THE “GENERALIZED OTHER” AND THE “OTHER”: Simmilarities and differences between Lacan’s and Mead’s theory of constitution of subject

Između psihologije i psihoanalize od samih početaka traje antagonizam: psihoanaliza se štoviše s Freudom i uspostavlja kao opreka psihologiji, kojoj je po njemu sfera nesvjesnog ostala ‘skrivena‘˙. Prema tome, čini se da su dvije discipline međusobno kontradiktorne u samim svojim aksiomima, budući operiraju dvama različitim tipovima subjekta. No u ovom radu se ipak uspoređuju jedan socijalni psiholog-Mead i jedan psihoanalitičar-Lacan, te se nastoje uočiti sličnosti i razlike između njihovih koncepcija konstituiranja subjekta. Oba se teoretičara protive esencijalističkom shvaćanju subjekta, a glavnim procesom subjektiviranja smatraju jezički čin. Pri tome je rezultat tog procesa sasvim drugačiji, budući da Meadov subjekt stječe kreativnu i slobodnu osobnost, dok Lacanov subjekt i nastaje kroz proces otuđenja te ga karakterizira ‘nedovršenost‘, ‘kriva identifikacija‘ i sl. No u radu se nastoji pokazati da te razlike u shvaćanju prirode subjekta djelomično proizlaze iz različitih političkih nazora autora.Between psychology and psychoanalysis an antagonism has been existing from the very beginning; one could even say that psychoanalysis constituted itself in opposition to psychology, that, according to Freud, left sphere of unconscious ‘hidden‘. Therefore, it seems that these two disciplines remain contradictory to one another in their very axioms, considering that they‘re operating with two different types of subject. But in this paper, we will however compare one social psychologist-Mead with one psychoanalyst-Lacan, and try to notice the similarities and differences between their conceptions of constitution the subject. Both theorists disagree with essencialist concept of subject, and they consider language to be the main process of subjectivization. The result of that process is, however, totally opposite to one another, since Mead‘s subject gains creative and free personality, while Lacan‘s subject is created through the process of alienation and is ‘unfinished‘ and characterized by ‘wrong identification‘. This paper aims to show how these differences in conceiving the nature of the subject are partially a result of authors‘ different political attitudes