University of Wisconsin Presshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3683930 .

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwisc. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toSubStance.

http://www.jstor.org

Semiotics, Erotographics, and Barthes's Visual Concerns'

BETTY R. McGRAW

Inasmuch as semiotics does not always limit itself to the study of the categories of the sign (Sa/Se) as atomic units of analysis, this essay will also focus on the condi- tion of the sign i.e., the essential gap out of which these categories emerge to be monitored by the Derridean concept of differance. Thus, I will examine the recent texts of Roland Barthes for they exhibit both aspects of the sign: on the one hand, the overevaluation of the binary sign, functioning as an object-fetish and related to what Barthes has called plaisir,2 and, on the other, the notion of jouissance which decenters the entire narrative structure (Derrida's grammato- logical project), making visible a primordial lack at the center of existence (the Lacanian beance) which defines the sign as nothing more than a legible, albeit unavoidable tool. The main objective of this essay, therefore, will be to relate Barthes's notion ofplaisir andjouissance (developed in the Pleasure of the Text3) to two different types of visual signs. Consideration will be given first to a metonymized visual structure functioning as object-fetish and already mentioned by Barthes in his "Diderot, Brecht and Eisenstein."4 Discussion will then focus on the second type of visual signs (i.e., jouissance), exemplified in Barthes's renewed romance with the letter. This is the Roland Barthes known as the "letter man," the one who exposes the subject's otherness by playing the alphabet game, by confessing to "fautes de frappe" (RB, pp. 100-1, [English, 96]), and by slipping from S to Z in a recurring metathesis. It is the Barthes who states in Fragments d'un discours amoureux that only one letter can separate truth from death and who gives as an example Emeth, the servant who dies when the E of Meth is erased turning Truth (Emeth) into Death (Meth): "The truth is what, being taken away, leaves nothing to be seen but death" (FDA, p. 230).5 The issue that will be raised in the course of this paper, therefore, relates man's visual apparatus to a form of knowledge which allows him to see and to know (voir-savoir) through the infinite process of his phantasm.6 In the course of the argument, it should become apparent that a semiotic investigation which focuses on the condi- tion of existence of visual signs is, indeed, meeting the epistemological challenge incumbent upon the semiotic project. Sub-Stance N? 26, 1980 68

Barthes's Visual Concerns

With the writings following I'Empire des signes, Barthes has shown an increased preoccupation with language used as a spatial configuration, a place where the subject is lured into the specularity of an earlier narcissistic bond ("the double Image of the lover and of his other." [FDA, p. 99]).7 Central to Barthes's preoccupation is Lacan's notion of beance, the original lack experienced by the child through the loss of a gratifying experience such as the separation of the child from the mother's womb at birth. It is the notion of beance that informs the dialectics of desire for the other and its sublimation through symbolic forms. Thus, in emphasizing the visual aspect of language, the Barthesian text specifically designates the place of the other as the site of a loss.8 One thing is certain: Barthes's emphasis on the visual aspect of language has resulted in an elaborate coding of a rhetorical analysis which exploits both the Derridean and Lacanian view of the printed letter. As a material entity, irreducible to semantic or phonetic functions, it is approached from the side of the body where language is traversed by drives and libidinous energy. As it surges forth from the libido, this force disrupts the ongoing narrative and releases the tension needed to maintain it. Libidinous drives are thus channelled into a pleasurable act, and fragmentary discourse is turned into an object of pleasure.

Barthes's text actually contain two objects of pleasure each of which produces two different groups of visual signs. The first object is based on the notion of plaisir. It relates to the identification of the social subject with his culture and is inscribed in the integration of the Ego into its society. The text of plaisir "comes from culture and does not break with it, is linked to a comfortable practice of reading." (PT, p. 14)9 Plaisir is the result of the investment of psychic energy in a fetishized object oftenjust a form; it is a way to fill the absence, the lack of Being, generated by the primary repression. In Fragments, Werther's glance arrested on the framed image of Charlotte, receives "the full fetishistic load and becomes the sublime substitute of meaning."'l Similarly, a single utterance excessively repeated-"je t'aime, je t'aime"-, and the numerous holophrases and tauto- logies which are interspersed throughout the text should be interpreted as acts producing pleasure "... .the word can be erotic (...) if it is extravagantly repeated." (PT, p. 42)11 But plaisir, says Barthes, is "logothete." Repetitions reside within a fortified, closed system, and are used to protect the subject's cultural scheme. As a result, the body is sacrificed to fetishism.

The second object of pleasure resides within the undifferentiated space of infinite semiosis where a term is its simple opposite, and where self becomes other, caught up in a continuum of self-reflections. Without discrete representa- tions to nominate sameness and difference, all distinctions (inside/outside, subject/object, linguistic reality/phantasm) are blurred, and the criterion for signification is of another order than that used when a text submits to the constraints of linguistically assignable or assigned terms. For example, in S/Z, Sarrasine's narcissistic love for La Zambinella has lured him into this space of sameness. He has created her as his own symmetrical opposite and, by loving her, it is himself with whom he is in love. Furthermore, by loving a castrato, the mirror image which is reflected back to him is that of his own castration. Sarrasine's refusal to view La Zambinella as a real other; hence his disregard for the

69

Betty McGraw

difference between himself and La Zambinella ("the distance between himself and La Zambinella has ceased to exist" [S/Z, p. 239])12 is what eventually leads to his destruction.

Jouissance, therefore, is not designated by discourse and does not relate to cultural identity. Instead, it is grounded in the figural space of the text, in the plasticity of writing, and is produced by an energetic force which liberates the organic being, the seminal fluid, and leaves the subject with a sense of loss. The text ofjouissance is "one that imposes a state of loss, the text that discomforts (...), unsettles the reader's historical, cultural, psychological assumptions, the consistency of his tastes, values, memories, brings to a crisis his relation with language." (PT, p. 14) 13 Another way to put it would be to say that whileplaisir is slave to the subject's ego,jouissance, on the other hand, is a pure manifestation of the id.

While the text of plaisir "obsessively repeat[s] the letter," that ofjouissance "hysterically affirm[s] the void." (PT, p. 22)14 Literary criticism, says Barthes, "always deals with the texts of plaisir, never the texts ofjouissance." (PT, p. 21) 5 But what characterizes the subject of Barthes's discourse, however, is that he is astride the two notions of pleasure: "he enjoys the consistence of his selfhood (that is his [plaisir]) and seeks its loss (that is his [jouissance]). He is a subject split twice over, doubly perverse." (PT, p. 15)16 Barthes's texts, therefore, thematize the chiasmic relationship between plaisir andjouissance.

Just as psychoanalysis has exposed the erotic body of man, Barthes is exposing the erotic body of the text, and the value that he has ascribed to the notion of plaisir andjouissance in his recent writing calls for an expansion of the concept of the text and the implementation of a new aesthetics. The two notions of pleasure are used as critical tools to keep the entire text from being overcome by norms and taxonomies. As an antidote to our illusion of objectivity, Barthes has created a text which allows him to return to the question of bodies for "we have several of them [bodies]; the body of anatomists and physiologists, the one science sees or discusses: this is the text of grammarians, critics, commentators, philologists (the phenotext). But we also have a body of [jouissance] consisting solely of erotic relation, utterly distinct from the first body: it is another contour, another nomination." (PT, p. 16)17 With this significant gesture, Barthes is giving the text a "human form"; it is a "figure," an "anagram of the body"; at once the Ca (id) and the Sa (the signifier) of our erotic body, irreducible to the logic of traditional criticism.

The play on the words Ca and Sa (the "ca du corps") engenders a multiplicity of figures, polyvalent inscriptions on the body. Instead of following the inherited Cartesian method which consists in ascribing truth and being to a conscious subject, Barthes ascribes the "truth" of being to a subjct whose phantasm allows him to see and to know (voir-savoir) through the infinite rearrangement of its signifiers.18 Once the visual apparatus is set into place, the body metaphor becomes an exploration of the libidinal constitution of sight and vision and the entire discourse tips into a reflexion on the effects of psychic energy on the graphic aspect of language, on how it follows the contours of its metaphors, altering its forms, with gaps and parentheses, and giving discourse a different

70

Barthes's Visual Concerns

value: the subject then "cuts himself off from the world, he unrealizes it (....); he surrenders himself to the Image, in relation to which all 'reality' disturbs him." (FDA, p. 90)19

It has been suggested that Barthes's heightened sensitivity to the graphic and figurative potential of writing has literally driven him to turn the reading space of his language into a visual one: "I have a disease: I see language (.. .) I feel myselfa visionary and a voyeur of language" (RB, p. 164, trans. mine). 2 Usingan abundant image-repertoire, Barthes manages to pass off fragments of his discourse as visual signs: "One goes from a linguistic space which is the space of reading i.e., of listening and of understanding, to a visual space, that of painting, of seeing. The eye no longer apprehends aurally; it desires through the act of looking."21 In relating the notions of plaisir and jouissance discussed above to Barthes's visual concerns, one should therefore keep in mind Laplanche's state- ment that "the visual apparatus is the site of a conflict between two functions: a function of self-preservation and a function of sexual excitation."22 Barthes's texts can thus be approached with an optic pencil, making possible detours and visual expansion. The forty-some pages of annotated photographs prefacing the RolandBarthesparRolandBarthes and the Girodet tableau of Endymion which graces S/Z suggest that the text no longer belongs to a readable space but to one that is seen and experienced by a subject as he takes his pleasure. When, in Fragments, Barthes speaks about Goethe's young Werther falling in love with that part of Charlotte that is "framed by the door of her house," (FDA, p. 192) 23 he describes, in a marvelous way, how the image of Charlotte (is it her silhouette? her form? the air she assumes?) responds to the lover's pleasure: "this loved body" ("ce morceau de corps") with which Werther falls in love has the vocation of a fetish and its pleasurable vision is compulsively repeated in the absence of the desired object.

"The first thing we love is a scene." (FDA, p. 192)24 Could this be the primal scene, the one that initiates desire, "a way of taking pleasure without the risk of having children" (FDA, p. 205)?25 Is this how, on the cover ofFragments, the cut- up scene, "Tobias and the Angel," functions? Undoubtedly, it is a visual metaphor of the text of plaisir. Both the framing and the fragmentation of the scene relate to the Lacanian mirror stage in which the aesthetic organization is often designated as play: scenes, episodes, are so many perfect moments of continuous jubilation which are not integTated into a "superior" organic level. Plaisir, then, "would be matched with the divided-up text, the singling out of quotations, formulae, turns of phrase, with the pleasure of the word." (PT, p. 63)26 Inasmuch as we are workingwith a visible text, Barthes makes it possible for us to pass from linguistic reality to phantasm and from discourse to its otherness.

If language can project the other away from the self, nevertheless, it cannot destroy it. The lesson Mallarme has already taught us in Un coup de des and Igitur, is that the otherness of language exists in its spatial configuration and that it is not one of meaning but one of visibility. Here, the signs of writing, unlike the spoken word, offer a visible trace of the other's presence, the beloved object that remains

71

Betty McGraw

silent.27 But "if the 'other' does not speak (.. .) he inscribes somethingwithin each of those who desire him." (FDA, p. 79)28 That "something" that Barthes is talking about is inscribed on the body of the text in letters and words which double and wink at one another. The body is positioned astride two boundaries, plaisir and jouissance. To pass from one to the other, one must cross over the castrative bar, the bar which, in S/Z, separates the sinuous, soft curves of the S from the angular, razor-sharp lines of the Z. In the transition from plaisir tojouissance, Barthes has substituted for the extravagance of repetition the euphoria of alphabetical writing. Sarrasine, La Zambinella, and even Roland Barthes have become acronyms and the names of the authors Barthes quotes in Fragments are referred to by their initials only. The broken-up visible "alphabetisme" (alphabetical writing) has violated the plenitude of language and has exposed the metaphoric bond between letter and body: "the alphabet must be broken up to the advantage of superior rule: that of a breach (heterology): to keep a meaning from'taking'." (RB, p. 148)29

The alphabetical mode of writing inaugurates a configuration in which gaps, empty forms, and silences are made visible. In the text ofjouissance, the emphasis is no longer on the semantized terms of the system but on the "form" of the void which exists between them.30 As a system of representation, language cannot speak aboutjouissance; it cannot even designate it, forjouissance surges forth from the typographical blanks of alphabetism which are the visible exterior of the letter of insistence. A text, says Barthes, can never speak aboutjouissance, for it is "unspeakable, inter-dicted. (.. .) (What one must bear in mind, is that [jouissance] is forbidden to the speaker, as such, or else that it cannot be spoken except between the lines.") (PT, p. 21 my emphasis)31

The "form" ofjouissance (it has to be a "form" since it is neither a phonetic nor a semantic part of language), which is inscribed in the spatial configuration of language, is that of a figure. And while images and figures share the same matrix of signification, the same configuration, the passage from one to the other is easily explained: a figure is the loss, the exterior space of the signifier which exceeds the recognizable form of the image (RB: "la figure excede le corps"). Figures, says Barthes, are necessary tojouissance: "figuration [is] the way in which our erotic body appears (to whatever degree and in whatever form that may be) in the profile of the text." (PT, pp. 55-56)32

The ever-changing relationship of image to figure, of plaisir tojouissance, creates a deferment mechanism which is grounded in an erotic substratum of desire for the absent other. Barthes's increased addiction to alphabetical writing is in direct proportion to his desire to expose the otherness of discourse as a force which ruptures the authority of language. This force is the other's desire and is situated in a delaying pause which allows the subject to manipulate absence stretching it out as long as he can, so as to retard the moment when the other will inevitably topple from absence into death.

It is on the side of the letter, therefore, that the otherness of discourse surges forth, and the metaphoric bond that Barthes has established between letter and body is already apparent in his preface to the alphabet of fashion designer Erte.33

72

Barthes's Visual Concerns

Overturning the Saussurian binarism (acoustic image/concept) with a sign which depends almost exclusively on its graphic qualities, Barthes doe not use letters to compose words (". . .who could feel like writing a word with Erte's alphabet") but to show the autonomy of an alphabetism independent of phoneticism.34 Barthes's infatuation with alphabetical writing stems from a long-standing human obsession which consists in illustrating letters of the alphabet with human figures. Sometimes, a combination of human and animal figures, known as mythological chimera, are used; at other times the human figures assume erotic positions, further indicating that the place of jouissance in the text is situated within the bodily dimension of the letter. The problematic nature of the insistent letter has led to a recent influx of intertextual writings, many of which have ingeniously revealed Barthes's own letter code.35 Leaving these aside, the reconstruction of jouissance in the Barthesian text would not adequately be carried out if it did not extend to S/Z.

S/Z is a specular narrative in which the Z ofjouissance, not the S of plaisir stubbornly insists, turning the algorithm into an elegant graphic emblem of discourse and its otherness. Z, the evil letter, the sign of death, morbid and cutting stands as the inverted mirror image, the otherness of the curvaceous S. S/Z is Sarrasine, separated from La Zambinella by the bar of castration, that specular surface which reflects a difference (S vs. Z) so itemized, so imperceptible, as to make that difference akin to similarity. And, unaware of Lacan's schematics, Sarrasine mistakes the absolute Autre for the undifferentiated autre. Thus failing to see the difference, Sarrasine's narcissistic love for La Zambinella culminates in his destruction: having lifted the castrative bar, he has toppled into death, into obscenity.

What Sarrasine mistook for similarity however contained a difference-an otherness-that language can never destroy. The insistent letter, the "excessive marks" is permanently inscribed in our discoure. Thus, in turning his text into alphabetical writing, Barthes perpetuates the crucial practice of Derridean deconstructivism. Furthermore, his gesture is not merely marginal-an unavoidable consequence of his emphasis on the fragmentary-, for letters which make up the visible text are comparable to a "textile whose knots would not say anything but for the holes that it holds."36

In spelling SarraSine with an S instead of a Z Balzac, contrary to the rules of French onomastics, may have temporarily succeeded in hiding the bad letter, the letter of deviance. It is interesting to note that whereas Balzac avoids using the term "castration" as something which cannot be named, Barthes's text every- where proclaims it as the essence of a problem which leaves the question of sexuality open. By the same token, if Girodet's painting portrays an Endymion which embodies "chaste love andi flaccied penis,"37 the text reminds us that the portrait was done after Vien, itself after a copy of Sarrasine's statue of that obscene object of desire. While, we may not wish, publicly, to cross over "the slash of censure, the surface of the mirror, the verge of antithesis, the abstraction of limit, the obliquity of the signifier, the index of the paradigm, hence of meaning," (S/Z, p. 107)38 nevertheless, as critics, we would be wise to remember

73

Betty McGraw

that, just as the dynamics of insistence of Z awaits Sarrasine, the otherness of discourse (the "excessive mark," the insistent letter) forever weaves its way into the very texture of our language.

Kansas State University

NOTES

1. The first component of "erotographics," a word which I have made up, is easy to recognize. As to its second component, it is derived from graphein to mean both something written, carved, and the instrument which transmits the writing or makes the carving.

2. I have decided to retain the original French termsofplaisirandjouissancethroughoutthis essay. This is mostly because jouissance, unlike plaisir, is almost impossible to translated into an English equivalent.

3. Acronyms will make it possible to avoid a proliferation of entire titles: Fragments d'un discours amoureux (Paris: Le Seuil, 1977) (English translation by Richard Howard [New York: Hill and Wang, 1978]) will hereafter be noted as FDA; Roland Barthes par Roland Barthes (Paris: Le Seuil, 1975) (English translation by Richard Howard [New York: Hill and Wang, 19771), hereafter RB; Leiplaisir du texte (Paris: Le Seuil, 1973) (English translation by Richard Miller [New York: Hill and Wang, 1975]), hereafter PT; and S/Z (Paris: Le Seuil, 1973) (English translation by Richard Miller [New York: Hill and Wang, 1974]). All English quotes will be from the available English sources, unless otherwise noted. French quotes will be provided in the footnotes.

4. In Image - Music - Text, trans. Stephen Heath (New York: Hill and Wang, 1977), p. 72. 5. "La verite, ce serait ce qui, etant 6te, ne laisserait plus a decouvert que la mort." FDA, p. 272. 6. In "Menstruum universale (literary Dissolution)," Sub-Stance 21 (1978), Jean-Luc Nancy aptly

remarks that there is a kind of knowledge associated with images and perception (savoir-voir). "In retracing its etymological path, we come upon the whole primitive family of savoir, to know, in the sense of voir, to see: the Sandskrit Veda, the Greek eidos (the Platonic Idea), the Latin-Cartesian evidentia . . ." p. 24.

7. ("la double Image de l'amoureux et de son autre.") FDA, p. 115 8. It is interesting to note thatJulia Kristeva's theory of significance is also designated as the site of

loss and folds into Lacan's theory of desire. See Semiotike: Recherches pour une semanalyse (Paris: Seuil, 1969), p. 284.

9. "le texte de plaisir est celui qui vient de la culture, ne rompt pas avec elle, est lie a une pratique comfortable de la lecture." PT, p. 25

10. Image - Music - Text, op. cit., p. 72. 11. ". .. le mot peut etre erotique (.. .) s'il est repete a outrance." PT, p. 68 12. "Bien mieux, il n'existait pas de distance entre lui et la Zambinella." S/Z, p. 244 13. "celui qui met en etat de perte, celui qui deconforte (. . .) fait vaciller les assises historiques,

culturelles, psychologiques du lecteur, la consistance de ses gofits, de ses valeurs et de ses souvenirs, met en crise son rapport au langage." PT, pp. 25-6

14. "repete obsessionnellement la lettre (. . .) affirme hysteriquement le vide." PT, p. 38 15. "porte toujours sur des textes de plaisir,jamais sur des textes dejouissance." PT, p. 37 16. "iljouit de la consistance de son moi (c'est le plaisir) et recherche sa perte (c'est sajouissance).

C'est un sujet deux fois clive, deux fois pervers." PT, p. 26 17. "nous en [des corps] avons plusieurs; le corps des anatomistes et des physiologistes, celui que

voit ou que parle la science: c'est le texte des grammairiens, des critiques, des commentateurs, des philologues [c'est le pheno-texte]. Mais nous avons aussi un corps dejouissance fait uniquement de relations erotiques, sans aucun rapport avec le premier: c'est un autre decoupage, une autre nomination." PT, p. 29

74

Barthes's Visual Concerns

18. Elsewhere, I have discussed the significant contribution the visual apparatus can make on the subject's self-knowledge. See my "A chacun son cinema. .. ," forthcoming in Semiotica.

19. "le sujet se separe alors du monde, il l'irrealise (.. .), il se livre a l'Image, par rapport a quoi tout 'reel' le derange." FDA, pp. 106-7

20. "j'ai une maladie: je vois le language (.. .).Je me sens visionnaire et voyeur." RB, p. 164 21. "on passe de 1'espace linguistique, celui de la lecture, qui est celui ou l'on entend, a l'espace vis ael,

celui de la peinture ou l'on regarde. L'oeil n'ecoute plus, il desire."Jean-Francois Lyotard, Discours, Figure, (Paris: Klincksieck, 1974), p. 267. For additional references to this quote see the chapter, "Pseudographie de l'elaboration secondaire," pp. 261-271.

22. Jean Laplanche, Life and Death in Psycho-analysis, edited and translated by Jeffrey Mehlman (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976), p. 49.

23. "encadree par la porte de sa maison." FDA, p. 227 24. "Nous aimons d'abord un tableau." (FDA, p. 227 underlined in the text) 25. "une maniere de se donner du plaisir sans le risque de faire des enfants." FDA, p. 243 26. "s'accorde au texte decoupe, au morcellement des citations, des formules, des frappes, au

plaisir du mot." PT, pp. 99-100 27. "[Le sujet] toujours present, ne se constitue qu'en face de [l'autre], toujours absent," Fragments,

op. cit., p. 19. 28. "si 'l'autre' ne parle pas (. . .) il inscrit quelque chose en chacun de ceux qui le desirent." FDA, p. 94 29. "II faut casser l'alphabet au profit d'une regle superieure: celle de la rupture (de l'heterologie):

emp&cher qu'un sens 'prenne'." RB, p. 151 30. Cf. Lyotard, op. cit., pp. 53-72. 31. "in-dicible, interdite. (. . .) (ce a quoi il faut se tenir, c'est que lajouissance est interdite a qui la

parle, comme tel, ou encore qu'elle ne puisse etre dite qu'entre les lignes.") PT, my emphasis. 32. "la figuration [est] le mode d'apparition du texte erotique (a quelque degre et sous quelque

mode que ce soit) dans le profil du texte." PT, p. 88 33. Roland Barthes, Erti, (Parma: Franco Maria Ricci, 1970). English translation by William

Weaver, distributed in the United States by Rizzoli International Publishers. 34. For further references to this point, see Masin's Lettre et image (Paris: Gallimard, 1973). 35. In particular, see Tom Conley's "Catching Z's" New York Literary Forum, Vol. 2, "Inter-

textuality: new perspective in criticism," (1978) pp. 113-128; George A. Bauer's "Uomo di lettere - Lhomme Letre - B's XYZ Game," op. cit., pp. 139-158; alsoJane Gallop's "BS," VisibleLanguage, Vol. XI, No. 4 (Autumn 1977), pp. 364-387; Tom Conley's "BarthesExcs; The SilentApostrophe ofS/Z," op. cit., pp. 355-363; Steven Ungar's "From Writing to the Letter: Barthes and Alphabetese," op. cit., pp. 391-429 (Steve Ungar also edited this special issue on Roland Barthes in Visible Language).

36. "une textile ou noeuds ne diraient rien que des trous qui s'y trouvent." Jacques Lacan, "Radiophonie," 2/3 (Paris, 1970), in Jeffrey Mehlman, "The 'floating signifier': Levi-Strauss to Lacan," Yale French Studies, 48 (1972), p. 29; translated byJeanine Parisier Plottel, New York Literary Forum, special issue on "Intertextuality: new perspectives in criticism," edited by Jeanine Parisier Plottel, Vol. 2 (1978), p. 110.

37. Bauer, op. cit., p. 150. 38. "la barre de la censure, la surface speculaire, le mur de l'hallucination, le tranchant de

l'antithese, l'abstraction de la limite, l'oblicite du signifiant, l'index du paradigme, donc du sens" S/Z, p. 113

75