Foucault and Lacan:

The Gaze and its Operation within Historiography

PAULINE MORlN
Georgia Institute of Technology

The episteii~oIog!- of sight is one of the most important sources of tioii. Foucault's panoptic gaze ese~llplifiedI)>- Bentham's idealized
knowledge. Plato praised sight as the nlost esalted of the senses. prison and Lacan's gaze articulated in the "Mirror Stage" of huinan
Through sight kno~rletlgeand ~risdommight be attained.' Indeetl psychological tlevelopment have significant implications for archi-
the philosophical tern1 for theory comes from the Greek word for tectural historiographl-. Foucault's chapter on "Panopticsim" in
spectators. theatai.' Sonie philosophers argue that the culture of Discipliile R- P~llilisl~exposes the matrix of kiio~rlrdgea~itlp o w r
modenlit!; ant1 the discourse that has taken place sustaillecl 11ythe panoptic gaze that iilscril~esits doinination 011 docilr
within it. are domiilatetl h!- vision ant1 a paradigm of kno~rledge. hodies. Foucault denlollstrates kno~\-ledgethrough vision is never
tluth. aiid reality that is vision centered.' Hannah A i r e n dstates neutral and is extremel!. vulnerable to esploitation. Foucault i111-
that plies architecture is an elenieilt in the po~rer/kno~\-ledge matrix
through its complicit!- in the mechanisms of surveillance. The his-
fro111 the i-eq-outset. ill fonnal thiilliii~ghas 11eei1 ton- of a visual artifact is never a d o c u m ~ n t hut
a ~ ~a political iiarra-
thought of ill tern~sof seeing. .. The predoil~iilai~ce of sight is so tire.
deep]!- enlbedded in Greek speech. a i d therefore in our coi~c.ep-
tual lai~guage.that n-c selclom f i i ~ d
ail!- coilsideratioi~bestorr-ed
R7hile Lacan's critique of the scopic regime of moderilit! is much
oil it. as though it heloi~gedailioilg thiilgs too oh,-ious to he more difficult to connect to historiography it is just as significant.
i~oticed.~ Lacan has focused our attention on the reciprocit!- of the visual
realm in the formation of identity. Visual information is lie\-erneu-
In her 11ook "BodJ- Criticisni," Barbara Maria Stafford argues vi- tral. hut constmcted. h ~both- the subject who is a receiver and the
sual imager!- constitutes a new for111 of global communication. object or visual test that is in a sense transmitting. I will argue the
Whether this is vie~vedas a ~velcomeoccurrence or not. the image psychoanalytic approach with its correspoildi~l~ shift from the vi-
has become a for1nida1,le instrument of power. Modern visualiza- sual test or artifact toward the "spectator" or inore precisel!. towart1
tion technolog!- is predicated on the fact that half of our iieurologi- the spectator-test relations are central to the process of meaning.
cal machine17 is devoted to vision." and have much to contri1)ute to our uilderstantling of architectural
tliscourse. Iiewing visual tests. ~ r h e t l ~painting.
er film. architec-
Paradosicall!-. Stafford points out that the visual arts are da~nnedto
ture or televisioli in a spectator-test frame~vorksuggests a method
the bottom of the Cave of the humanities in that in '.today's test-
of critical anal!-sis that is both ancient aiid ver!- modern. I will
based cul~icula.senson- and affective phenoiiiena continue to be
argue that tlietech~~e of classical rhetoric is well suited to unveiling
treated as second-rate siniulations of second-class refle~tions."~
the persuasive effects within the spectator-test d!-nainic.'
Images are vie~vetlas misleading illusion ~vithoutthe guidance of
tliscourse. The tension between vision's al~ilit!. to enlighten. yet at However. before ending this paper with a discussion of rhetoric. I
the sanie time deceive. goes back to Plato. rllthough Plato praised will hegin with a discussion of Foucault. In his chapter 011
sight as gix-ing the clearest kno~rledgeof the natural ~vorldhe also "Panopticism" in Di,qcipli~le R- Pui~ish.Foucault describes the gaze
l~elievedthat appearances were suspect. Sight a1)ove the other beginning with measures taken b>-local authorities to combat the
senses lras most often deceiving. since what it sho~vedwas always spread of the plague. These measures are based on a system of
fleeting and incomplete.' su~veillance.spatial segregation. and record keeping. as well as
penalties. Foucault uses Bentham's Panopticon as the architec-
The work of hlichel Foucault and Jacque Lacan offer a critique to
tural realization of this system of sun~eillance. Foucault is clear
the ocularcentrism that is central to our culture. For Foucault the
that the Panopticon is not a dream huilding but a tliagram of a mecha-
modern gaze has joinetl forces with tec1inolog~-and technocracy.
nism of polrer reduced to its ideal forin. It is in fact a figure of
-'The gaze that sees is the gaze that dominates ant1 masters."For
political technolog!- that ilia!- ant1 must be detached from ail!- spe-
Lacan. the gaze is a11 important element in the constitution of the
cific use. It is polyvaleilt in its applications: it serves to reforxi1
self and like Foucault's gaze. is su11jec.t to doinillation and esploita-
prisoners. but also to treat patients. to instruct school chiltlren. to
co~~fiiiethe insane. to s u p e i ~ i s exvorkers. to put beggars and idlers
to work. It is a type of configuration of bodies in space. of distrihu-
tion of i~~dividualsill relation to one another. of hierarchical organi-
zation. of disposition of centers ant1 channels of power. ~vlziclzcan
be implemented in lzospitals. I\-orkshops. schools. and prisons.
%-henever one is dealing ~vitlza ~llultiplicit!of individuals on I\-lzom
a task or a particular for111of behavior nus st be imposed, the panop-
tic sclze~llamay he used.1°
Although Beiltlzamb Panopticon was used to illustrate hen- the pol\-er
of surveillance call operate. Foucault emphasizes that it is a meta-
phor. \\-here one call he seen from ail!- positioll and from multiple
points. One is aware of being seen but does ilot see \rho is doil~g
the looking. It is tlze effect that is impoi.tant. 111 the case of the
prison. the inmate is illduced into a state of conscious and pernla-
11e11tvisihi1it~-that assures the automatic functio~iiilgof pol\-er."
Accordii~gto Foucault ~vhoeveris subjected to a field of visihilit!.
and ~\-hoknows it. assullies responsibility for the coilstraints of power:
the suhject makes them splay spontaneousl!- upon itself: the suh-
ject inscribes in itself the power relation ill ~vhiclleach simulta-
neously plays both roles: the suljject hecoil~esthe principle of its
own subjection."
For Lacail the gaze penetrates the subject from all sides and is
similar to Foucault's in that as tlze sul~jecttries to adapt to it. the
subject becoa~estlze object. I11 his Four F u ~ i d a ~ u e ~Concepts
~tal
Lacan stresses not onl!- the otherness of the gaze. hut its distinct-
ness from what Lacan calls the ej-e. Although tlze gaze might he
said to he -'the presence of -'Others" it is not necessarily an!- indi-
vidual viewer. or group of viewers. It issues .'froai all sides." whereas
the eye "sees onl!- from one point." The gaze. moreover. is inipos-
sible to seize or get hold of.'"
The gaze I e n c o u ~ ~ t--you
e r can find this in Sartre's onn n-riting
- is not a see11 gaze, hut a gaze iinagiiled I?- me in the field of
the Other. It is for thin reasoll that le regard can illclude 11011-
r-isual ~ ~ h e n o ~like
a e ~the
~ ar u s t l i ~ ~
oflear-es.
g More in~portant.
the u11see11character of the gaze 111ea11tit n-as not necessaril!-
that of another subject l o o k i ~ ~ threateni~lg
g at the o r i g i ~ ~sulr-
al
ject. hut nlight rather he u~~clerstoocl as a ful~ctiollof the clesire
of the original suljject. the desire for the ohject a . .. I 4
The "ol?ject a " was LacanB term for the object of lack or the miss-
ing object tlzat will seemingly satisfy the drive for plentitude. "a"
being the first letter of the French word for "other" (l'autru~]. Ac-
cording to Lacan. at it's most fundamental level. it is the phallus
which the child (regardless of sex) ~vishesto be in order to make up
for the mother's alleged lack of a penis. From the moment that this
gaze appears. the subject tries to adapt to it.'"
Lacan's account of subjectivity was developed in the contest of a
fiction he called the "Rlirror Stage." There is a period in the child's
development between the ages of six and 18 montl~swhere the in-
fant is physicall!- ul~coordiilatecla~zdis !-et unable to walk or even
to stand up.I6 While in this state of po~rerlessness.the iilfai~tantici-
pates on the level of the imaginar! the Illasten of its o~vilbody.
\hen a clzilcl sees its image ill a mirror, it lllistakes this unified
1,-hole for a superior self." The nzirror call be tlze mother's face or
ail!-one perceived as a ~vlzole.'"Tlze child identifies \\-it11the nlirror
as sonrethiilg that both reflects the self and somethi~~g other and
filztls in it a kind of unit! that it cail~zotexperience in its o~\-nbody.
The infant internalizes this image as an ideal ego and this process
for~llsthe Ijasis for all other identifications. T\-Iliclzare imaginar!- in
principle.'"
Lacan's account of the "Rlirror Stage" elaborates the notion of
exteriorit! ~rlziclzis intenlalized h!- the subject. first in tlze "gaze"
of its mirror image and suljsequentl!- h!- parental imagoes. and later
in tlze for111 of a ~vholerange of cultural represei~tations.~'K h a t
Lacan tlesignates. as the "gaze" appears initiall!- external to the
suhject. first through the mother's look as it facilitates tlze "join" of
illfalit ant1 mirror. It is llluch later tlzat the subject might he said to
assume responsibilit?- for **operating"the gaze h!- "seei~lg" itself
I ~ e i i ~seen.
g Collsciousness. as redefined h!- Lacan. hinges not onl\-
upon the internalization but also upon tlze "elision" or suppressioil
of this gaze of oneself Leing seei~." \#-hat determined (the subject).
at tlze most profound level. ill the visible, remarks Lacan, "is the
gaze that is outside."""sillg a camera as a metaphor. Lacail states
that it is through tlze gaze that tlze subject enters light and it is from
the gaze that he or she receives its effects. Hence the gaze is the
instrument through ~vhichliglzt is embodied and through ~vhiclzthe
subject is pl~otograplzecl.'.~~
In his seminar. entitled "tlze Line and the Light." Lacail reformu-
lated his discussion with superimposed triangles to illustrate the
relationship bet^+-eel1 the eye and gaze. Tlze first triangle repre-
sents the position of the eye. signified by Cartesian perspectivalist
vision Alberti first described in Della pictnra. in which the viewer's
monocular eye was at the apes and the object at the opposite side of
the triangle. The image was on another line parallel to that side,
but halfi-a! hetween it and the eyetapes. The secolld triangle, that
of the gaze. put a point of light at the apes, the picture at the far
wall. and ~vlzatLacan called the screen half~vaybetween. Here tlze
suhject is placed not at the apes. hut at the midpoint. as if it were
an image on a screen in a generalized perceptual field. not a seeing
e!-e. This sulject. Lacan contended. "is caught, manipulated. cap-
tured in the field of vision.
Lacan's third diagraln explicitl!- collflates tlze image in diagram 1
with tlze screen in diagram 2. Lacall inverts and superimposes his
txvo visual triangles. The illterposition of tlze tx\-o planes created a
new figure in which the middle sections of both triangles. the image
ill that of the e!-e and the screen in that of the gaze, coillcided i11 the
for111 of a divided subject. At its center was an opaque line ver!-
different from tlze trailsparent ~vindo~v typical of the Albertian
subject's view on the ~ r o r l d . ' ~ F i g u r2)
e The "screen" is the image
or group of images through ~rhiclzidentit!- is constituted. Just a s
Lacan's i n f a ~ can
~ t see hi111 or herself onl!- through the inten~ention
of an estemal image, the gaze can "photograplz" the object only
through the grid of the screei~."~

The screen is the culturall!- generated image or repertoire of im-
ages through which subjects are not onl!- constituted. but also dif-
ferentiated in relation to class. race. sesualit!; age and national-
it!:6' As Kaja Silveriiian points out. the possihilit!- of "pla!-ing' with
these iinages then assumes a critical inlportailce for political resis-
tance." Lacan holds that the human subject is not entirel!- caught
up in this inlaginan- capture. The subject maps itself in it. A
person. in effect. knows 11o~vto play with the mask. as that beyond
~rhichthere is the gaze. The screen is the locus of mediation."'"
In "The Gaze in the Espanded Field." Nollnan Bn-son adopts Lacan's
concept of the screen and applies it to anal!-ze art.'"loreover. he
applies it in the coiltest of Foucault's discourse theor!: A discourse
for Foucault is a way in which kno~rledgeis articulated in societ!-
11:- the both institutional and private forms. Kno~vleclgeproduces
and trailsnlits power and influences social practices. ways of pro-
ducing meaning. and all types of control. Things have 110 iileailiilg
outside their discourse. and each discourse is apart of a wider net-
work of d i s c o ~ r s e s . ~ ~
Br!-son places his notion of the gaze ~rithinthe context of discourse.
According to Bi~son.for hunlan beings collectivel!- to orchestrate
their visual esperience the!- require socially agreed descriptions of
an intelligible ~vorld.Vision is socialized. An!- tleviation from this
social construction of visual realit!- can be nleasuretl and nanied as
I~alluciiiation.misrecognition. or "visual disturbance." Between
the subject and the I\-orld is inserted the entire sum of discourses
xvhich make up \-isualit!; that cultural construct. and make visualit?
different fro111vision. Bet~veenretina and world is inserted a screen
of signs. a screen consisting of all the multiple discourses 011vision
built into the social a r e i ~ a . ~This
' net~vorliis greater than its indi-
vidual agents or operators. -4s Br!-soil suggests when one learns to
speak. !-ou are insei-ted into a preexisting s!-stems of discourse.
Siiaiilaifi- n-hell you lean1 to see sociall!; tllat is. n-l~eilIhegiil to
articulate ill!- retiilal e.~perirllcercith the rorles olrreco~ilition
that co~aleto me froill illy soc'ial milieu. I ail1 ii~sertedillto 5 ~ s -
ten13 ofr-isualcliscourse that sarc- the rr-orldbeforeI rlirl. a1lc1n-ill
go 011seeing. that n-l~iche.xists i~ltlepeiltle~ltl!-ofnlr-lifearltl out-
.5itlr it: ill!- i~~rlir-idual
discor-eries. the fiildi~~gso f I]]!- e!-e as it
prohes tlirough the n-orltl. come to uilfolrl i l l ter111snot o f ni!-
i~~akilig. a i d i~lrlifferelltto i~lortalit!:~'
Br!-son notes h o ~ rthe paiilting "Aml~assadors".h>-Hans Holhein
eseinplifies the screen that nlol-tifies sight aild demonstrates "ev-
er!-thing I see is orchestrated with a cultural productio~lof seeing
that esists independe~itl!- of ill!- life ant1 outside it."" The viewer
standing directl!. in froilt of this painting will see the aml~assadors
as ~nastersof learning. in possession of all the codes of kno~rledge.
of science and of art. Ho~revertheir visual field is cut across )I!-
something the!- cannot master. the skull ~ r h i c hcasts itself side~rays
across their space, through ailan~orphosis."' (Figure 2) The scull
was meant to signif!- inan's mortalit!; hut is also a reminder of an
alternative visual order that the presence of the ohselver cannot
efface. Holl~einsuhvertecl and decentered the unified subject of
visioil coilstructetl h!- the dominant scopic regime. It illustrates
that the subject rho sees is no more the center of visual experience
than the subject of language at the center of speech."" The Ambas-
sadors was also used hy Lacan to demonstrate how the painting had
captured the gaze."' Vision unfolds to the side of, and tangent to.
the field of the other. And to that form of seeing Lacan calls seeing
under the gazc3'
.
Brl-son points out that Lacan's gaze marks a fui~daine~ital shift axray
froin a Cartesian perspectivalism. ~ v h i cwas l ~ dominated by a theon-
of vision in which tlie tiuth la! ill the retina. in the ph!-siology of the
of tlie optical apparatus. R? 1101\-understand
e!-e and the n e u r o l o ~
vision as social constl~~ction 1\-11ic11caii he manipulated for politi-
cal ends."Vt reveals h o ~ power r disguises and conceals its opera-
tions in visualit!: i11 in!-thos of pure forni. pure perception. antl cul-
turally universal vision. Lacan has tle~~ioiistrated that ~vhatwe see
is not natural 11ut constmcted. He has described tlie role of the
gaze in structuring both representation and identity. The rer!- con-
stitution of the self depends on this coiistruction and is highl!- rul-
i~erahleto it.
The work of Foucault and Lacan have had far reaching implica-
tions for historiograph!. in general antl architectural histoi2-in par-
ticular. Foucault has challenged tlie assumptions implicit in his-
torical method. the assumptions of objectivity aiid the 11iyth of the
..fact..'39
BP kiio~tnieaniiig is al~ra!s the product of interpretation. facts are
constructed h~ discourse and objecti~it! is a Ira! to mask self inter-
est b!- those in power. Even- historian "shapes" his materials ac-
cording to what Popper calls a "frame~vorkof precoi~ceireclicleas."'O
or in accordance ~ritlilzis o ~ r nnarrative strateg!.. ideology. or s!-s-
ten1 of ideas and values: Gada~iler~rouldcall thein prejudices. No
one approaches a test iii~~oceiitly. The historian. like an!- w-riter of
prose discourse fashions his materials. He ma!- fashion thein so as
to make them coi~forinto a "frame~vork of preconceived ideas." of
the sort that Popper ascribes to Hegel and h4ars. or he ma!- fashion
theill to a "preconceived selective point of view" of the sort the
novelist occupies in his function as the narrator of a story." Stories
of the founding of cities or states. of the origin of class differences
and privileges, of fundamental social trailsforillations h!- revolution
and reforin etc. are the subject matter of histor!; Levi-Strauss sug-
gests all such stories whether presented under the aspect either of
social science or histoil- partake of the mythical inasmuch as they
"cosn~ologize" or "naturalize" what are in realit!- nothing but hu-
nlan constructions which inight well be other than what the!- hap-
pen to he.'> Histoi?-. Levi-Strauss insists, is alv-a!-s ~rrittenfor a
specific social group or public?'
Foucault's influence on architectural h i s t o i ~xc-as immediate and is
pen-asive.-WHe has effected a shift in the wa!- histoi?. is constructed
and expanded the scope of its inquiryi' Foucault's challenge of
"origins." in favor of genealog!; his introduction of discourse and
6pisti.me have hecome commoi~place. The role of the scopic re-
gime in architecture is ackno~vleclgedand has been inve~tigatetl.'~
Architectural historians have also appropriated Lacan's coiitrihu-
tion to ps!-choanal!-sis through his notion of the gaze. Spaces are
110~soften described as pre-Oedipal" and analyzed in terins of the
gaze and spectatorship."' P!-chopathologies of urban space have
hecoine the subject of ps!-choarchitecural ai~al!-sis.~~
Ho.rve\ er. I believe Lacan's inore sigiiificai~tcontribution has been
adopted h! fill11 and communication theorists who have used the
ps! c l ~ o a n atic
l ~ appioach to shift the focus from the film oi artifact
towards the "spectator." or more plecisel! tonard the spectator-text
(or ohject-subject) relations. that are central to the process of mean-
ing-production in f i l i ~ ~ ? V o m m u ~ ~ i c aanalysis
t i o ~ i and inedia crit-
ics have turned to the discipline of rhetoric. to assist them in ana-
lyzing the test-spectator relation iniplicit i11 telerision ant1 film.
Because the central question in rhetoric is ~vlioare !-ou ti?-ing to
iilfluence ant1 hat is the lnost effective means of doing so. thv
autlience. or spectator hecomes central. Critics reat1 television
sl~o~vs,con~mercials.and movies as tests. to see ho.i\-discourse is
sti~~ctured aiid organized. and to examine what kind of effects these
forn~sand devices produce in their readers. vie~t-ers.or users. For
instance. a television conimercial can 11e anal!-zed rhetorically
tl~rougliinotle of address. fonii. style. antl other discursive tech-
niques and strategies to tliscover ho~\- atlvertisers use market re-
search into our values to gain our s!-inpathies ant1 ultimatel!- per-
suade us to hu!- their products.""
The ailcieiit discipline of rhetoric. ~vliich\\-as the received forin of
critical anal>-sisdeveloped I>!- the Greeks and continued to the eigh-
teenth centun- esaniined the wa!- discourses were constructed in
order to achieve cei-tain effects. TVhile the classical rhetorician
vioultl not have had access to niarket research he or she ~vouldhave
1)een a keen observer of the human condition and ~voultlhave ver!-
carefull!- considered mode of address, forin. style ant1 their effect
on an intended audience. Its objects of enquin- could he spoken or
~vritten.poetry or philosoph!; fiction. historiography ant1 the ai-ts.
Leo11 Battista Alberti used his kno~vledgeof classical rhetoric in
his discourse on the arts and architecture and eventually to design
l~nildiiigs." Rhetoric's horizon caii estencl to the entire field of
discursive practices in society as a whole. and in identifying forins
of pols-er and performance." Architecture is a rhetorical artifact
that identifies and appeals to certain audiences. It has the power to
enlighten or inhibit. restrain or empower. foreground certain groups
and I-~ackgroundothers. Since rhetoric has al.rva!-s focussed on the
spectator-test operation, it is a particularl!- useful tool in critical
historiograph!;
Lacan and Foucault's critique of our ocularcentric culture is a coii-
tinuation of an ancient tension bet~veenthe epistemolop of vision
aiid its interpretation. Ailciei~tphilosophers realized that sight was
the inost important source of knowledge yet distrusted visual infor-
illation. Foucault este~itlsthe critique of the epistemolog!- of vision
hy esposiiig its operations through the gaze in the pol\-erlknolvl-
edge inatris. Lacan ulipacks the effects of the gaze in tlie forination
of identity and h!- focusing on the importance of the reciprocity
iniplicit in le regard for tlie subject-test relationship. has made a
significant contribution to historiographj-. Foucault's concept of
discourse and Lacan's ilotioii of the screen remiild us that all his-
torical sources are co~~structions, interpretation is never neutral but
screened 11)- ideologies or frame\vorks. Intel-pretation is all\-a!-s
pai-tial, polarized and necessaril!. provisional. I would like to end
this paper hj- returning to the Greek notion of spectator and theory
as elaborated hy the pl~ilosopherDiogenes. Diogenes believed "life
is like a festival: just as some conle to the festival to compete. some
to ply their trade. hut the best people coine as spectators (thratai]."5"
The iiobilit!- of the spectator lies in their "active nonparticipation."
allo~vingtheill to judge the actors involved i11 the competition.
Histor>-might he compared to the con~petitionthat draws those ~ v h o
come to plj their trade. or compete for fa111eor search for truth. I
nould agree with Diogenes that tlie best historians come as "active
nonpal-ticipants."jJ as spectators xbho understand their role in the
rvorld of the spectated.
NOTES
'Dal-id 5ummcrs. The J i ~ c I ~ e ~ ~of~Sernn ts r iCaml~riclgr:Caml)riclgr Unitersit!
Press. 1987): 32.
'Peg Birminglia~n. Hannah A ~ r n d t :The .1ctint! of the Spectato~..' in >it?< of
liiio11. rtl. Dax-irl hlichael Lenn (hlIT Press: Caml)~iclge.19971: Birniing-
hani 1s tliscussing Arentlt'. untlerstantling of the term tlieon. She cjuotes
her quot~ngDiogeneq '-L~feis l ~ k ea festival: just a. o n l e come to tire Sesti-
\dl to c o ~ i ~ p e tsoliir
r. to pl! their trade. 11ut the best people come as specta-
tors (tlieatai). so in life the sla\ish men po hunting for fame (tloxal or gain.
the philosophers Sor truth." The nol~ilit! of the sprcators lies in their ..ac-
tixe nonparticipation." allol~ingthem to jutlgr the actors inrolxrd in the
competition, Tlie concern for fa~iiror opinion makes the actor in the e\ent
tlependent on the speclator's judgment. It is tliroi~gl~ t l ~ eol)i~iio~i
of the
audience antl the judge that fame conies about.
'Dal-it1 Rlicliael Lei-in .'lierp~ngFoucault anrl Drrritla in Sigli~." in Site,. of
li-ion (Cambritlge: RIIT Press. 19971: 100
+Hannah Arentlt. The Lifr of the lfirld (Nev IbrL: Harroull Erace Javeno\ich.
1978): 110-111.
'Earl~arahlaria Stafford. Borl! Cliticiqn~(Cambridge: hlIT Press. 19911: 475
"Ibid. p. 2.
- -.
,hu~nmers.p. 12.
'Foucault. Birth of tllr Clinic. p. 39.
'.Aristotle, The .Art of Rhetoric. trans. H.C. Larrson-Tancretl (London: Penguin
Books. 1991): 14-16. B! classif!ing rhetoric as a trcl~rle.Aristolle Iras lo-
cating it in a philosophical landrcape antl giving it a stnicture of its orm.
He makes clear the central purpose of rhetoric is the detection in an! g i ~ e n
subject matter its persuasixe aspects. Rhetoric is given a universalit! that
gi\es it an affinit! nith tlialectic.
'°Foucault. Diaciplinr a ~ l t Pl u n i h . trans. .Alan Sheritlan (Pie\\- I o r l : L intage
Books. 1979): 205.
"Il~id.p. 202.
"ll~icl. p.203.
"Kaja Sil\~ermaii..'Fasshinder and L.acan: A . Reconsirleration of Gaze, Look
ant1 Image." Ca111rw O b s c ~ ~ 1l a9 tJul! 1991): p. 59. Silverman argues that
feminist filni tlieor! ~rllicliequates tlie malr \o! eur ~{itli
the gaze. She points
out that it is at precisel! the moment hen the e!e is placed to the Le!hole
that it is likel~estto find iself sul~nrclinatedto tlie gaze. It 1s at this moment.
~rhichLacan obsrr\etl that the sul>ject finds ithelf disturl~ed,sulprised h!
the gaze. and reduced to shame
"Rlartin Ja). D o ~ < n c ~E!,rs
~ > t (Berlele!: Universit! of California Press. 1994):
362.
"Ibid.
"Jacques Lacan. Eelits. trans. Alan Sheridan (Nen Iork: IXIK. Norton. 1977):
1.
"Ibid. p. 2 Lacan state> that the total fomi of the bod! -!,I \\-h~chtlie su1,ject
ant~cipatesin a mirage the maturation of his power is given to him onl!- as
Gestalt. that is to sa!. in an exteriorit! In ~\Iiiclithis form is certainl! more
constituent that constituted. 1,ut in ~tiiirhit appears to Iiim ahove all in a
contrasting size lun relief de stature) that fixes it and in a symmetr! that
Inverts it. 111 contrast ~ r i t hthe turbulent movements that the subject feels
are animating him.
"J. Laplanche and J. B. Pontalis. T11r Langirape of Ps! cl1o-.411al~si~, trans ( N e ~ r
L r b : Donald Nicholson. 1973):250. I llare relied on Laplanche and Pontalis
repeatetll! to translate Lacan's notoriously obscure ciiscourse.
'?5a1icI! Flitterman-Leuis. .'Ps!clioanal!his. Film. ant1 Telelision." in Chan-
11e1-of Diacou~.ce.R e a s ; e ~ ~ ~ h liCIiaprl
ed Hill: Universit! of North Caroline
Press. 1992): 208.
''Jacqueline Rose. Se.~ualit! ill tlir Firld of l i s i o ~(London:
~ Verso, 1986): 53.
Rose points out that Lacan is careful to stress tliat niisrecognition is not
restricted to the fieltl of the visible alone. but tlie mirror should be under-
stood a s an ol3ject ~\hiclireflects - not just the \isible. but also r\liat is
heard. touclietl and ~\illed!I, tlie child.
"I<aja Silvernian. "Fasihintler ant1 Lacan: -1Reconsideration of Gaze. Look
antl Image." Cao~rfiiObsrura 19 (Jul! 1991): 57.
"Il~icl.
"Jacque Lacan. Four F ~ r ~ ~ c l , i ~ ~C~oe~nltcael p tof~ Ps! cllo-~4nal~sii.
trans. Alan
Sheridan ('V;IX. Norton: Neu I d . 1978): 106.
'?'Ja!, 1). 365.
"Sil~ernia~i.11. 76,
'61bld.
'-Ihid.
'"Nornian Bi? so11. "The Gaze in the E ~ ~ a n c l rFieltl."
d Il.qion an(,' I?soalit!. ed.
Hal Foster (Seattle: Ba! Press. 1988): 87-108.
"Rlichel Foucault. Tllr 4 r c ~ / 1 a r o l ctjf
~ ~lil1011
, ~ l e ( / y alld Tllr D i c o u r s r 011 Ldn-
guiigr. trans. -1.31. Sheritlan Smith ( N e ~ tIorL: Pantheon 6001;s. 1972): 33.
Foucault descriLes the tl~scursivefield of metlicine. "It T\-as no lonaer a
group oftraclit~onh.ohserlations. and lieterogeneouh practices. but nf a cor-
pus of kno~rledgethat presupposetl tlie same !\a! of looking at things. the
same divis~onsof tlie perceptual fieltl. tlie same and!-s~sof tlie patllological
fat in accordance ~ r i t htlie visible space of tlie bod!. the same s!-stem of
tra~~scribinp ~rliatone percei~etlin \\hat one said (same xorabulai?. same
pla! of metaphorl: in short. it seen1 to me that metlirine lras organized as a
series of descriptive statements."
3111,~tl.p. 92.
"Ibid.
"Ibid.
"Lacan used the .\nibassadors to illustrate the gaze. Using a technique called
anamorphosis an extreme case of perspectixe, where tlie viewpoint is at the
side. and near the plan. of the picture itself. W-hen vie~tedfrom this point or
as a reflection of a cun-ed mirror. the image returns to normal. Alison Cole.
Per.spectir e (London. 19921: 32, 33. Spectators \ iev ing the Ambassadors
must simpl! tlisroxer the improbable ~ ~ e ~ v p o-i nabout
t 6 112 feet to the
right of thr edge of the painting. at the e!e level of the two ambassadors -to
unscramble the skull image and so understand its syn~bolicmeaning.
"Ihid. 93.
'"Lacan. Four Fur~danirntalConcepts. p. 89. Tlie scull nlaLes visible the sub-
ject as annihilatetl.
"Br!.son. p. 94.
'"I~id. p. 107.
'"Peter Novick. That .\ohlr D l m n ~ :The "Ol~jectil-it! Questio~~"ancl the Inleri-
ca11 Historical Profrssio~~.In his ambitious book No\ick traces tlie delelop-
ment ant1 impo~ianceof the niytli '.ol~jectivit!" to the American Historical
Profession antl diacurses Foucault-s challenge to this concept.
+'Hayden Fliite. i\letahistol? : T l ~ eHistolical Ijl~apinationIn I-il~rtre~l-Centu~?.
Europr (Baltiu~ore:John Hopkins University Press, 1973): 102.
"Rlanfredo Tafi~ri.Tlie 5phrl.r ancl the Lal)!rinth (Cambridge: The hlIT Press,
1987): 3-21 Tahri's book Traa published in Italian in 1980. Tafuri dis-
cusseq the implication, of both Foucault and Lacan to architectural liistor~.
"Foucault's challenge of .-origins." in favor of genralog!. his introduction of
discourse and episteme. lime hecome commonplace.
".Alice T. Frietlman, "Arcliitecture. Authority. and the Female Gaze: P l a n ~ ~ i n g
antl Rrpresentation in the Earl! hlodern Countr! House," s s e n ~ b l a g e18
(1992): 53. She uses Lacan's notion of the' gaze' to focus on tlie role of
xisualit) antl r i s ~ o nin the creation of categories that create identitles and
confer authorit! antl pol\-erlessness.
'-Beatriz Colomiiia. Pri1.a~).alld Puhlicitr: ~llooderl~
4rl1itecttu.e as .Ifas,<.)fedis
(Cambridge: The RlIT Press. 1994): 9 Colomina debcrihes the modern trans-
forlnatio~iof the house produced b!- spaces defined b~ ~ i a l l sof (mo\-ing im-
ages). This i3 the space of media. of publicit>-of spectatorship.
x,.\nthon! Titiler. %>rped Space: . k t . Arcl~itecturr.dl10 .411,xiet,1i l l Ilodn.11
Colt[ll-e (Cambriclge: The hlIT Press. 2000)
"Sa~id! Flitternidn-le~iis.p. 210.
"Rlike Bucld. Stele Craig and Cla! Steinman. Collslrr~li~~p El11iro11111e11t.s:Trlr-
I i?ioll and Conlale~.cidICultirre (Nen Brunsv ick: Rutgrrs Uni\ erslt! Presh.
19991: 100.
"Hanna H. Gra!. "Renaissal~ceHumanism: The Pursuit Of Elor~uencr." JOLII-
lid1 of the Hirto1-r of l!lee. 101. NNI\; No. 4 iDec. 1963): 506. Tlie humanists
applied to their anal!-sis of man! dibciplinrs the ideas of the \ocaItnlar! of
rhetoric. I l t e i t i . fbr instance. adapted the t e a c l l i l ~ ~ofs ancient rhetoric to
the Ihrmulatioti of an 'art' of pa~nting. 111 their d i ~ c . u i ~ i o nofs the 'art' of
histor!. Reliaisba~lcelli~~iiallistn i~tilizedrhetorical doctrines in descril~ing
tlie structure and purposes of liistorical ~rritingand defined Iiibtoi~rtitili~l
tlie cla~sificatroliof elocluence. The humanlits also aas~milatrdthr con-
cepts of rhetoric to pl.ecepts of another nature. The term, -'decol.tri~l" ancl
.-i~nitatio."for example. are central in both rhetoric antl moral philosopli!.
antl the huoianists often appear to fuse their meaning \\-hatever tlie context.
Tliiis. tlie imitation of st!listir and of ethical model> are spoken of In itlen-
tical terms: o r the idea of alrc-a!-s speaking appropriatel!. of suiting s t d e
and manner to subject. ai~n.and audience is treated a s the exart analogur of
l~eha\-ingx~itlidecori1111. of clioosi~igtlie actions and responses which are
11e~till har111011~uith and most appropriate to incli~idual chararter ancl prin-
ri~tleson the one hand. the nature of rirrumstances on the other, p. 506.
"Ter~) Eagleton, Literal? Tlieol:: .All I~ltrotluctio~l.2"" edition. ihlinneapolis:
Tlie Unilersit! of hlinnesota Press. 1996): 179 Eagletoii propoi.e\ rhetorical
anal!sis of .discur.sl\e practices' replate literal.! tlieon. T\-liiclih e lie!\-s a.
an illusion.
"Refer to fbotnote 3.
"Leo Braud!. The Frellz? of Reno~i-11iNru 1-ork: \-intag? Bookb. 199;): 33.
Diogeiies kiieu a little about life ancl I,! extension liistoriograph! and a lot
allout power. K h e n .\lesantler the Great \\as in Corintli. lie nent to visit tlie
Diogenrs and found l1i111 sitting under a tree. .ilesander lefi l ~ i ,m i l ~ t a ~ - \
r,>cortto ap1)roac.h Diogenes ant1 aiLed hini nhat he could do for him. bta!
out of the Ira!. Diogenes said. Jou're Itlocking the sun. The soltler* \\ere
horrified. especting one of .\lesantler's fhmous outl~urstsof anger. But
.lle\antler just laughed antl remarked that if he Irere not l e x a n t l e r . lie
~roultllike to he Diogenes.