objet petit a

Jacques Lacan

desire

lack

is a certain excess in the object... it is the desirous element that can reside in any object (e.g. A shirt that was once worn by elvis).

Lacan's objet petit a (object small a) refers to a certain excess that is in the object more than the object the object-cause of desire. We might say that it is not so much the object of desire as the desirous element that can reside in any object: the drive towards some elusive point of consummation that may be quite incidental to the object itself (e.g. a shirt that was once worn by Elvis).

is a certain excess that is in the object more than the object. It is the desirous element that can reside in any object: The drive towards some elusive point of consummation that may be quite incidental to the object itself (e.g. A shirt that was once worn by elvis).

Lacan's objet petit a (object small a) refers to a certain excess that is in the object more than the object the object-cause of desire. We might say that it is not so much the object of desire as the desirous element that can reside in any object: the drive towards some elusive point of consummation that may be quite incidental to the object itself (e.g. a shirt that was once worn by Elvis). It is that which 'authenticates' the object and/or the experience of having it (e.g. the idea of virginity in Bunuel's That Obscure 0bject of Desire). If we take Tarrantino's Pulp Fiction then we see that the narrative ultimately revolves around a lost/stolen object inside a case that must be retrieved by Vincent and Jules. This object cannot be seen and is only alluded to in the reflective glow of the protagonist' faces, This is the objet petit a: something whose authenticity cannot be represented or substantialized and which is but a reflection of the drive to complete the (broken) circuit of enjoyment and to be reconciled with (impossible) desire itself.' (NET)

is a mysterious je ne sais quoi, the unfathomable 'something' that makes an ordinary object sublime.

This, however, is not the end of the story. To these two Reals, we have to add a third Real, that of a mysterious je ne sais quoi, the unfathomable 'something' that makes an ordinary object sublime what Lacan called l'objet petit a. There is, in science fiction horror movies, a figure of alien opposed to that of the irrepresentable and all-devouring monster of Scott's Alien, a figure immortalized in a whole series of films from the early 1950s whose most famous representative is The Invasion of the Body Snatchers. An ordinary American wanders somewhere in the half-abandoned countryside, when his car breaks down, so he goes for help to the closest small town... soon, however, he notices that something strange is going on in the town people behave in a strange way, as if they are not fully themselves. It becomes clear to him that the town is already taken over by the aliens who penetrated and colonized human bodies, controlling them from within: although the aliens look and act exactly like humans, there is as a rule a tiny detail which betrays their true nature (a strange glimpse in their eyes... too much skin between their fingers or between their ears and heads). (Zizek 'how to read lacan' : 56)

is a privileged object emerging from the self-mutilation induced by the very approach of the real through which the subject takes an interest in his own split, an interest which is bound up with that which determines it.

It is here that I propose that the interest the subject takes in his own split is bound up with that which determines it namely, a privileged object, which has emerged from some primal separation, from some self-mutilation induced by the very approach of the real, whose name, in our algebra, is the objet a. (Lacan 'the gaze as object petit a' 522)

is a term that brings to our attention just how much human life is founded, especially where love is concerned, on little things, on tiny particularities, reminiscent of the father, the mother, a brother, a sister, someone from childhood, also play their role in women's choice of love object.

The reality of the unconscious outstrips fiction. You can't imagine how much in human life is founded, especially where love is concerned, on little things, on pinheads, on 'divine details'. It's true that's it's above all in men that you find causes of desire like that, which are like fetishes whose presence is indispensable to spark off the love process. Tiny particularities, reminiscent of the father, the mother, a brother, a sister, someone from childhood, also play their role in women's choice of love object. (J-A Miller 2008 .pdf)

is an object that holds the promise of, at least partial, fulfillment but which can never fully deliver it in a once-and-for-all way.

Lacan's objets petit a that hold the promise of, at least partial, fulfillment but which can never fully deliver it in a once-and-for-all way. The objets petit a exist in a permanent state of displacement and are always elsewhere' (NET)

is an object which is, in a way, posited by the desire itself. The paradox of desire is that it posits retroactively its own cause, i.e., an object that can be perceived only by the look 'distorted' by desire, an object that does not exist for an 'objective' look.

This is precisely the Lacanian objet petit a, the object-cause of desire, an object which is, in a way, posited by the desire itself. The paradox of desire is that it posits retroactively its own cause, i.e., an object that can be perceived only by the look 'distorted' by desire, an object that does not exist for an 'objective' look. In other words, the objet petit a is always, by definition, perceived in a distorted way, because, outside this distortion, 'in itself,' it does not exist, i.e., because it is nothing but the embodiment, the materialization of this distortion, of this surplus of confusion and perturbation introduced by desire into so-called 'objective reality.' (Zizek 1989 : 34)

is objectively nothing. It is a 'nothing' which assumes the shape of a 'something' because desire takes off when something gives positive existence to its nothing, to its void.

Objet petit a is 'objectively' nothing, it is nothing at all, nothing of the desire itself which, viewed from a certain perspective, assumes the shape of 'something.' It is, as is formulated in an extremely precise manner by the queen in her response to Bushy, her 'something grief' begot by 'nothing' ('For nothing hath begot my something grief '). Desire 'takes off' when 'something' (its object-cause) embodies, gives positive existence to its 'nothing,' to its void. (Zizek 1989 : 34)

objet petit a, n.Definitions

objet petit a