‌‌‌‌　　英：ego-ideal; 法：ideal du moi; 德：Ich-ideal

‌‌‌‌　　在弗洛伊德的作品中，我们很难看出在“自我理想”(Ichideal)、“理想自我”(Ideal Ich)与“超我”(Uber-Ich)这三个相关术语之间有任何系统化的区分，尽管三者并非是完全可交替使用的术语。然而，拉康却指出，此三种“自我的构形”(formations of thego)皆是彼此之间不应混淆的各自相当不同的概念。

‌‌‌‌　　在其“二战”前的作品中，拉康主要关切的是在自我理想与超我之间建立一个区分，而并未提及理想自我。尽管自我理想与超我 (SUPEREGO)皆联系着俄狄浦斯情结的衰退，两者皆是认同于父亲的产物，然而拉康却指出它们代表着父亲的双重角色中的不同面向。超我是一个无意识的机构，其功能在于压抑对于母亲的性欲望，而自我理想则是施加一种朝向升华的有意识的压力，并且提供使主体能够作为一个男人或女人而采取一种性别位置的坐标 (Lacan, 1938:59-62)。

‌‌‌‌　　在其“二战”后的作品中，拉康则更多关注的是自我理想与理想自我(法：moi ideal。注：在1949年，拉康曾一度使用“je-ideal”这一术语来翻译弗洛伊德的“Idca-Ich”，见：E,2;然而，他很快便放弃了此种做法，而在其余下的作品中一律使用“moi ideal”这一术语)之间的区分。于是，在1953一1954年度的研讨班上，他发展了光学模型(OPTICAL MODEL)来区分这两种构形。他指出，自我理想是一种象征性内摄，而理想自我则是一种想象性投射的来源(见：S8,414)。自我理想是作为理想而运作的能指，是法则经内化的雏形，是对主体在象征秩序中的位置进行支配的向导，它因此预期了次级（俄狄浦斯式）认同(S1,141),抑或是作为那一认同的产物(Lacan,1957-8)。另一方面，理想自我则起源于镜子阶段中的镜像：它许诺了自我所朝向的未来的综合，是自我赖以建立的统一性的幻象。理想自我始终伴随着自我，它是一种永远存在的企图，旨在重新获得前俄狄浦斯式二元关系中的全能。虽然理想自我是在原初认同中形成的，但是它继续发挥着作为所有次级认同之来源的作用(E,2)。在拉康的代数学中，理想自我写作(a),而自我理想则写作I(A)

‌‌‌‌　　(ideal du moi) In Freud's writings it is difficult to discern any systematic distinctionbetween the three related terms 'ego-ideal' (Ich-ideal), ideal ego' (Ideal Ich), andsuperego (Uber-Ich), although neither are the terms simply used interchangeably. Lacan, however, argues that these three 'formations of the ego'are each quite distinct conceptswhich must not be confused with one another.

‌‌‌‌　　In his pre-war writings Lacan is mainly concerned to establish a distinction betweenthe ego-ideal and the superego, and does not refer to the ideal ego. Although both theego-ideal and the SUPEREGO are linked with the decline of the Oedipus complex, andboth are products of identification with the father, Lacan argues that they representdifferent aspects of the father's dual role. The superego is an unconscious agency whosefunction is to repress sexual desire for the mother, whereas the ego-ideal exerts a conscious pressure towards sublimation and provides the coordinates which enable thesubject to take up a sexual position as a man or woman (Lacan, 1938:59-62).

‌‌‌‌　　In his post-war writings Lacan pays more attention to distinguishing the ego-idealfrom the ideal ego (Fr. Moi ideal. Note: at one point, in 1949, Lacan uses the term je-ideal to render Freud's Ideal-Ich [E, 2]; however, he soon abandons this practice and forthe rest of his work uses the term moi ideal.). Thus in the 1953-4 seminar, he developsthe OPTICAL MODEL to distinguish between these two formations. He argues that theego-ideal is a symbolic introjection, whereas the ideal ego is the source of an imaginaryprojection (see S8,414). The ego-ideal is the signifier operating as ideal, an internalisedplan of the law, the guide governing the subject's position in the symbolic order, andhence anticipates secondary (Oedipal) identification (S1,141) or is a product of thatidentification (Lacan, 1957-8). The ideal ego, on the other hand, originates in thespecular image of the mirror stage; it is a promise of future synthesis towards which theego tends, the illusion of unity on which the ego is built. The ideal ego alwaysaccompanies the ego, as an ever-present attempt to regain the omnipotence of thepreoedipal dual relation. Though formed in primary identification, the ideal ego continuesto play a role as the source of all secondary identifications (E, 2). The ideal ego is writtenifa) in Lacanian algebra, and the ego ideal is written I (A).