• Russian
  • English
  • Ukrainian

Самость становится диалогической, создаваясь Третьим в делании Третьего

Текст переводится. Ниже представлен английский оригинал.

The presentation on the 5-th international conference on the Dialogocical Self, Cambridge, 2008

“Without preface”

I am at halfway to clarify for myself the notions of “the self”, “subject” and “inner speech” which are equated frequently here, because they turn as different physiognomies of the Self. And it is very important for me the distinction between “self” and “I” was made by Lacan. Appealing against theories like ego-psychology Lacan shifts his self (subject) toward unconsciousness. There is mishmash between “self”, “I” etc. in other psychoanalytical theories.

I intend to discuss one issue: is there separate dialogical ability above the self is forced to be dialogical by circumstances?

My basic assumption: 1) self is a speech and a process of becoming human speech being. And since I say “speech” but not “language” this peculiarity occurs connected to silence too. Hence my main assumption is the Self is the addressing to the Other from the nothing. (The silence is one constitutive feature for the self that is inner speech.)

It means: 1) there is not adressness without capacity to be in the area of “nothing”, nearness to “not to be”; 2) without this the Other always seems to be the Other but in Reality it is only an Image of ourselves. 3)so communication, dialogue and other god things are impossible.

I think also Self may resist to understanding itself as dialogical one, while keeping its wholeness (integrity).Perhaps, there is always this conflict there. It seems, at this point, the diversity between individual and social modalities appears. But I assume they mutually turn into each other at this point.

Development and the inner speech – briefly

Kleinian theory. Although, in one school of psychoanalysis, the school of Melanie Klein (appeared and spread) specifically in the England, “self” may be used in parallel with “the I” (or “ego”), still exactly in the writings of Klein and her heirs the inner drama constituting the self is presented most minutely. Here self being in the process of permanent separation develops from period of total dependence to formation of symbol. Before the symbol was formed the child had not been apprehending the whole object, while parts of his own had not been being integrated. The time of prevalence of partial object is accompanied by diverse anxieties and fantasies – like persecute, annihilation. Weak being of infant does not meet Other as Other and he dismembers it. In this model the infant then feels aggression or feels himself as object of aggression. It is named paranoid-schizoid position and each child and adult have an experience of being into it. For example in adult communication sometimes we participate with such paranoid-schizoid experience because without it no new understanding, appearance of something transgressive in respect of our settled views, are available. We have to dismember old views, concepts and in some sense ourselves to let something new. The keeping this often painful process of disintegration, in which self isn’t stable substance, is just the Self, one of its faces.

Let me repeat – in this period, position or time there isn’t the whole object still there, but is the total dependence on it. Here the Self is rather process of keeping self but not the sense of itself .

Whole object appears in the depressive position when the primary object separates and the symbol of lost object arises on this abandoned place. In the emotional experience of mourning for it the self stands in child’s life for the first time. The change from paranoid-schizoid position to depressive position enables the symbolic thinking endowing it with reparative power and aesthetic value (Sigal, Britton). Here the Self is more feeling own integrity. This is like adult feeling certitude coming from coherent picture of the World. We can feel the mourning and simultaneously we feel the beauty of lost object and, inside out, when we fell whole perfect something, we are going to lost it. It is close to notion of ACME. Or in the Faust Goethe, we remember:

Zum Augenblicke dürft ich sagen: / “Verweile doch du bist so schön!”

(I don’t know the poetical translation in English but word for word it is):

I may to say to this moment / Do stop You are so beautiful!

I have to cut down. There are so many important and interesting matters for understanding “self”, say, the ambivalence or incongruence the self with itself. But let us return to main mater.

Concerning feeling of nothing mentioned, the silence from which the addressness may appear, we can observe some peculiarities of it in kleinian ideas: 1) place of absence of lost object and the morning for it; 2) integrative ability as well as disintegrative ability are means of self to handle with object and interior place is a stage which becomes deserted from time to time 3) and when it (desolation) occurs the symbol arises apparently as a specific characteristic of Other.

For Lacan the subject is a blank space – one definition in a raw others. Subject is shifted toward unconsciousness and unconsciousness organised as the speech of Other, “in image, after likeness”. The culture speaks through a subject, not on the contrary. But the main aim of individual is to become on place of speech of the Other by the way of building the relations with the Other and other.

But firstly (in a beginning of human being development), in the Lacan’s theory we can observe the total dependence of the becoming of the Self on the speech of Other. Lacan shows us the relations which prove the fact the self is forced to be dialogical, the self is being dialogised (the last is joke of my husband). Even not only Self, but the entire Human Nature occurs as a consequence of the speech so there isn’t the physiology, but only psychophysiology, and the human body finds itself imprisoned into close relations with speech of Other. (I think I understand the Lacan’s ideas correctly). The body becomes flesh, “and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh”. However, there is a long way to go to acceptance of it and this way runs through a forming of inner speech, I believe.

Inner speech

The only argument that the self being imprisoned can match to these circumstances, is the inner speech, its becoming and development ending in teen age.

When Bibler describes the idea of Vygotsky concerning the inner speech, carrying it into the logic model of inner dialogue, in his estimation the self is definitely the inner speech and a subject too.

Let us imagine the inner speech is not only inner conversation !

In his eminent work “Thinking and Speech” Vygotsky had contested an understanding of inner speech as potentially being heard conversation. What does this give us? It’s downright essence! Above all, the inner speech is a silence about the main, passing over in silence the subject matter. (All conversations expand from and around this point and are only pale copy of inner dialogue which we just cannot hear).

The inner speech was defined as the speech turned to itself by Vygotsky and Bibler added to this conception the logic of inner dialogue made up around falling out subject.

I conclude: In the inner speech we have two sides, two processes: 1) inner multovoicesness can be turned to inner dialogue. 2) addressness while we aren’t certain in existence of other but suppose him or even create him. This second is a condition of conversion of inner multivoicesness into inner dialogue.

Bibler was a philosopher who developed the unique conception of a Dialogue of Cultures. At the same time he was a strong logician, hence his idea of dialogue took adequate logical model of a movement of notions, interrelations, interdependence into the dialogue. He refers to Bakhtin’s ideas about dialogue and Vygotsky’ investigations about inner speech. In Bibler’s theory the notion of “Other” derived from logical paradox: “substantiation of elements of logical movement cannot be realized on the basis of that forms of logical conclusion (deduction) and proof which are derived from this elements, rested on them. For substantiation of (elements) logic it is necessary to step over boundaries of this (1) logic (2). But steping over boundaries of this logic (to substantiate its logically) is possible only into another logic and so far as the logic is universal – it means – into another universal.” To my mind, it is convincingly to suppose of existence of a such Other who present another universe, another wholeness into inner dialogue.

We remember from where we got here. I assumed that the inner speech as fitting contraposition to state of the self forced to be dialogical, dependent of other etc. In the inner speech self encounters with other universe and in this dialogue strengthens itself in own dialogicality. But the process described as a inner speech have become the basis of thinking including external speech and – all existence. The other is presented in two ways in inner speech. At first, he participates in inner speech, we hear and dispute with him. After that the Other arise as the universe in the intimate process of thinking. I believe we have two different qualitatively others here. Thus, relations which can make up dialogical self – are relations between three.

Two others

Lacan defined two interlocutors. The small other and the Big Other. The first is one, without who my own speech is impossible.

This interlocutor, the small other, implements at least two very important functions of our speech – it is a speech of credence (any my statement needs your regarding). We know lot about this side of the speech thanks to Mikhail Bakhtin too. Any statement is addressed to somebody and always is waiting and waits a reply. At the same time the speech sent to other is a speech-deceiver. The last was good exemplified by Lacan by a game “odd and even” from the story by Edgar Allan Poe. To win in this game the boy identifies himself with his rival to guess his position. Relations of deception here mean impossibility to step over boundaries of self-identity toward otherness. I don’t step over experience in which I perceive the other only trough identification.

The Big Other – it is function of speech, which constitutes the true (truth) of a statement, its refers to Reality. The other is presened as Absolute Other that is acknowledged but not understood Other. It is similar to ideas of Nicola de Cusa: Intellectual word is intellectual reception of ineffable word. The Big Other presented as pure otherness. This function of otherness the Big Other expands on the small other.


I think I can make some comparisons or identifications. The symbol from kleinian conception arise in depressive position and their arise the whole object too. Lacan says about Big Other as condition for relations of two and Big Other brings in otherness to make it possible. Bibler basing on ideas Vygotsky and Bakhtin shows us the Others as the Universe. And small other in theory Lacan or other in inner conversation are the cause of dialogue and thinking, the cause of paranoid-schizoid position by Klein.

Unfortunately I don’t have time for idea of Mikhail Bakhtin although it is a main for me. But thinking is a silence about main frequently. Bakhtin introduces the Third besides the near second, immediate addressee. The Bakhtin’s Third is the over-addressee of one, whom the author of statement turns his hope for absolute understanding to. In diverse epochs the Third and his perfect responsive understanding take diverse forms – the God, Absolute Truth etc. Bakhtin likens to imprisonment the relations without this Third.

The relations of three aren’t relation with Third as with second. Like in the Bible two statements taken jointly:

שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל: יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד.

וְאָהַבְתָּ, אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשְׁךָ, וּבְכָל-מְאֹדֶךָ.

וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ: אֲנִי, יְהוָה.

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

The first statement refers to Big Other, the second – to small, near other. Taken jointly they can say something concerning interdependence of these and the constitutive relations for dialogue.

We can say certainly: the self is being dialogised in relations of two but it becomes the dialogical self in the relations of three.