The beings who speak are always married: married to their partner but also to their symptom, the object of their fantasy and the repetition that they command, their identifications, and the characters to which they are attached. To make an analysis makes it possible to perceive it and to consent to it or not, once one accepts to want what one wishes. The partner can be reintegrated in his place or dislodged to be replaced by another more consistent with the new coordinates of enjoyment of the subject. Plural marriages to signify their variety, their complexity.
But deep inside you, what makes you want to get married in the 21st century? Historians tell us that marriage, a religious and civil institution dedicated to the transmission of heritage, has gone through the ages to arrive at the same result almost unchanged and to be somehow delocalized. If the twentieth century changed history so that love was invited to this union, where most marriages were previously arranged, for many sociologists, this change was the main cause of the fall in interest for this union, this institution in the last decades of the last century. It was not necessary to marry to love each other, and the commitment dimension seemed to be more related to the possibility of making a child than to the alliance of two subjects.
This beginning of the 21st century seems to be marked by a renewed interest in marriage, as much a refuge against those engulfed by the degradation of the symbolic order as the celebration of the performative link in the context of the dissolution of ties. between speaking beings. Space where each subject could give way to the expression of the most intimate life of his subjective life, with or without a partner, in a construction that could be equivalent to an work in two or solo; Jacques Lacan wondered in 1960 whether it is thanks to the effect of “the social authority of the woman […] that maintains the status of marriage in the decline of paternalism?” We can now notice that it is certainly by a desire, as extravagant as it is, transcending all established norms and institutions, that marriage persists and declines into unheard-of variants, at a time when the desire to adopt a law that presides over two subjects, heterosexual or homosexual, even single, wanting to get married — even if it happens that it is always in some cases an attempt to restore the law within the limits of this deregulation of the norm of the Father and its decline.
Examples of “sologamy” have appeared all over the world since Linda Baker’s solitary marriage in California in 1993. She remained single at age forty and invited her family and seventy-five friends to the ceremony. Santa Monica In a wedding dress, surrounded by seven bridesmaids, she swore respect, fidelity, help, and assistance. A Japanese travel agency has been offering a “solo wedding” for two days. floral designer, makeup, hairdresser, photographer, and wedding night in a luxury hotel; hypermodern version of living one’s own otherness?
“The joy of speaking is articulated”, Lacan told France Culture in a 1973 interview, “and that’s why he adopts the stereotype, but a stereotype that is the stereotype of everyone”. Are we married to this stereotype? And how far can we get rid of it?
An excerpt from “Things of delicacy in psychoanalysis”, the course of Jacques-Alain Miller, reminds us masterfully with Feydeau and The lady of Maxim, what was called — the era of lights — the mummery. What is mummery? Opposite, it is really the pretext played in the marriage of Marcel and Amélie, where the pretext of the semblance finds its limits even before the mayor comes to celebrate a real marriage!
It is often the project of a child that brings together two partners today, as the anthropologist Maurice Godelier explains: marriages can be not only singular arrangements but also knots that include the child as a child, the object in the center of the node.
Because basically, we do not know who we marry. In an interview with Le Figaro, the Bandmaster Marc Minkowski reminds us of Le Nozze di Figaro: all the games of disguise with which Mozart has fun in this “perfect” opera are a good illustration of the deception of the artist. Marital act. And it is, in general, the man who takes his wife for another: Chamfort affirmed it by saying “that one of the best reasons that one can have to never marry is that one is not quite the dupe of a woman until she is yours” . Yours …: your wife, or your dupe?
Lacan drew all the consequences of this by affirming “that a woman is never wrong when she gets married”. “At least the second time”, added Sigmund Freud commented on this issue by Agnès Aflalo. In any case, according to him, she is happier …
The clinical cases recorded through ages attest that the users of this institution can be as numerous as the speakers, that what is played there is each time the most intimate of each. Similarly for the texts gathered under the title Persistence of marriage and New arrangements, where we can read that the finding that there is no sexual relationship that can be written between two beings, does not prevent wanting to enter this alliance in the terms set by the Law.
Jean-Paul Gaultier, speaker at the Last Days of the School of the Freudian Cause, was kind enough to offer us the occasion of the photo of one of his magnificent wedding dresses.
The wedding dress: an icon to dress the One of the couples and remind us, as does Anaëlle Lebovits-Quenehen, that even married, it remains unrelated, below the love often tinged with reproaches and sometimes of the hatred they feel for each other.
For one who celebrated the “taciturn marriage of the empty life with the indescribable object”, a marriage with the power of an incredible enjoyment, hides behind the character of Hiroshima my love as Omaïra Meseguer deploys it.
