt the authority of institutionalized knowledge—much like Freud's psychoanalysis challenged prevailing psychological paradigms.
Limitations: The university's discourse often fetishizes knowledge itself, prioritizing theoretical abstraction over lived experience or practical relevance. By denying or marginalizing the complexities of the unconscious mind, it can result in narratives and academic studies that remain superficial, inaccessible, or elitist, failing to engage with deeper human concerns or psychological realities.
Course Goals in this Section: To critically examine the relationship between narratives and institutionalized knowledge, exploring how stories challenge or reinforce the authority of the university. Students will investigate alternative epistemologies—including psychoanalytic perspectives that address the unconscious—and consider the role of storytelling in deconstructing canons and revealing suppressed dimensions of human experience.

4. The Discourse of the Analyst: Reimagining Desire, Human Nature, and the Humanities

The "discourse of the analyst," as conceptualized by Lacan, represents a mode of communication and relational engagement that challenges and subverts the entrenched power structures and symbolic orders dominating other discourses, particularly the hierarchical "discourse of the master."

Rooted in the revolutionary insights of the masters of the "hermeneutics of suspicion" (Paul Ricoeur’s term)—Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Lacan, Foucault, and Derrida—the discourse of the analyst interrogates the hidden mechanisms of power, ideology, repression, and meaning-making. These thinkers dismantle surface certainties to expose deeper truths, revealing how systems of authority and belief obscure unconscious processes and social dynamics. Similarly, the analyst’s discourse destabilizes established certainties, confronts repressed truths, and enables subjects to grapple with the unconscious forces and symbolic structures shaping their desires and suffering.

Central to this discourse is the reimagining of desire—not merely as an individual phenomenon but as a fundamental aspect of human nature. In Lacan's framework, desire is not a static entity but a dynamic force shaped by the symbolic order, the Other, and the gaps inherent in language. By interrogating desire, the discourse of the analyst opens a path to reimagine human nature itself, not as fixed or predetermined, but as fluid, relational, and deeply intertwined with meaning-making processes.

This reimagining of desire challenges the essentialist views of human nature that have often underpinned hierarchical power structures. It suggests that human beings are not bound by rigid roles, moral absolutes, or predetermined destinies but are instead creatures of openness and possibility. This radical reconfiguration of human nature has profound implications not only for the individual but also for the humanities—the disciplines that seek to understand and articulate the human condition.

The humanities, long rooted in inquiries into human nature and meaning, depend on a vision of the human that is flexible, transformative, and capable of engaging with its own contradictions. The discourse of the analyst reinvigorates the humanities by reimagining desire as a site of creativity and transformation. It moves beyond the reductive binaries of good and evil, reason and emotion, or self and other, offering a more complex and nuanced view of human nature as mediated through the unconscious and the symbolic.

This perspective on desire and human nature calls for a rethinking of the humanities themselves. If human nature is understood as relational and driven by unconscious forces, then the humanities must also adapt to explore these dynamics. Literature, philosophy, art, and history must grapple not only with explicit narratives and cultural forms but also with the silences, gaps, and repressed truths that shape human experience. In this sense, the discourse of the analyst provides a critical methodology for the humanities, one that prioritizes uncovering hidden mechanisms of power, ideology, and repression while opening space for new forms of meaning-making.

Lacan's analyst, occupying the enigmatic position of the objet a—the elusive object-cause of desire—embodies this critical methodology. Rather than offering solutions or imposing knowledge, the analyst provokes the subject to question the sources of their suffering, the unconscious forces driving their actions, and the ideological fantasies sustaining their position in the symbolic order. By fostering this process, the discourse of the analyst facilitates not only individual transformation but also a broader cultural reimagining of meaning.

Unlike the discourse of the master, which consolidates control and provides definitive answers, the discourse of the analyst resists hierarchies and fixed certainties. It operates through a dialectic of presence and absence: the analyst’s silence, enigmatic interventions, and incisive interpretations draw attention to the contradictions and gaps in the subject’s narrative. This mode of engagement mirrors the deconstructive approaches of Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Derrida, and others, whose work sought to expose the limits of traditional structures of knowledge and authority.

The ultimate aim of the discourse of the analyst is to empower the subject to assume responsibility for their desires and to reconfigure their relationship to the Other and the symbolic order. This involves a radical reorientation away from the constraints of the master’s discourse and the imaginary demands of others. By fostering this transformation, the subject gains the capacity to navigate their desires with greater freedom and authenticity.

In reimagining desire, the discourse of the analyst also reimagines human nature, proposing a vision of the human as fundamentally relational, open-ended, and shaped by unconscious processes. This vision redefines the humanities as disciplines that not only interpret but also participate in the creation of meaning. In doing so, it positions the humanities as central to addressing the crises of meaning and relationality in contemporary culture.

The discourse of the analyst thus stands as a counterpoint to hierarchical, normative, and repressive structures. It advocates for a transformative engagement with the unconscious, one that challenges individuals and societies to confront the ideological underpinnings of their suffering. By reimagining desire and human nature, it reinvigorates the humanities and, by extension, the cultural frameworks through which we seek meaning, connection, and growth.

Maintains: The narrative arts maintain the discourse of the analyst when they provide catharsis or introspection without fully challenging the symbolic order or the audience’s position within it. For example, therapeutic films, redemptive narratives, or memoirs offering neatly resolved arcs can align with this discourse, fostering reflection but ultimately preserving existing frameworks of understanding.
Destabilizes: The narrative arts destabilize the discourse of the analyst by confronting audiences with the Real—that which resists symbolic representation—and forcing them into unresolved tensions. Works like surrealist films, absurdist plays, or fragmented narratives disrupt the comforts of resolution and meaning, revealing the fractures within identity and the limits of symbolic systems.
Limitations: The discourse of the analyst often risks becoming ensnared in its own symbolic framework through the elevation of the analyst as "the subject supposed to know"—a Lacanian concept that designates the analyst as an imagined locus of omniscient authority over the unconscious. This position can lead to a fetishization of analysis itself, where theoretical rigor and abstract interpretation take precedence over genuine engagement with human suffering and relational care. Like the discourse of the university, this detachment risks turning subjects into objects of intellectual curiosity, reducing the therapeutic encounter to an exercise in symbolic mastery. This dynamic undermines the transformative potential of analysis, as it neglects the ethical and relational dimensions crucial for addressing real human needs.
Course Goals in this Section: To critically examine both the transformative potential of the discourse of the analyst and its limitations, emphasizing the need to ground analysis in empathy, connection, and real human suffering. Students will analyze how narratives aspiring to engage with the unconscious can avoid theoretical elitism and resist positioning the author, narrator, or analyst as "the subject supposed to know," thereby maintaining a focus on the ethical dimensions of storytelling.

Syllabus: The Narrative Arts and Lacan's Four Discourses

Course Title: The Narrative Arts and Lacan's Four Discourses

Instructor: Eric Anders, Ph.D.

Institution:

Term:

Class

Meetings:

Credits: 4

Course Description

This course examines how the narrative arts (literature, film, and drama) interact with Lacan’s four discourses—Master, Hysteric, University, and Analyst. Students will explore how narratives uphold or destabilize power structures, mediate cultural meaning, and engage with psychological and ethical dimensions of human experience. Themes include Romanticism, psychoanalysis, canonicity, humanism vs. anti-humanism, and the impact of technology on identity and meaning. By synthesizing literature, film, and theory, the course invites students to interrogate storytelling’s complicity in or resistance to dominant ideologies.

Learning Objectives

Analyze how narratives maintain or destabilize Lacan’s four discourses.
Evaluate the relationship between narrative, power, and cultural meaning.
Explore intersections of canonicity, psychoanalysis, and technology in the narrative arts.
Engage critically with Romanticism, humanism, and anti-humanism as narrative frameworks.
Synthesize insights to interrogate storytelling’s role in shaping subjectivity and cultural frameworks.

Course Schedule

Week 1: Introduction to Lacan's Four Discourses and the Narrative Arts

Readings:
- Lacan, The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis (selections)
- Hayden White, The Content of the Form (selections)
- Derrida, Archive Fever (selections)
Discussion Topics:
- Overview of Lacan’s four discourses.
- The role of narrative in shaping power and cultural meaning.

Week 2: Discourse of the Master—Authority and Resistance

Readings:
- Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
- Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto (selections)
- Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish (selections)
Films:
- 2001: A Space Odyssey (dir. Stanley Kubrick)
Discussion Topics:
- How narratives reinforce or resist authority.
- Romanticism’s critique of Enlightenment rationality.

Week 3: Discourse of the Hysteric—Questioning Authority

Readings:
- Charlotte Perkins Gilman, The Yellow Wallpaper
- Hélène Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa”
- Luce Irigaray, This Sex Which Is Not One (selections)
Films:
- Dr. Strangelove (dir. Stanley Kubrick)
Discussion Topics:
- The hysteric’s voice in literature and film.
- Feminist critiques of psychoanalysis and authority.

Week 4: Discourse of the University—Knowledge and Canonicity

Readings:
- e.e. cummings, The Enormous Room
- Gayatri Spivak, “Can the Subaltern Speak?”
- Derrida, “The University Without Condition”
Discussion Topics:
- Canonicity and the exclusion of marginalized voices.
- The university as a site of ideological reproduction.

Week 5: Discourse of the Analyst—Uncovering the Unconscious

Readings:
- George Saunders, Lincoln in the Bardo
- Heinz Kohut, The Restoration of the Self (selections)
- John Bowlby, Attachment and Loss (selections)
Discussion Topics:
- The analyst’s role in revealing hidden truths.
- Narrative as a tool for introspection and transformation.

Week 6: Romanticism and the Unconscious

Readings:
- Samuel Taylor Coleridge, “Kubla Khan” and “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”
- Freud, “The Uncanny”
Film:
- Catch-22 (dir. Mike Nichols)
Discussion Topics:
- Romanticism’s engagement with the unconscious and the sublime.
- The destabilizing potential of Romantic narrative forms.

Week 7: Humanism vs. Anti-Humanism

Readings:
- Donna Haraway, A Cyborg Manifesto
- Rosi Braidotti, Nomadic Subjects (selections)
- Slavoj Žižek, The Sublime Object of Ideology (selections)
Discussion Topics:
- Cyborgs and posthumanism.
- Narrative challenges to humanist ideals.

Week 8: Postcolonial Challenges to the Master and University Discourses

Readings:
- Chinua Achebe, Things Fall Apart
- Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks (selections)
- Edward Said, Orientalism (selections)
Discussion Topics:
- Postcolonial critiques of canonicity.
- The master’s discourse and racialized exclusions.

Week 9: The Narrative Arts and the Real

Readings:
- Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot
- Derrida, “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences”
Films:
- Synecdoche, New York (dir. Charlie Kaufman)
Discussion Topics:
- The Real as a narrative limit.
- How the narrative arts confront the unrepresentable.

Week 10: Integration and Application

Readings:
- Žižek, How to Read Lacan (selections)
- Lacan, Écrits (selections)
Discussion Topics:
- Synthesizing Lacan’s four discourses and narrative analysis.
- Final reflections on the power and limitations of narrative.

Assignments

Weekly Response Papers (20%)Short reflections connecting readings and films to Lacan’s discourses.
Midterm Essay (30%)A 5–7 page analysis of how a narrative maintains or destabilizes one of Lacan’s discourses.
Final Project (40%)A 10-page paper or creative project synthesizing course themes, demonstrating the relationship between narrative arts and Lacan’s discourses.
Participation (10%)Active engagement in discussions and activities.