‌‌‌‌　　英：father;法：pere

‌‌‌‌　　从拉康非常早期的著作中开始，他便极其强调父亲的角色在精神结构中的重要性。在其1938年论及家庭的文章中，他就将俄狄浦斯情结 (OEDIPUS COMPLEX)的重要性归于这样一个事实，即该情结在父亲的身份中结合了两种几乎相互冲突的功能：保护性的功能与禁止性的功能。此外，他还指出当代社会中父亲意象 (paternal imago)的衰落（明显可见于缺位的父亲与受辱的父亲等形象）是现行各种精神病理性怪癖的原因所在 (Lacan, 1938:73)。父亲继而也是拉康其后著作中的一个恒定的主题。

‌‌‌‌　　拉康对于父亲的重要性的强调，可以被看作他针对克莱因派精神分析与对象关系理论将母子关系置于精神分析理论的核心的这一倾向的反应。与此种倾向相反，拉康不断地强调父亲作为一个第三项的角色，正是父亲通过中介母亲 (MOTHER)与孩子之间的想象二元关系 (DUAL RELATION), 从而拯救了孩子，使其免遭于精神病，并使其进入社会存在 (social existence)成为可能。父亲因而不只是主体与之争夺母亲的爱的一个纯粹的竞争者：就其本身而言，他也是社会秩序的代表，而只有通过在俄狄浦斯情结之中认同于父亲，主体才能够进入这一秩序。因此，在所有精神病理性结构的病因学中，父亲的缺位都是一个重要的因素。

‌‌‌‌　　然而，父亲并非是一个简单的概念，而是引发我们去思考“父亲”一词究竟意味着什么的一个复杂的概念。拉康指出，“何谓父亲？”这一问题构成了贯穿在弗洛伊德全部著作中的核心主题（S4,204-5)。正是为了回答这一问题，从1953年起，拉康便开始强调在象征的父亲 (the symbolic father)、想象的父亲（the imaginary father)与实在的父亲 (the real father)之间做出区分的重要性：

‌‌‌‌　　・象征的父亲象征父亲并非是一真实在 (real being), 而是一个位置、一种功能，且因此同义于“父性功能”(paternalfunction)这一措辞。此一功能恰恰就是在俄狄浦斯情结中强加法则 (LAW)并调节欲望的功能，是介入母亲与孩子之间的想象二元关系，以便在他们之间引入一个必要的“象征性距离”(symbolicdistance)的功能 (S4,161)。“父亲的真正功能…从根本上说即在于使欲望与法则结合起来（而不是使它们对立起来）”(E, 321). 尽管象征的父亲并非一个实际的主体，而是象征秩序中的一个位置，然而一个主体还是可以凭借行使父性功能来占据这一位置。没有人能够一直完全地占据这个位置 (S4,205,210,219)。然而，

‌‌‌‌　　象征的父亲的介入往往不是凭借某人去化身此一功能，而是以一种蒙上面纱的隐蔽方式，例如以母亲的话语为中介 (见：S4,276). 象征的父亲是象征秩序的结构中的基本元素；正是男性世系一脉的铭写，把文化的象征秩序与自然的想象秩序区分了开来。通过把世系结构化作一系列代际的传承，父系制度 (patrilineality)便引入了一个“其结构不同于自然秩序”的秩序 (S3,320)。象征的父亲同样是死亡的父亲，是遭到他自己的儿子们所谋杀的原始部落的父亲 (见：Freud, 1912-13)。此外，象征的父亲也被称作父亲的名义 (NAME-OF-THE-FATHER)(S1,259).

‌‌‌‌　　想象的阳具在前俄狄浦斯的想象三角形中作为第三项的在场，即表明象征的父亲在前俄狄浦斯阶段便已然开始运作了；在象征的母亲的背后，总是存在着象征的父亲。然而，精神病患者却从未走到这么远；实际上，正是象征的父亲的缺位刻画了精神病结构的本质特征 (见：排除[FORECLOSURE]).

‌‌‌‌　　·想象的父亲想象的父亲是一种意象，是主体围绕着父亲的角色而在幻想中建立起来的所有想象性建构的复合体。此种想象性建构往往与父亲在现实中的样子没有多少关系 (S4,220).想象的父亲可以被认作一位理想的父亲 (S1,156; E, 321), 或者相反被认作“把小孩搞糟的父亲”(the father who fucked the kid up)(S7,308)。在前一种样貌下，想象的父亲是各种宗教中的上帝形象 (God-figure)的原型，即一个全能的保护者。在后一种角色中，想象的父亲则既是把乱伦禁忌强加给自己儿子们的那位骇人的原始部落的父亲 (见：Freud, 1912-13),又是剥夺 (PRIVATION)的动因，是女儿责备他剥夺了自己的象征性阳具或是其等价物（即一个孩子）的父亲 (S4,98: 见：图7与S7,307)。然而，在此两种面貌下，无论是作为理想的父亲还是作为残酷的剥夺的动因，想象的父亲都会被看作全能的 (S4,275-6)。精神病与性倒错皆以不同的方式涉及把象征的父亲化约为想象的父亲。

‌‌‌‌　　·实在的父亲虽然拉康相当清晰地界定了他所谓的想象的父亲与象征的父亲的意思，但是他有关实在的父亲的那些评论却是颇为模糊的 (见：例如，S4,220)。拉康唯一明确的阐述，便是把实在的父亲说成阉割的动因，即他在执行象征性阉割的运作（S17,149; 见：图7与S7,307)。除此之外，关于他借由这一措辞想说的意思，拉康很少给出其他的线索。在1960年，他把实在的父亲描述为一个“有效地占据着”母亲的“巨屌之人”(the Great Fucker)(S7,307), 而在1970年，他甚至又继续把实在的父亲说成精子，尽管他又立刻限定了这则陈述，评论说没有人会把自己当作一只精虫的儿子 (S17,148)。基于这些评论，我们似乎可能会认为实在的父亲即主体的生物学父亲。然而，因为一定程度的不确定性总是围绕着谁才是真正的生物学父亲这一问题 (“·父亲总是不确定的'[pater semper incertus est], 而母亲则是‘再确定不过的'[certissima]”；Freud, 1909c: SEIX, 239), 或许我们可以更加确切地说，实在的父亲即那个被说成是主体的生物学父亲的男人。因而，实在的父亲是一种语言的效果，而这里的形容词“实在”正是要在此种意义上来理解：它是语言的实在，而非生物学的实在 (S17,147-8).

‌‌‌‌　　实在的父亲在俄狄浦斯情结中扮演着一个至关重要的角色：正是他在俄狄浦斯情结的第三“时间”上作为对孩子实施阉割的人而介入 (见：阉割情结[CASTRATION COMPLEX])。这一介入把孩子从先前的焦虑之中解救了出来：倘若没有此种介入，孩子就需要一个恐怖症的对象来充当对于缺位的实在的父亲的某种象征性替代。实在的父亲作为阉割的动因的介入，并不完全等价于他在家庭中的物理性在场。正如小汉斯的个案 (Freud, 1909b)所表明的那样，实在的父亲可能是物理性在场的，但仍旧未能作为阉割的动因而介入 (S4,212,221)。相反，即使当父亲物理性缺位的时候，孩子也可以很好地感受到实在的父亲的介入。

‌‌‌‌　　(pere) From very early on in his work, Lacan lays great importance on the role of thefather in psychic structure. In his 1938 article on the family, he attributes the importanceof the OEDIPUS COMPLEX to the fact that it combines in the figure of the father twoalmost conflicting functions: the protective function and the prohibitive function. He alsopoints to the contemporary social decline in the paternal imago (clearly visible in theimages of absent fathers and humiliated fathers) as the cause ofcurrentpsychopathological peculiarities (Lacan, 1938:73). The father continues to be a constanttheme of Lacan's work thereafter.

‌‌‌‌　　Lacan's emphasis on the importance of the father can be seen as a reaction against thetendency of Kleinian psychoanalysis and object-relations theory to place the mother-childrelation at the heart of psychoanalytic theory. In opposition to this tendency, Lacancontinually stresses the role of the father as a third term who, by mediating the imaginaryDUAL RELATION between the MOTHER and the child, saves the child from psychosisand makes possible an entry into social existence. The father is thus more than a mererival with whom the subject competes for the mother's love; he is the representative ofthe social order as such, and only by identifying with the father in the Oedipus complexcan the subject gain entry into this order. The absence of the father is thereforeanimportant factor in the aetiology of all psychopathological structures.

‌‌‌‌　　However, the father is not a simple concept but a complex one, one which begs thequestion of what exactly is meant by the term 'father'. Lacan argues that the question'What is a father?'forms the central theme which runs throughout Freud's entire work (S4,204-5). It is in order to answer this question that, from 1953 on, Lacan stresses theimportance of distinguishing between the symbolic father, the imaginary father, and thereal father:

‌‌‌‌　　.The symbolic father The symbolic father is not a real being but a position, afunction, and hence is synonymous with the term 'paternal function'. This function isnone other than that of imposing the LAW and regulating desire in the Oedipus complex, of intervening in the imaginary dual relationship between mother and child to introduce anecessary 'symbolic distance'between them (S4,161). The true function of theFather... Is fundamentally to unite (and not to set in opposition) a desire and the Law' (E, 321). Although the symbolic father is not an actual subject but a position in the symbolicorder, a subject may nevertheless come to occupy this position, by virtue of exercisingthe paternal function. Nobody can ever occupy this position completely (S4,205,210,219). However, the symbolic father does not usually intervene by virtue of someone incarnating this function, but in a veiled fashion, for example by being mediated by thediscourse of the mother (see S4,276)

‌‌‌‌　　The symbolic father is the fundamental element in the structure of the symbolic order; what distinguishes the symbolic order of culture from the imaginary order of nature is theinscription of a line of male descendence. By structuring descendence into a series ofgenerations, patrilineality introduces an order 'whose structure is different from thenatural order' (S3,320). The symbolic father is also the dead father, the father of theprimal horde who has been murdered by his own sons (see Freud, 1912-13). Thesymbolic father is also referred to as the NAME-OF-THE-FATHER (S1,259).

‌‌‌‌　　The presence of the imaginary phallus as a third term in the preoedipal imaginarytriangle indicates that the symbolic father is already functioning at the preoedipal stage; behind the symbolic mother, there is always the symbolic father. The psychotic, however, does not even get this far; indeed, it is the absence of the symbolic father whichcharacterises the essence of the psychotic structure (see FORECLOSURE).

‌‌‌‌　　.The imaginary father The imaginary father is an imago, the composite of all theimaginary constructs that the subject builds up in fantasy around the figure of the father. This imaginary construction often bears little relationship to the father as he is in reality (S4,220). The imaginary father can be construed as an ideal father (S1,156; E, 321), orthe opposite, as 'the father who has fucked the kid up' (S7,308). In the former guise, theimaginary father is the prototype of God-figures in religions, an all-powerful protector. Inthe latter role, the imaginary father is both the terrifying father of the primal horde whoimposes the incest taboo on his sons (see Freud, 1912-13), and the agent ofPRIVATION, the father whom the daughter blames for depriving her of the symbolicphallus, or its equivalent, a child (S4,98; see Figure 7 and S7,307). In both guises, though, whether as the ideal father or as the cruel agent of privation, the imaginary fatheris seen as omnipotent (S4,275-6). Psychosis and perversion both involve, in differentways, a reduction of the symbolic father to the imaginary father.

‌‌‌‌　　The real father While Lacan is quite clear in defining what he means by theimaginary father and the symbolic father, his remarks on the real father are quite obscure (see, for example, S4,220). Lacan's only unequivocal formulation is that the real father isthe agent of castration, the one who performs the operation of symbolic castration (S17,149; see Figure 7 and S7,307). Apart from this, Lacan gives few other clues about whathe means by the phrase. In 1960, he describes the real father as the one who 'effectivelyoccupies'the mother, the 'Great Fucker' (S7,307), and even goes on to say, in 1970, thatthe real father is the spermatozoon, though he immediately qualifies this statement withthe remark that nobody has ever thought of himself as the son of a spermatozoon (S17,148). On the basis of these comments, it seems possible to argue that the real father is thebiological father of the subject. However, since a degree of uncertainty always surroundsthe question of who the biological father really is (pater semper incertus est", while themother is "certissima"'; Freud, 1909c: SE IX, 239), it would be more precise to say thatthe real father is the man who is said to be the subject's biological father. The real fatheris thus an effect of language, and it is in this sense that the adjective real is to beunderstood here: the real of language, rather than the real of biology (S17,147-8).

‌‌‌‌　　The real father plays a crucial role in the Oedipus complex; it is he who intervenes inthe third 'time'of the Oedipus complex as the one who castrates the child (seeCASTRATION COMPLEX). This intervention saves the child from the preceding anxiety;without it,the child requires a phobic object as a symbolic substitute for theabsent real father.The intervention of the real father as agent of castration is not simplyequivalent to his physical presence in the family.As the case of Little Hans indicates(Freud,1909b),the real father may be physically present and yet fail to intervene as agentof castration (S4,212,221).Conversely,the intervention of the real father may well befelt by the child even when the father is physically absent.