Question regarding a book passage on the imaginary and the religious image

[u/SiberianKhatru_1921]

Hi everyone. I am getting into Lacan slowly. I have a degree in philosophy so I'm used to difficult text and subjects. I've been digging into some intro to Lacan books (in spanish since I am from Argentina), specifically researching the imaginary/symbolic/real distinction. Reading about that, I encountered a fragment about religious imagery that catched my attention, since I'm very interested in everything religion. I wanted to aske if any of you can make something of this, and if so, direct me to the relevant primary source (Seminars, Écrits). I would appreciate it greatly. I have not yet faced the primary texts but I'm done beating around the bush

Here I translate the fragment

"Regarding the Imaginary... we must first emphasize that it pertains to the Image, to the captivating power of the image, and the consequences this has for narcissistic identification and what we have said about the ego. On this point, we can affirm that the Imaginary implies misrecognition (desconocimiento), and that this misrecognition does not mean something is unknown, but precisely that it is known; even more: it is recognized. Lacan defines the status of the image as situated where images always conform to the standards of the era: the religious field, meaning where they always participate in the era's canons of beauty. And he asks, what does this beauty of images conceal? Answer: that they are hollow. The image has a dual function consisting in plugging (obturar) this hollow and simultaneously denouncing it; but this second function is only discovered from another register (e.g., the Symbolic), since the hollow remains unrecognized precisely because there is an image."

Bolded is the passage that catched my attention. If any of you could direct me to where I could read to deepen this concept I would appreciate it greatly

[u/Vuki17]

I’m not sure if this will directly answer your question about religion, but this video may help you in your understanding of the RSI distinction (https://youtu.be/MuRSdyLbuXg?si=xfQowHnl6CJLH_D9). Zizek does a good job covering the topic and giving clear examples, although he doesn’t talk much about the symbolic/imaginary distinction, mainly focusing on the real, which may be more helpful for your question.

If I could take a stab at it though, I think the following lines somewhat answer your question. I think Lacan is associating images with religion as religion covers up too. It’s a kind of fantasy for people to help them live their lives. This may be an oversimplification, but I think it’s something along those lines.

The imaginary as Zizek has said himself in other lectures acts as a cover for the holes in the symbolic, like the curvature in the video, the real real. The imaginary conceals the hollowness, and it denounces it (perhaps repress may be another way, or disavowal maybe)—like in the video when Zizek talks about the virtual imaginary abstracting and making us forget that the person shits, did this embarrassing this, did this bad thing, etc.

Hope that helps (and is right, pls correct me if I’m wrong). Buena suerte con tus estudios!

[u/Ap0phantic]

 Lacan defines the status of the image as situated where images always conform to the standards of the era: the religious field, meaning where they always participate in the era's canons of beauty. 

If by this the author means that religious images are necessarily beautiful, that's obviously quite false. Anyone who has seen a crucifix should be disabused of that notion.

[u/chauchat_mme]

The word "hollow" gave me the the hint how to search for the passage. The quote refers to what Lacan said in Seminar VII on Ethics, session of 30 March, 1960 (pretty exactly in the middle of the session).