English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

What Lacan calls the Name-of-the-Father refers to the influence of cultural and social law within the family, something which has traditionally – especially within patriarchal societies – been associated with the actual figure of the father. Given that Lacan thinks of the Name-of-the-Father as a signifier – and a crucial signifier at that, one that anchors the symbolic order and enables it to function – it need not refer to a literal father. This much is made clear by the reference in Catholicism to, precisely, the Name of the Father, a signifier (or term of reference), which clearly points beyond the level of mere mortal fathers. Stijn Vanheule (2011) provides a brief yet illuminating description of the Lacanian concept of the father. The father for Lacan is “a symbolic function to which all group members ... are subjected” (61); “It provides human beings with an internalized compass of culturally and socially viable principles” (Stijn Vanheule, 2011: 61).

What, for Lacan, makes the function of the Father work? Of Abraham and the goat, or, of Elliott and ET