Four discourses and the desire for Knowledge or Why Lacanian Pedagogy is Fun! Lacan describes a variety of possible relationships to knowledge in 4 discourses; the master discourse, the hysterics discourse, the universities discourse and the analysts discourse (Lacan 1969-1970). In this paper I will discuss each discourse theoretically and then suggest how these might be applied to a classroom setting. The discourses describe a relationship between the agent (of the discourse) and the other (recipient of the discourse). The discourse of the master is the foundation of all other discourses and has it’s origins in Kojeves interpretation of Hegels Phenomelogy. The relationship discussed here is that of the Master and the Slave. The latter has knowledge (S2) and knows what the master desires, the master however does not know what s/he desires and simply demands more work which leads to surplus (object a). Translated into an educational setting we might position the teacher in place of the agent and the student in the position of the other. In the Master discourse the students have knowledge and are required to prove this by producing documents and sitting exams. However there is always something outside or beyond institutional expectations (object a). Teachers/lecturers call this excellence and it is the object of desire. The conditions for excellence are elusive. Excellence, it seems, is always achieved somewhere else. In an attempt to achieve excellence the teacher/lecturer demands more and more work. In the other discourses the relationship between knowledge and desire, lecturer/teacher and student is situated differently, the university discourse is driven by the command to ‘learn more’, the hysterics discourse leads to a desire for knowledge reflected through the desire for the agent ( the students produce knowledge to please their teacher) and the analysts discourse leads to a production of knowledge and creativity caused by lack (the students produce knowledge in their attempt to understand what the teacher actually wants, or rather because of a lack of understanding of what the teacher wants). The latter discourse involves the subject of the unconscious. Knowledge is a means to jouissance or pleasure, according to Lacan therefore the four discourses describe not only a relationship between the agent (teacher), other (student) and knowledge but also the relationship between desire, knowledge and pleasure. Lacan's four discourses enable an understanding of why learning is fun and gives an indication as to how the joy of learning in the classroom might be maintained. Lacanian pedagogy also shows how the subjects innate creativity (the same creativity which enables an elaborate weaving of dream narratives every night) can be elicited and developed in a classroom setting and is a 'special kind of knowledge'. What consequences does the discourse of the analyst for instance have for understanding what a methodology tapping into this form of creativity might look like? The subject speaks when the ego is in doubt (as is the case in the analysts discourse). This indicates amongst other things that riddles, mysteries and pouzzles are essential to a methodology which aims at eliciting creativity. I will give several examples of Lacanian methodology which can be used in the classroom and attempt to show that Lacanian pedagogy can indeed by fun. Theoretical framework-Post structuralist, Lacanian.

Lacanian theory offers new dimensions in the understanding of the complex relationship between students and teachers observed in the classroom. Not only do the four discourses enable an understanding of underlying discourses permeating learning processes and relationships between students and teachers it also alows us develop methodologies which might help us to maintain students desire for knowledge as well as elicit and maintain creativity.