Patriarchy, as the incarnation of the Name of the Father, ensured the stability of family constellations. It was akin to Kepler’s law describing the motion of celestial bodies around the sun, where the central position of the Father carved the trajectory of movement for the other family members. Even when this small planetary system experienced shocks, its inertia sought to restore the social order, the first price of which was suffering, the second its repression, and the third were symptoms organised according to the principle of metaphor.
Renunciation and the suffering it caused were the price of social bonds. According to this paradigm, Man was not a citizen of the whole world (which is an illusion, since the subject remains solitary in principle), but oriented himself in the topography of his own Umwelt and his place in it. Thus, Umwelt and signifiers of identity were defined by tradition. This made for a routine which supposed permanent relationships between signifiers and signifieds. [1] Society maintained cohesion through the stable definition of marriage and family. I believe that under the dominance of patriarchy, the power of these two signifiers (e.g. marriage and family) overshadowed the question of happiness. In other words, my parents’ generation said a firm “yes” to marriage, which, according to Miller [2], is a legalised contract of shared suffering. This is illustrated by a statement by Helena Kulej, ex-wife of a Polish boxer and Olympic champion (her marriage ended in divorce due to her husband’s fascination with other women). Helena, when asked if she was happy, replied: I didn’t ask myself such questions. I tolerated a certain situation for years. For the sake of other, more important reasons. One’s own happiness? No one thought about it at the time. [3]
The Name of the Father bends under the pressure of changes, including the development of capitalism. I believe that at its core, capitalism is incompatible with renunciation in the name of social bonds, including familial ties. Capitalism dislikes love and the secret jouissance that connects two people, diverting them from the drive of solitary consumption. In capitalism, signifiers tied to objects of consumption are both seductive and overwhelming. Freedom, happiness, and finding “one’s unique path” become imperatives, leaving young people in solitary responsibility for their own individualism.
It seems to me, that the weakening of the Father’s position, combined with the responsibility for the capitalist view of child development, contributes to the disorientation of parents. The child’s happiness appears difficult to reconcile with the proclamation of paternal law, which no longer holds the power to ratify itself. Capitalism thus erodes the fundamental difference between parents and children. The concept of boundaries, so operative in systemic theories, is no longer trendy. Today, “good parents” are friends devoted to the child’s well-being rather than a key reference point for the construction of its identity. Hence, the decline of the Father, while having its bright sides, also represents a burden that families struggle with, as illustrated by Katty Langelez-Stevens in her argument for PIPOL 12. [4]
[1] Borie, J., “Lacanian Vitalism”, Warsaw: Library of Psychoanalysis, 2018.
[2] Miller, J-A., “Affectio Societatis”, Lacanian Review Online, 20 October 2024, online publication: https://www.thelacanianreviews.com/affectio-societatis/
[3] Serdiukow, A., “Helena Kulej: He fought in the ring, I fought with him”, Gazeta Wyborcza, 5 October 2024.
[4] Langelez-Stevens, K., “Family Malaise”, 20th October 2024, available online: https://www.pipolcongres.eu/argument/
