Colette Soler-Lacan_ The Unconscious Reinvented-Karnac Books (2014)


Чтобы посмотреть этот PDF файл с форматированием и разметкой, скачайте его и откройте на своем компьютере.
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS
THE CENTRE FOR FREUDIAN ANALYSIS
AND RESEARCH LIBRARY
Anouchka Grose, Darian Leader, Alan Rowan
CFAR was founded in 1985 with the aim of developing Freudian and Lacanian
LACAN—THE
118 Finchley Road
PART I: THE UNCONSCIOUS, REAL
Trajectory 3
Towards the Real 17
From the transference towards the other unconscious
The royal road to the RUCS 49
The Borromean
parlêtre
PART II: ANALYSIS ORIENTED TOWARDS THE REAL
Terminable analysis
CHAPTER TWELVE
PART III: A RENEWED CLINIC
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
117
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
Symptom of the real unconscious
Towards the father of the name
Love and the Real 163
PART IV: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES
Dissidence of the symptom? 175
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This volume takes up, orders, and problematises some of my
contributions from over the last ten years. They are all linked to my
the Forums of the Lacanian Field. When it seemed necessary, I have
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
teaching. After the excitement of his staggering intervention at Rome
renewed Freudian vocabulary for the first time in France—his contin-
ual advances have always made students and readers uneasy. In this
teaching that extends over twenty years, there is not a single halt, but
additions, revisions, and indeed even reversals.
It is true that some sentences persist and endure over time—
“the unconscious, it speaks”, “the unconscious is structured like
a language”—but, and there is a “but”, these sentences no longer
signify the same thing from one end of his teaching to the other. From
of the 1970s, there is a world of difference that involves a redefinition of
Hence the rich and colourful texture of the small world of those who
xiv
It is a strange result. In fact, did not Freud himself advance in
Freud are not less but more masked by a style that is always systemati-
cally didactic? With Lacan, on the contrary, the difficulties are on the
surface, while the logic of his successive steps remains implicit.
It is a fact that Lacan proceeded by assertion rather than by explana-
tion, multiplying surprising formulas and apparent paradoxes over the
impress. I see rather another form of didacticism: Lacan tried to wake
up his audience. He had reasons for believing them asleep, he who had
experienced, to his cost, the entropy of Post-Freudian analytic thought.
Moreover, his success remains quite uncertain, for after the first burst of
incredulity the most striking of his formulas became all the more prone
xv
on the unconscious as cause. Here we touch on the extent to which the
in a relatively convincing way in the practice that establishes it—thus,
not without the act of the analyst. “Ontically, then, the unconscious is
the elusive” (Lacan, 1981b, p. 32): it does not conclude, as if it were
PART I
Trajectory
reappraise each one of his steps. The new formulas as well as
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
In fact, it is this One whose value Michel Foucault, to his credit,
highlighted in 1969 in his lecture “What is an author?”, at which Lacan
was present. In it he emphasised how much this dimension of the
One of the author was ineradicable. I say to his credit, for the moment
belonged to a certain structuralism that announced the death of the
author and its reduction within the supposed laws of textuality. Today,
of course, this notion has misfired and we are instead in an era where
there are more authors than real texts.
The trouble with chronology is, as we say, that the enunciation driven
TRAJECTORY
Structuralist?
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
One could certainly speak of a structuralist moment in Lacan to
designate the time when his elaborations borrow from the linguis-
tics of Saussure and Jakobson, or from the structural anthropology
of Lévi-Strauss: the time when he emphasises what psychoanalysis
may share with these disciplines—namely, the laws of composition
of the unconscious that Freud taught us to decipher, which have the
subject of science as a correlate and which, like the elementary struc-
tures of kinship, operate without the knowledge of the psychological
However, considering the matter more closely, it is not difficult to
confirm the constancy, from this moment, of what I call the objection to
the structuralist reduction, the objection inherent to psychoanalysis as
TRAJECTORY
linguistic signifier through its differential character and its laws of
The Symbolic is thus not reducible to the signifier even though it
presupposes it. That is why, at the start, there is a whole vocabulary of
to the Symbolic, more or less realised or not, achieved or not. And
symbolic relation, as if
the Symbolic had its chosen ones and that if all speaking beings shared
language, they didn’t all share the Symbolic. This vocabulary of access
became mired in but which are unsatisfactory in terms of the require-
Lacan worked to reduce this idea and to provide a conceptually rigor-
This definition makes of the Symbolic a specific mode of organisation
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
TRAJECTORY
Re-evaluations
a
S

J-Sense
I
That Lacan’s first formulations can be resituated in the vocabulary of
the Borromean knot shows us that with the knot Lacan was on the path
to a more inclusive schematisation, one which allows a formulation of
the facts of both neurosis and psychosis. This is already an advantage,
but a generalised theory is only of interest due to the new aspects of the
Real that it allows us to approach. And indeed it is really that which is
” and which he adds to the three consistencies of the Imagi-
nary, the Symbolic, and the Real, requires at first that these latter be
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
The Symbolic that is written in the knot is therefore no longer a
linguistic chain. Lacan himself made this explicit. I refer to two striking
formulas from amongst many others: “Contrary to what I have said”,
cal. And again: “The unconscious does not have a grammar”. In other
words, the unconscious does not have a syntax that produces grammat-
by the fact that it speaks, but it is not language, making sentences, making
“propositions”. It is rather
differential elements that do not fix meaning. We have thus arrived at a
TRAJECTORY
11
significations went from narcissism and the relations with one’s
himself in the position of Narcissus.
Ultimately, Lacan says that the Imaginary is the body. To understand
thus the image, which has its own consistency, that of form: the adored,
manque à être
one affected by the unconscious, is not reducible to the barred subject of
the unconscious. Hence my interest in the various supplements which
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
a subject is supposed. S/subject. There is nothing to add here. What is
Or, we can state, as Lacan does again in
Encore
always elsewhere”. We can certainly already say of this subject that he
is real, but in the sense that it is impossible to reduce this structure of
Lacan undertook an extraordinary emptying out of the obvious facts
from being evanescent, human beings are well and truly there; they are
noisy and they take up space, to say the least. A whole generation of
Lacanians brought up on the mirror stage got into the habit of automati-
cally referring this to the Imaginary, as if that sufficed to make the facts
vanish into thin air.
It is not only true in the experience of the counterpart but equally
TRAJECTORY
13
does not speak, it says nothing to anybody: it excludes any message. It
is constructed from little fragments, from “surplus knowledge” [“
plus
”] added to “surplus knowledge”, according to the expres-
sion he uses. Freud’s difference, however, which means that we cannot
simply include him in the company of those Milner calls the “Jews
of knowledge”—assuming that one agrees with his definition—is that
this unconscious text is not reducible to absolute “surplus knowledge”
since it is concerned with quite another thing: for Freud, the drives,
subject who slides in the chain with a process reduced to speech? In
other words, how could one access the referent, the Thing itself? And
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
Could he have stopped there? Surely not, if one believes that the
signifier and its order is not only causal but just as much caused.
TRAJECTORY
15
CHAPTER TWO
Towards the Real
have jumped from the structure of language to the Borromean
trajectory, but this is only intelligible and justified if it follows the
Real is brought into question, and one can wonder if it is not a
delire-à-
The Real can emerge in speech and limit the infinite drift of both
deciphering and meaning. Lacan put forward three successive
elaborations of the Real that imply, moreover, three definitions of the
On this question, the popular thesis according to which all these
reformulated over time, but the real questionis: why go beyond the
first consistent construction on this theme, mainly elaborated in the
? For this already allowed the whole of ana-
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
the main effect of language that mortifies
and the remainder
. With this object, Lacan writes
TOWARDS THE REAL
19
itself” means in a practice that has no other instrument than speech.
A joining of speech to the Real, and not simply to truth, is posited
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
a psychoanalysis is the impossible which occupies the place of the real.
half-said truth, through the inaccessible mirage, if not the traces of its
powerlessness? In terms of structure, language only writes the one and
the famous “there is the One” [“
”], the One and none other,
repeated by Lacan for a whole year. Analysis has no other product.
itself demonstrates indirectly the real “specific” to the ciphering of the
TOWARDS THE REAL
21
emphasis from 1970 in “
Lituraterre
The navel
scious through his elaborations on the structure of language. A decisive
formula in this progress, dating from the 1969 “Report on ‘The Analytic
(Lacan, 1984b, p. 19). It corresponds to the notion of the “subject sup-
posed to know” which defines transferential belief. I take it as a kind of
navel on which everything that is re-elaborated from then on is based.
The unconscious is certainly a knowledge since it is deciphered,
but why without a subject? Because of linguistic structure: the signi-
fier, which we write S
, can only ever represent the subject for other
, which is knowledge. Where Lacan had for many
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
well before then. This implies that the signifier itself is at the level of
living being is its “point of insertion”, as he said from the start of the
. In other words, “knowledge
without a subject”, more than the object, is the apparatus of
that presides over the
From now on, there is a question. Where do they, these intrusive sig-
nifiers which are not the S
s representing the subject, this subject whose
“being is always elsewhere”, come from (Lacan, 1998, p. 142)? The ref-
erence to
provides the answer: from nowhere else than from
where the battery of signifiers in its differential structure is
TOWARDS THE REAL
23
From now on,
appears as the vast reserve from which deci-
phering extracts only some fragments. This should be noted in relation
-unconscious remains as
an impregnable knowledge whose effects exceed us.
, traumatic
hy write it as one word? The references are numerous, and
with “lallation”. “Lallation” comes from the Latin
lallare
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
, TRAUMATIC
27
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
as “impregnated” which evokes life would be misleading. A
, TRAUMATIC
29
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
unpredictability of the affect—I would say, its discordance—is a sign,
according to Lacan, of what its cause is in the enjoyed knowledge of
Here there is a major addition to the classic psychoanalytic theory of
affects. The affect is neither an instrument for deciphering nor a com-
, TRAUMATIC
31
childhood that symptoms crystallise, and on the other, that we do not
being able to compose sentences, the subject reacts correctly to complex
expressions whose literal meaning he does not understand and does
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
connotes fluidity, the sonorous continuum of the a-structural heard.
, TRAUMATIC
33
…(he is instilled with what impregnates him) can only bear the mark of
the mode in which his parents have accepted him” (Lacan, 1989, p. 13).
That strongly resembles the classic thesis that desire (including that of
the parents) circulates in speech. But with
, we are prior to
the distinction signifier/signified, for the sounds that are distinguished
from each other precede the meaning in what is heard: la, la, la, like
one precedes any two in the chain. For this reason, the enigmatic ones
in the song of what is heard have a direct effect when they are linked
to the enigma of sex. Lacan hammered home often enough that there is
no preverbal for the one who speaks, but there is pre-language in the
necessary to take account of the fact that it is in a lecture addressed
mental reason. A way of speaking includes the structure of language
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
, TRAUMATIC
35
transmission of the symbolic effects of speech from figures of the
Other across generations. Conversely, he only rarely complains of
, Lacan does not reject the impact
of the Other—particularly in the form of the parents as I have said—
but he displaces the point of impact. From the weight of the discourse
of the Other, the
heard from the Other. Well, it’s a
passage from the Symbolic to the Real.
meaning (the signifier becomes real when it is outside the chain), and
of ones which are enigmatically fused with
symptom, Lacan would say. On the other, storing the signs left by expe-
Encore
which comes to the subject through the Other is not without
of this Other. Hence the obscenity
jouis-signes] both enigmatic and unprogrammable. From
to qualify it as strictly speaking social—but a bond which has its roots
in a singular bath of obscenity and which can later emerge as symptom,
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
understanding and will. But there is not only the symptom: there is
the lapsus, the bungled action and the dream, so many phenomena
signifiers that give it meaning. We thus pass from the erratic One that
has surprisingly appeared to the chain of language. An analysis, Lacan
, TRAUMATIC
37
nor even of the phantasy, but at the level of an accidental encounter
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
carries any meaning, it is only then that we are sure that we are in the
unconscious, the real unconscious, the enjoyed unconscious.
We see to what this reference to the real unconscious responds in
its distinction from unconscious meaning: conceptually, the real uncon-
scious contrasts with the unconscious supposed by the transference,
and practically, in the diachrony of analysis it is in position as the end
of the transference.
could stop the flow of analytic blah blah under transference, as well
as the endlessness of deciphering which, in its recurrence, can always
tolerate one more cipher. He sought an end that did not reproduce the
Freudian bedrock.
the object, presented in the “Proposition of 9 October 1967 on the psy-
the Real”, which he gave, I believe, a reduced model in 1976 in the first
sentence of this text. We still need to consider the impasse to which it
responds: that of the transference.
1. There are many references:
Encore,
Television
, “La troisieme” (end of
October 1974), The Geneva lecture on the symptom (October 1975),
L’insu que sait d’l’une bevue s’aile a
mourre
Le moment de conclure
From the transference towards the other
The transference, a name of the unconscious
To say “impasse”, to bring up the necessary “fall” of the transference if
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
a knowledge itself supposed from the signifiers of the unconscious,
is written at the place of the signified of the analytic address. In this
sense, the transference is a name of the unconscious, but the uncon-
scious as supposed; hence the fact that it is essentially tied to belief. We
analysis, what it is reproached for: its credulity. The term “supposition”
was a way of giving epistemic dignity to the transference by raising it to
the status of a scientific hypothesis. The term, introduced in the seminar
be paired with another expression from the same period, the “position
of the unconscious”, which already shows that it is not enough to sup-
pose the unconscious in order to position it. The supposition belongs to
not positioned, and from this fact the analysand will be able to suppose,
FROM THE TRANSFERENCE TOWARDS THE OTHER UNCONSCIOUS
41
or opinion, so prized today, and about which statistics are created, is in
reduced to saying what one knows, or believes one knows.
Lacan insisted, following Freud, that free association is the knowl-
edge supposed to the analysand subject and not to the analyst. At the
All he knows is to make it appear through speech and it is only at the
The analysand presents himself beneath a signifier that Lacan calls
the signifier of the transference. What is it if not simply what the subject
presents to the analyst? It is what is unthinkable or unmasterable for
nowadays, regarding his suffering and helplessness, for the symptom
resists management. The transference, beginning with a signifier out-
appears in the analysand who is affected by the non-sense of the symp-
will provide a solution to the hole produced by the subject’s mistakes,
that is in a way transferred onto the side of the analyst and somehow
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
In fact, as Lacan said in the “Introduction to the German edition of
meaning of his symptoms. Indeed, but the meaning is singular, specific
to each person. It does not constitute a transmittable knowledge. There
is no shared meaning of any symptom, only particular truths. Truth
FROM THE TRANSFERENCE TOWARDS THE OTHER UNCONSCIOUS
43
in “Radiophonie”, he already said that the more that discourse is
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
meaning to this incongruous signifier. Lacan’s topology had always
signifying chain, and hence his first approach to the subject in terms of
a surface, albeit moebian. To associate in order to give meaning is to try
to reappropriate the “intrusive” signifier, to try to make it a signifier of
one’s truth by connecting it to other signifiers. In other words, it is to
attempt to reduce the mistake. Free association moreover has in general
and then to appropriate them by giving them meaning through the
The space of the lapsus is in fact the space of the transferential work
that supposes a subject of the lapsus and that attempts to reach its truth.
of giving meaning that the unconscious fiddles with truth, which is
always the subject’s truth. This could be written synchronically with
the matheme of the transference:
s(S1, S2, … Sn)Except that in the text I am commenting on, Lacan formulates it in terms of a temporal sequence, corresponding to what happens in the
the matheme of the transference.
Three times, then:
. 3. the real unconscious.
The third time is there to say that when this space of hystorisation no
longer carries any meaning, we exit this transference and enter the
unconscious, the real unconscious. I said,
transference, for it is the
transference grafted onto the lapsus. What then remains of the
Only its word, an element of knowledge which has not only emerged
in spite of the subject, without his consent, but which finally remains
in its facticity, as an isolated signifier disconnected from the articu-
lated truth of the subject. Outside the chain and hence real, it testifies
neological. The real unconscious is neological if
neologism consists in giving to words the weight of an ineffable and
FROM THE TRANSFERENCE TOWARDS THE OTHER UNCONSCIOUS
45
We could say that the real unconscious is not constructed in the way
In the matheme of the transference, the unconscious only figures as
supposed. The word of the lapsus can ultimately be said to be real, first
the Real, in relation to psychosis. But there is more: it is also real in
Encore
. And doubly so, because it affects
parlêtre
”, who speaks “with [his] body”. How could we not rec-
ognise the radicality and novelty of this thesis compared to the earlier
formulas that had become canonical? It is true that Lacan invoked the
real from the start of his teaching, but not in the same sense. What he
situated as real at this moment was the real of the cut, an unconscious
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
Signi
transferential hystorisation with its effects of meaning; lastly, the
reduction of the
FROM THE TRANSFERENCE TOWARDS THE OTHER UNCONSCIOUS
47
Before an analysis one may be in transference, in the unconscious
as supposed, but not in the real unconscious. This unconscious is only
experienced in an analysis, and nowhere else, but one cannot cap-
ture it, one cannot recognise oneself in it, one cannot communicate it,
and it won’t result in any “friendship”. This is another way of saying
that there is no desire for knowledge. We are at the limit here of what
whole problem of educational courses on psychoanalysis and it would
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
it belongs to the subject and does not leave him indifferent, shearing
through his thought, his will and his body? This sequential balancing
outside the transference. Within transference, when it comes to the act
there are only passages to the act. But the analyst who tries to think
ference: in other words, an analysand.
The royal road to the RUCS
n following Lacan’s trajectory, I realised that his references to the
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
but above all Freud. With regard to the first, the argument is developed
in response to the second question in “Radiophonie”. With regard to the
second, how many times will Lacan need to repeat that the topology
of the unconscious made it necessary to revise Kant’s transcendental
THE ROYAL ROAD TO THE RUCS
51
$
A
$
Graph of the
Unconscious chain
Chain of phonemes
Chain of statements
(semantemes)
s(A)
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
signified crossing that of the signifier, as is the case in the structure of
speech. Lacan corrects this reading as if in anticipation: it concerns three
signifying chains but with two states of the signifier.
to say, defined by a rule-bound even if never univocal use: thus, words
THE ROYAL ROAD TO THE RUCS
53
It is not a particularity of the lapsus to open the transferential space.
“demonstrate [the] relation to the subject supposed to know” (Lacan,
1990b, p. 43). Indeed, every blunder may be treated like the One, the
one lacking meaning since it emerged without being summoned by
consciousness, and from that time on it opens the space of the call for
Witz
is that rather than opening transferential
space it contracts it in a punctual effect of meaning, closing as soon as it
is opened. And we know that any gloss kills it. Beyond laughter there
is no meaning to find. In other words, we are immediately at the end of
the reach of meaning.
Witz
does not spare us the way of the
transferential elaboration of the search for meaning, at least when the
analyst is there to support the transferential quest. As for the speaker’s
intention, a blunder opens the door of the space to pass through, the
Freud, made every effort to show that in spite of its imaginary scenarios
the dream was a ciphering, and that provided it was deciphered it could
be read differently. In this sense, Freud totally renewed the traditional
approach to the dream.
But note first that this did not stop Jung from searching for the key
to dreams, which, moreover, had been sought long before psychoanaly-
sis. Analysts may very well turn their noses up at this, but if it exists
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
because the dream lends itself to it. On the other hand, no one could
imagine that there would be a key to the lapsus, with its own vocabu-
The Borromean
step to uncover the real unconscious made of “incarnated”
the unconscious as symbolic. The RUCS is a-structural: far from being
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
57
the logical category of the impossible: the impossible to say, then the
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
a combination. It is no longer that of the hierarchical signifier and
This difficulty is due to the fact that a knot presents a synchronic
structure whereas analysis takes place within time. In its diachrony,
which proceeds only through words, the real of the unconscious, as I
have said, is approached as an end and limit point of the sayings of
truth. This is what allows us to assert that the joke spares the way, or
that Joyce, with his treatment of
, went directly to the best of
what we can expect from the end of an analysis. With the knot, Lacan
59
This change of paradigm becomes a bit clearer if we think that a
The
with the real of
, that is constitutive of the real uncon-
scious. It is preceded by the introduction of the new Borromean
framework, basically starting from
Encore
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
meaning, outside “I think, therefore it enjoys itself”, this is the Real
that is not all, not universal, resistant to representation. But with this
parlêtre
present at the beginning is still there at the end.
Inventoried speech
PARLÊTRE
63
)lalangue, for elaborated knowledge is ensured through writing and can do with-
Calculated dysorthography
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
established usage. The signifier that is heard in speech is only isolated
PARLÊTRE
65
but knowledge harboured in spoken
. In this it is very different
from the knowledge of science that only comes about through writing.
, is not dead speech, it is, on the contrary,
obscene, as I said. As spoken, knowledge is at the level of
parlêtre
parlêtre
Should we then suppose that in Lacan’s teaching, the effect of
of the 1970s is substituted for the effect of desire of the 1960s, to
give a chronology that negates at each step the one that has preceded it?
I do not think so: the reference to knotting does not result from the work
of negativity. Besides, isn’t object
inscribed at the heart of the Bor-
romean knot? This latter would not be of any analytic use if, besides the
three dimensions, it did not knot the various successive elaborations
not created all at once. It is neither science that only knows its present,
nor is it the negativity on the move of Hegelian history. It is therefore
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
body and I do so unbeknownst to myself. Thus I always say more than
I know” (Lacan, 1998, p. 119). “La troisième” took this up literally: “The
unconscious [is] a knowledge which is articulated from
which speaks there only being knotted to it by the Real which it enjoys”
(Lacan, 1975a). In other words, the
of the body are speaking
ones. Obviously, we are in a totally different function of speech here.
ing speech”. There is a satisfaction in the blah blah blah, in what is or
is not stated in the ordinary sense of the term. It responds, on the side
substantial body.
PART II
ANALYSIS ORIENTED TOWARDS
The end pass
come now to the consequences of the RUCS regarding analysis
and its end. If there is no end to the possibility of the transference
and no end either to the real unconscious, how therefore is an end
to analysis possible? There is no end to the transference, but in its
space there may be several passes to the real, of which the lapsus offers
us the reduced model. What would the end pass then be? This question
runs through all of Lacan’s teaching. It was at stake in his construction
, it remains at stake in the RUCS, which could not leave the
pass of 1967 unaffected.
I will take things from the side of the symptom, for if there were only
the lapsus things would have been easier for Freud. Actually, the word
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
phantasy. But here we are in the real unconscious. At the entry into
it is a symptom under transference, that is, elevated to the status of an
enigma to be solved. It is a symptom, as we say, that poses a question.
We question it because we wonder where it comes from, what it wants,
and what it means. It is thereby elevated to the status of the signifier of
the transference. It is thus the symptom which we believe in: we sup-
THE END PASS
71
thinkable on the side of the real.
So what decides the end? Neither the RUCS nor truth but the third
partner that is added, one that is not of the linguistic order. In this 1976
text, it is called “satisfaction”. We see the paradox in relation to any
structural definition. This reversal of everything that comes before in
Lacan’s teaching is very late. We can consider that he introduced the
real unconscious in
Encore
, but we have to wait until this “Introduction
by a specific satisfaction. The term does not figure in the “Proposition
the pass. And not even in “L’étourdit” where admittedly he evokes a
mourning that ends in a “substantial” therapeutic effect (Lacan, 1973,
p. 44), after passing through a rather manic-depressive phase, but with-
out invoking this term “satisfaction”. Now, indeed, as I noted previ-
ously (Soler, [November 1989] 2000, p. 429) the so-called
agree to make a testimony in the procedure of the pass, do not speak
about this depressive moment but rather about a satisfaction at the end.
I had hypothesised that this could be an artefact of the procedure, but
The flaw seen in the subject supposed to know ensures the real
unconscious but is not sufficient to ensure the end of analysis. The
the affect generated in the sequence that ensures the pass to the real
unconscious. Indeed, the analysis is at its point of closure when there is
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
which moreover no literature would be thinkable—Lacan can propose
that there is a satisfaction obtained from speech and that this satisfac-
tion of the blah blah blah is what responds to phallic
1998, p. 64). Satisfaction and dissatisfaction define the reverberation
that is not that of the subject. Likewise, in the expression “identification
with the symptom”, the term “identification” designates the response
reverberates in subject effects. And
this thesis applies to transferential speech.
relation to the satisfaction of the journey. It is different from “the other
Encore
. The transference
sustains the satisfaction obtained from truth and even in the race for
THE END PASS
73
being, but it is incalculable and thus unprogrammable. It is in vain that
some go to a great deal of trouble in analysis to seek out some origin
in the past, and that, outside analysis, the whole politics of prediction
is an attempt to foreclose the unconscious. This incalculable side of the
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
with truth, without which there is no end, and which an insight into
the structural fault is not enough to produce? Can the analyst wash his
Speaking of transference love, Lacan defines it as “love addressed
to knowledge”. The expression condenses the two aspects of the trans-
ference, epistemic and sentimental, which are closely intertwined and
inseparable. Phenomenologically, the mixture differs greatly from one
The time that isn’t logical
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
THE TIME THAT ISN’T LOGICAL
77
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
unconscious. It is not only unpredictable, as I have said, but also unable
to be expressed as a statement and only allows itself to be approached
through signs. Lacan would ultimately place these signs on the side of
the affects generated by the pass at the glimpse of the Real, and for that
From that point on, it is not enough for an analysis to have gone to
its epistemic end to make an analyst. The desire of the analyst is not
deduced from acquired knowledge. This is the thesis of the “Italian
Note” of 1973 and the “Introduction to the English-language edition”
According to the “Note”, there is an analyst when the analysed sub-
ject, the one who has situated his very own horror of knowing, has
moved to enthusiasm. Others, on the contrary, can move from horror
to hatred. Experience shows this. But there are other alternatives as
THE TIME THAT ISN’T LOGICAL
79
is an analysand who enjoys inconclusive truth, with his hystorisation
one’s phantasy are one and the same thing. This is why Lacan says that
himself consumed. From then on, the love of truth appears for what it
is, symptomatic and defensive—the profusion of chatter, the saying of
towards the Real and the responsibility of the analyst. If he favours the
movement towards this destitution of truth, what can he do?
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
can be objectified. The difference—and there is one obviously—is not
They both do. Beyond this, we are no longer in psychoanalysis but in
the large field of “psy” with which it should not be confused.
The difference is that the Lacanian short session makes the cut
THE TIME THAT ISN’T LOGICAL
81
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
THE TIME THAT ISN’T LOGICAL
83
same time ending the false hopes generated by the mirage of truth.
So this pass truly belongs to the Lacanian field and is different from the
Terminable analysis
Separation identity
therapeutic effects. The problem of identity is posed not only at the exit
but also at moment of entry into analysis. However, the question goes
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
also Jack the Ripper and, of course, Joyce the Symptom. From there it is
only a small step to the idea that an analysis aims at finding one’s true
proper name. But this is also to suggest that each subject has at least two
proper names: his patronymic name, which obviously has major subjec-
tive resonances, and his private name, that of his being of
The patronymic name is received from genealogy: it is a transmit-
TERMINABLE ANALYSIS
87
obviously aims to increase the identifying power of the patronymic
name. However, its discriminatory power is conspicuous in its poverty.
Witness the majority of homonyms to be found in directories and the
practice of changing one’s patronymic name when it is felt to be ridicu-
lous or offensive, or even dangerous. Unless it is simply, in some places
at least, that in being a woman one becomes a wife. In short, the proper
name in the ordinary sense is insufficiently identifying and does not
succeed in fulfilling the program of the true proper name: to allow one
This impotence of patronymic names indeed reflects the difficulties
inherent in defining a proper name in relation to its referent, what I am
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
The identity card, for example, which adds a series of traits to the pat-
ronymic name, is related, without knowing it, to descriptivist practices:
date and place of birth, and also the individual signs, as we say, to des-
ignate bodily marks such as fingerprints, which are not of the subject
but of the body, today supplanted by DNA thanks to science. There
TERMINABLE ANALYSIS
89
The name “symptom” is a true name of identity insofar as it names
from the point of one and only one singularity. It is the case in the exam-
ples I mentioned at the start. And this takes me back to the renowned
renommee
). This is the word for celebrity. The fact of being famous
oneself” when one has one already. The “renowned” name brings off
its traits of unicity, in knotting the patronymic name to a distinct singu-
larity. It is difficult to consider it as a simple “rigid designator” denoting
an existence without connoting anything of its specificity; it is, rather,
the only name that can fix an identity as singular. What could one call
if not symptomatic singularity? Provided of course that we remember
but as the knot specific to each person that allows the body,
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
case, there has to be what I am going to call the offer of nomination,
TERMINABLE ANALYSIS
91
loved one, but on the contrary of the lover, the name of the symptomatic
object that I am for the other. The “you are my wife”, says it plainly.
These names say more about the one who names than the one who is
The question is obviously raised here as to what specifies the Father
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
by the contingencies of its emergence, but its contingency also separates
it from the avatars of the conjugal family. And in all cases of saying, the
nominating saying has a Borromean function. It knots the three consist-
nouant] and nou(s)ant [knotting us], if I may write it that way.
sis are numerous: the end by assumption of “being towards death”, by
TERMINABLE ANALYSIS
93
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
effect of separation since the phallus is the mediating signifier of the
relation to the Other, the relation to its desire? It is true that this effect
does not identify, since it leaves the $ (the barred subject) to be discov-
TERMINABLE ANALYSIS
95
tion but a positivisation. It is only conceivable in relation to the insti-
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
and from
not be simpler. It consists, he says, in “recognising oneself in it” (
reconnaître
). What does this mean? The expression should be balanced
with another from the same period, which says that you can never
recognise yourself in your unconscious.
Obviously, to recognise oneself in one’s symptom one needs to
have at least localised it, recognised it as a specific modality of
savoir y faire
rotic, who by definition does not recognise himself in the symptom,
TERMINABLE ANALYSIS
97
that had been present since the beginning. Lacan himself diagnosed this
themselves from their dispersal”.
Now, without this fundamental thesis of separation identity, how
for whom analysis has changed everything, remain nevertheless at a
certain level the same, if not even more hardened.
The time for understanding that is too long has drawbacks. Clinically,
From the beginning, speaking of psychoanalysis, Lacan proposed
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
bond beyond the resolution of the alienation to the Other that analysis
intensify compulsory individualism and the dereliction of the modern
worse
foreclosure of the sexual relation. It is thus structurally out of the
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
parlêtre
is confronted sexually
equally there are also quite asocial strangled desires which empty the
relation to the other of its substance, and which illustrate well enough,
without having to look very far, the internment of the obsessional and
From this I will draw a first conclusion: the question is simply of
desire. Lacan replied clearly to this question in the case of the Father as
symptôme-Père
version père
perversion]. There are other versions, of course: those bachelor symp-
toms uncoupled from the other sex; those of the spectrum of non-father
IDENTIFICATION WITH THE SYMPTOM OR … WORSE
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
background of the curse of sex is not impossible, since the fundamental
latter is a universal misfortune, however masked it may be by the pre-
treatment imposed on it by discourse. A happy symptom, then, without
IDENTIFICATION WITH THE SYMPTOM OR … WORSE
an insight, the negative therapeutic reaction involves a renewal of
misfortune and a refusal of knowledge.
We should add that the therapeutic reaction has various degrees that
distance it from its extreme form, in which sadness and the “I want to
know nothing about it” can be combined in different ways. When the
imagines others are—when he will not give up on these dreams—when
he continues beyond the first therapeutic effects to reject not only the
real of the impossible to avoid castration but also the necessary solu-
tion his unconscious has already given and which does not stop writ-
ing itself, then we have all the gradations of ends that I would readily
describe as ends by disenchantment. This is the repeated choice of neu-
rosis. I note that these ends are rarely heard about in the procedure of
the pass, doubtless because this procedure selects, as it were automati-
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
evasiveness to assertion, and also from the want-to-be to the being of
IDENTIFICATION WITH THE SYMPTOM OR … WORSE
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
does not occur, as the benefits of
supposed to enjoy his function, the question should preoccupy him.
CHAPTER TWELVE
The identity at the end, its aporias
psychoanalysis. But we should recognise it under different terms.
When Lacan formulates the step of entry into the transference in
?”, when he adds a “What am I there?” where the
signifiers of the Other are lacking, these are questions of identity.
The references to the
a question, since the “I think, therefore I am” does not say what I am.
It poses—I should say: sub-poses—an existence, not an identity. Hence
the following step by Descartes—“What therefore am I?”—which is
a question about identity, not about a particular subject but about the
universal subject. Translated into psychoanalysis as a practice of speech,
would become “I speak, therefore I am”, except that I do not
only speak through my mouth but through my symptoms. Identity in
the social sphere is first of all a policing problem, to know who is who
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
and incomprehensible, which are imposed on him and run counter
to his intentions. All that he does not manage to do—impotence and
everything that he does not manage to prevent—constraint: these are
which social identity does not accord a place to and which can become
obstructions. Indeed, the person who is in harmony with himself and
late itself in this way: “I have symptoms, therefore I am … but what
am I?” Not as a social being, but as affected and thus represented by
We invite this subject to speak in the specific modality of free
association, to say all the thoughts emerging in the transferential rela-
tionship. We thus enjoin him to represent himself only through his
First aporia
The first paradox emerges here. It is that with his statements, which of
course suppose language, the subject cannot accede to his identity.
The signifier, without which we could not speak, is not suited to
fixing identity. Its differential structure, established by linguistics and
notably Jakobson’s phonology, contests this. Because each signifier is
only defined in relation to another signifier, it is never identical to itself.
It certainly represents the subject who utters it, and we can certainly
reply to this subject: you said it, you cannot unsay it, but the signifier
still represents him in relation to another signifier. In the chain of his
always “some two”, according to Lacan’s expression.
chain of his symptoms, lacks identity, in as much as he speaks. He is
un sans identité], a being whose being is always elsewhere, vanishing, as Lacan says repeatedly, even in the seminar
Encore
choanalysis is also there at the beginning of his life, or rather, at his
entry into language, since he first receives the discourse of the Other
THE IDENTITY AT THE END, ITS APORIAS
which, in saying what he is, in wrapping him in a series of attributes,
raises in a latent way the question of what he is in himself, separated
from all the judgements of the Other. He thus searches for himself,
but at first through identification, in other words, by borrowing the
traits that might define him. He borrows them at first from the other,
the counterpart as supplier of images, or from the Other who speaks
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
linguistic instrument it uses. It would only bring the analysand back to
his essential destitution. Only this is not the last word, just the first.
If language is unsuited for identity, where are we to find a principle
of identity? Nowhere else than in that which, in experience, is not lan-
effect of speech, but the individual has a body, a body to enjoy that is to
be distinguished from the subject. It is thus on the side of the symptom
Solution by the symptom
Encore
, but presented
well before this, is that the enjoying substance of the body is affected
by language. This latter may be unsuited for identity, but it is still an
operator that has effects in the Real. It subtracts from
configurations of this remainder and becomes itself an apparatus of
. Furthermore, without this hypothesis how are we to conceptu-
alise the hysterical conversions discovered by Freud? Certainly, Freud
only evoked the effect of thoughts and representations,
Vorstellungen
explain them, but what are they other than language?
The symptom is the main manifestation of the organism affected
by discourse, and Freud, once again, situated it first of all as a way
of enjoying. Lacan at first stressed that it was a way of speaking since
it was decipherable as a message. But that does not stop it from also
THE IDENTITY AT THE END, ITS APORIAS
Lacan sought how what I have called separation identity, or even a
will to separation, could be established. How could one not be reduced
to the clothes of the Other that one wears? Lacan recognised the para-
committed suicide by throwing himself into the volcano at the edge
of which he had left his sandals. An extreme act. Obviously we expect
from analysis a non-fatal separation of the subject that would give him
his identity, and notably his sexual identity.
In the Other and in social discourse, there are only semblants, signifi-
ers, images, norms, and prohibitions about sex, but nothing which says
how each one of us enjoys. At the hour of truth, when the subject makes
semblants pass to the act, there are many surprises. At the end of his
elaboration, Lacan concludes that it is the real symptom that gives the
subject his own identity, the true proper name that distinguishes him
from everyone else, the only one that does not have a homonym.
We could thus say that analysis answers the opening question:
Is this to move beyond the impasse linked to the linguistic instrument?
I’m not so sure, as I have only recently understood, but it is I think of
I’ll propose a formula of this second stopping point: that one identi-
symptom, contrary to what I at first supposed. If it is true that the
a
l
S

J-Sense
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
effects of
exceed all that the subject is able to grasp, it is the real
which blocks us from identi-
THE IDENTITY AT THE END, ITS APORIAS
savoir y faire
. It is precisely the correlate of the non-knowledge of the One
. It is not that there is no cer-
tainty concerning the Real, but that it bears on the presence of the
which fixes this and which remains being “indistinct” [
PART III
117
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
The status of
he real unconscious that makes the parlêtre is the most shared
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
Freud hears, in the adult who speaks to him through his symptoms,
autoerotically without any partner. This is the first model of what I have
called the autistic symptom, in order to designate a bodily enjoyment
that does not pass through another partner, one that relies only on the
excitation of the erogenous zones.
If the drives do refer to
THE STATUS OF
is precisely what is in question in the expression “sexual non-relation”.
This aims at neither desire nor love, but at the body to body of the act
that is specific to it in the orgasm—the sole emergence
, apart from the symptom, to come into the space of the sub-
ject, if we are to believe Lacan.
Freud saw clearly that there was nothing given about the sexual cou-
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
via the partial drives. And here
is his conclusion as far as the sexual act itself is concerned: “there is no
drives wherein the subject seeks an object to take the place of the loss
)jouissance of the symp-tom with the sexual orgasm. Here, we are already beyond Freud.
Concerning so-called genitality, Freud was interested in its symp-
rendering to Caesar more than is his due.
THE STATUS OF
parlêtre
language that limits it, fragments it, and stops it prior to any prohibi-
L’angoisse
, reduces our
to being that which is considered perverse, what is certainly
means, as I have already formulated it, that “the unconscious knows
not inscribed there, if we mean by that what characterises it as
. The signifier “woman” remains, of course, and the semblants
that relate to it according to culture, but nothing of her being of
could we ignore that the aforesaid woman is defamed? Lacan did not
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
Thus the very action of the drive includes an effect of castration, the
in the orgasm. There is nothing of this in Freud. This does not mean,
THE STATUS OF
it generates and the latent dream of a fusional
. As a conse-
quence, if it is the success of the act that makes the non-relation, the
failure of the act evident in the symptoms studied by Freud—or its con-
certed avoidance by those who abstain from it, those
whom I spoke in the 1990s—becomes clearer: it is precisely to short-
circuit the inconvenience of the non-relation with its subjective effects.
As Melville’s Bartleby says” “I would prefer not to”.
More important, and this will be my third remark: what is the
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
THE STATUS OF
has repercussions for the subjectivisation of the act. Not to mention the
, has its own repercussions, which I have already described
(Soler, 2006). So could we expect spoken communication, especially
words of love, to temper these impasses? That is another question.
What you could not choose
creation of erotic links with the counterpart, the object of the phantasy
underlying “object relations”. However, it is well-known that this link
of desire guarantees nothing about the response of
tom as emergence of the real unconscious, is “an event of the body”.
The term “event” suggests the manifestation of a non-programmed
that is imposed on the subject who submits to it. The orgasm
is symptom is to say that they are the cause of the event of
“A woman is a body that is the
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
in madness what he called “the obscure decision of being”, and some
decades later he did not recoil from saying that subjects “have a choice”
regarding their sexual identity. More generally, putting forward the
THE STATUS OF
that there were any real constraints in the field of sexuality. This attempt
should be distinguished from those theories of gender that make sex a
social product.
With his formulas of sexuation, Lacan puts forward the idea that the
the images and ideas of woman and of man that are not lacking in any
refer. One is a man or a woman
according to the mode of
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
untied from the intertwining, if I can use this term, of the Symbolic
and the Imaginary which discourse organises, and which regulates the
right dosage of pleasure and the balancing of satisfactions.
authorise themselves. The thesis seems very paradoxical. It is true that
with regard to their sexuated identity, many subjects do not trust their
anatomy. On the contrary, they develop all the doubts we know about
THE STATUS OF
all due respect to the Freudian Oedipus and to the identifications it
governs, Freud would have wished that they ordered everything, but
of sexuated beings doesn’t authorise itself from the Other,
no more from the Other than from their anatomy.
the real difference of the sexes in the field of the
parlêtre
remained at that point, then yes, we would have had a sexuated identity
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
relation changes the function of what we call the symptom. If
except complacency. But if, on the other hand, this
everywhere in the series of signs which carry it and where we decipher
it, constituting reality and even social bonds, it is a matter of extricat-
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
SYMPTOM OF THE REAL UNCONSCIOUS
symptom that comes in its place, as I said earlier. The thesis is explicit
A psychotic unconscious?
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
neologism is indeed a word or an expression that can carry the weight
of an ineffable and personal
have applied to it. It is the psychotic kernel of those who are not psy-
chotic, and which makes of each subject “scattered, odd” (Lacan, 1981a,
p. ix, [trans.mod.]) according to Lacan’s beautiful expression in the
SYMPTOM OF THE REAL UNCONSCIOUS
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
contrast to what is usually the case, does not involve for him the differ-
S

SYMPTOM OF THE REAL UNCONSCIOUS
Freud tried to define various types of object choice: narcissistic or
anaclitic. As for Lacan, in his seminar
Nora is other as Joyce himself is other.
It is clear that Nora his wife, Giorgio his son, and Lucia his daughter,
are not placed in the constitutive social bond of which I have just spo-
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
unique in spite of two or three transitory flings. Lacan says: “She was
the only one for him”. Indeed, and this is rather rare. So for him she was
acquired, absolutely—everything points to that—but as what?
Since Freud, we know about the narcissistic relation to the partner;
however, there is nothing like that with Nora. Those close to Joyce were
responded to his choice of Thérèse. She was not acquired on the grounds
of intellectual affinity. Nor was she a mother according to the Freudian
schema. She never took care of her body, of her corporeal comfort, of
SYMPTOM OF THE REAL UNCONSCIOUS
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
interested in, even if this is to their cost, the cost of their ego? We could
put it in a different way—Nora didn’t serve as Joyce’s phallic armour: it
was provided not by her but by his writing.
What is implicit in Lacan’s affirmation, his postulate, is that the
appreciation of a woman consists in raising her to the rank of symptom:
in other words, to make use of her for the purpose of
thesis may appear out of line in a time where the narcissistic claim for
recognition and equality is at its peak. Here is the question: men and
reality, but does equality mean anything at the erotic level? Today, some
people would like to believe it does and campaign for it, as we know,
but it is always at the price of the denial of the unconscious. Curiously,
, not their equality.
Joyce, who was beyond all the prejudices of his time, knew how to
value Nora, her simplicity, her good qualities, her honesty, her imagi-
, which would have been to appreciate her as a
woman. His own symptom is his writing, and in order to enjoy the
SYMPTOM OF THE REAL UNCONSCIOUS
and irrepressible dimension of the unconscious. And furthermore, it is
is not at all propitious for the peace of the household.
With this expression, Lacan stressed the function of the Imaginary,
of the Real and the Symbolic. Lacan often referred to the glove that
you need to turn inside out in order for the right hand glove to be the
same as that of the left. It is a reference he borrows from Immanuel
Kant. This reversal has the advantage of both annulling and revealing
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
was there the obligation to put up with his riotous life, the obligation
example, but the additional obligation of looking to him exclusively,
The father and the Real
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
limited one. As a result, we can attribute to foreclosure, on the one hand
the real signifier, the too real of the schizophrenic, and on the other, the
THE FATHER AND THE REAL
parlêtre
, as I said earlier, is that of the individual fallen under the blow
of the effect of language, the effect of mortification: primary castration.
analysis since Freud, object choice, or about sexual identity. I will not
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
is an effect of language
which owes nothing to the father and everything to the entry of the
natural subject into language and to the functioning of its unary traits.
, that we could already call the castration of the one
who speaks, is not the effect of any prohibition. At the phallic level,
castration itself is not the threat to the organ that Freud believed.
It bears on the disjunction of desire and
and on the proper-
ties of the organ of copulation that make of the phallus “the default
organ”, which can be put in a series with the objects
. We will read in
L’angoisse
the lengthy elaborations devoted to the sexual act and to the
impossibility of desire acceding to the Other of
. Castration,
thus, is not a myth but a bone, said Lacan; that is, a real that owes
nothing to the father as Bogeyman. The father is not the agent of
this, in particular, his analyses of the father of little Hans who, he says
, is insufficiently castrating, although
L’angoisse
, “the desire of the father is the law”, if one does not read it
correctly by omitting the commentary that he made on it; and above all,
le dire que non du père
] in “L’étourdit
Some believed they recognised the Freudian father of
Totem and Taboo
there, uncastrated, enjoying all the women. This is an error, I believe. It
would be strange and above all illogical that, in order to translate the
father of the Oedipus anew, Lacan would make an appeal to the primal
father, a notion which he never stopped denouncing, one that he attrib-
uted to Freud’s neurosis, and which he mocked again in “L’étourdit
père orant
pérorant outang
” imagined by Freud.
Moreover, how would this reading fit with what Lacan said so clearly:
that the “saying that no” of the father—taking care to distinguish it
from the saying no—offers no hope of access to the sexual relation. In
other words, it does not offer the possibility of an exit from the castra-
. Can we ignore the fact that all the texts that follow
on the father, notably
and “Joyce the symptom”, situate the father,
a father, as a solution symptom to castration?
is the father? The question is all the more justified in that he ended up
THE FATHER AND THE REAL
As for the father solution, the thesis is constructed in two stages: at
L’angoisse,
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
THE FATHER AND THE REAL
L’angoisse
is transferred to historicised objects, dressed up in the images and sig-
nifiers of discourse. The phantasy is nothing other than the product of
into the field of the Other. It is, moreover, from
there that Lacan defines his conception of mourning as the time of sus-
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
p. 126). What is there to say if not that it prescribes the feminine object
in subtracting the first object? Thus, it seems to do for the sexual relation
what language does, without prohibition, for the drive: to ensure a
It is not the Father who prevents us from enjoying the Other, it is rather
of the Other is impossible: castration of the relation,
if I can put it like that. The father, through his object, or as Lacan will go
THE FATHER AND THE REAL
Towards the father of the name
f a father is only a Father, if he incarnates his function only by the
this saying operates in order to ensure what Lacan calls the
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
object distinguished from all others, in which one can recognise oneself,
TOWARDS THE FATHER OF THE NAME
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
a promise of another solution, and a new knowledge—which will lead
to another barrier.
Another way of formulating this is in terms of the Borromean knot:
the efficacy of the Father is to knot the three consistencies, to hook the
TOWARDS THE FATHER OF THE NAME
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
Without the family
Father is not necessarily dependent on the family. In 1969, Lacan spoke
of the conjugal family as the final remainder of the fragmenting of
social bonds. We know today that it’s not the final remainder: he saw
himself that the final remainder was the individual. Today, it is from
the outside, from current mores and from the family, that psychoana-
lysts receive a merciless questioning in the media that they could have
taken up forty years earlier, since it was already there in Lacan’s work.
TOWARDS THE FATHER OF THE NAME
prior to any possible treatment of psychosis”, Lacan specified that the
–)not only disconnected the paternal function from the progenitor, but
also from the avatars of the conjugal family, to the point where we can
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
fulfil two conditions. The first is that he has desire for a woman, the
father’s wife; the second, which Lacan now adds, and it is crucial, is
that he takes care,
care of the children that she has given him.
TOWARDS THE FATHER OF THE NAME
from the circumstances of generation, of the care of the body and of the
I have already emphasised that when Lacan introduces this function
of nomination, the Father of the name, it is to be read in two ways: the
Father, a father-Father names, but also that which names is Father, or
. Without this contingency, we cannot grasp the complexity of
our current times.
This means that it is not the family that makes the father-Name-
of-the-Father. It is, on the contrary, the saying that names, when it is
in other words, it does not make a relation. But this regime of
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
far as enjoyment, but if all the names of the Name-of-the-Father refer
, not all refer to sex, as we see very clearly in the example
of the “the masked man” of “Spring Awakening” whose sex is unclear
and whom Lacan makes one of the Names of the Father, and even more
so with “The Artist”, the asexual
the one without a body.
transmitted in the form of “you are my symptom”, or “you are my son,
or my daughter”, you are the name of one of my
, are much
more varied in social reality than they used to be. The thesis of the
nomination-Name-of-the-Father as disconnected from the family and
from sex—that it can, however, include—allows us to reflect on these
the transmission of life by means of sex at the level of the reproduction
Love and the Real
he question of knowing if psychoanalysis can promise a new
love, beyond the symptoms of love life that are addressed to it,
has been there from the start. Today, given the preceding elabora-
tions, it is more precisely a matter of knowing what new light is brought
to this question by taking the real unconscious into account.
From the beginning, Freud postulated that the bonds of the passions
of love, incomprehensible as they are, escape neither rationality nor
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
traumatic, says Freud. Here we are at the level of a story of the body,
more precisely, of what Lacan called the “events of the body”. For
Freud, both despair and trauma are condensed in the term “castration”
when the beloved loves in his turn, an illusory effect, however, when it
comes to desire.
It is not excessive to say that there is in the teaching of Lacan some-
thing like a trial of love where the prosecutor concludes: first of all, on
the baseness of love (Lacan, [1964b] 2006, p. 723). “To love is to want
to be loved” (Lacan, [1964b] 2006, p. 723) and it is true that the ques-
tion of a possibly disinterested love has travelled the centuries before
psychoanalysis. In Christian theology, it gave rise—notably in one of
its last articulations with Madame Guyon—to the debate on pure love
that would not call for any reward, not even that of salvation. He then
concludes on the cowardice of love that does not want to know the
irreducible real of castration that founds desire and marks
But there is also love’s deception, for love lies about the true partner;
Lacan indeed generalises the “I do not love him” that Freud applied
to psychosis to all the clinical structures. At the end of the ball, it was
not her, and it was not him, as I reminded you. There is more besides:
the speech of love itself is rival to the beloved, for to speak of love is
that demands nothing from anyone. On this point,
course consecrated to the love of God and for God, concludes at the
LOVE AND THE REAL
of the drive. Finally, Lacan refers to the comic illusion that an object
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
from the transference to the unconscious, as already indicated in “The
A love that knows
Lacan took one further step when he brought to light the real uncon-
scious. The generalised foreclosure of the sexual relation, which cre-
LOVE AND THE REAL
the revelatory sign of the perception of a knowledge which is there,
unknown, but obscurely apprehended: an index not of intersubjec-
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
is in fact an ideal of the Other, I(A). It is at stake in what Freud saw as
the idealisation of the object. For him, our particular loves are bound to
LOVE AND THE REAL
a look, the object of his phantasy. The Other remains the partner for
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
Is this at least the promise to remedy “the no dialogue” which Lacan
emphasised? This “no dialogue” is not a novelty, everyone is aware
of it, but psychoanalysis explains it. The non-relation of
repercussions at the level of exchange, producing a non-relation of
LOVE AND THE REAL
PART IV
POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
paranoiac is also a thinker, but what does he think of if not the
of the other, of the persecutor?
The civilised body
These symptom events of the body are to be situated in relation to the
body we deal with: the civilised body—that is, socialised. We must
gauge the extent to which there is a body factory for our socialised
bodies. The body is not a product of nature, it is rather a product of art.
succeeds what’s more—to tame the body, to make it enter into the col-
lectivising practices of the body. We teach the child how to eat, how
DISSIDENCE OF THE SYMPTOM?
much understanding because, fundamentally, other practices of the
body are always perceived to be barbarian and indeed, this question
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
We use and we abuse our bodies. First, we treat it like an object,
object. We love or hate this image, or both, but above all we apply
ourselves to transforming it, to improving it, to distinguishing it. In
addition to fashion, we should mention here all the surgical uses, which
go from sex change in the operations on transsexuals to all the practices
of piercing and of tattooing which multiply today: a whole industry to
Use is not only at the level of the image. There are also uses for per-
the body instrument, the body that we make use of. And then, certainly,
DISSIDENCE OF THE SYMPTOM?
it and even organises the scenarios of erotic practices that we know are
subject to the influences of culture. In this sense it touches even what
happens in bed, but it has no hold over what I have called the response
Body outside discourse
We could illustrate the socialised body
autism, which seems to me very demonstrative. I am speaking here
that is often used today. What is it that characterises these autistic sub-
jects? They are not delusional; they have trouble with language, with
the relation to the counterpart and then above all, trouble at the level of
the drive. Now, for anyone who refers to the teaching of Lacan, trouble
with the drive is a translation of trouble with the relation to the Other
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
precisely how he comes to life, and that she could not have invented,
adult, the therapist here, or else to utter certain words. That is to say,
it is a case where we can see that another body, homologous to Joey’s
machine, as well as some words from
, have the same effect. They
work as separated in the Real because of the failure of incorporation
that would produce a dynamic subtraction.
So, it is not only that not all bodies are socialised, but that in order
that they might be there has to be a knotting of the three dimensions,
of semblants and the Real. But when they are not outside discourse—
that is, when they are civilised—there is still a
absorbed in the offerings of discourse, and this is very noticeable at the
level of sexual symptoms. Moreover, how many times does the subject
ties consulted Freud—the times have certainly changed—in order to
know if they were simulating illness or were ill. They were right to
pose this question because at the same time there were subjects who
DISSIDENCE OF THE SYMPTOM?
refused to go to the front, not because of war neurosis but because
ties were to shoot them—as they had shot a number of conscientious
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
the symptom of another body. The expression “strike with her body” is
The political value of the dissident symptom in relation to the social-
ised body was noticed very early, as I mentioned above, but we have
slogan “Psychoanalysis is bourgeois science”, indicating that treatment
psychotherapies. Think also of Russian psychiatry, of the Stalinist “
” which forged the notion of “white psychosis” thereby justifying
the incarceration of a number of opponents of the regime on the basis of
Foucault has called bio-power, in order to designate the fact that now
the State takes charge of life, it aims to sustain life, as is indeed dem-
onstrated in all the politics of birth, of health, and now in the protec-
DISSIDENCE OF THE SYMPTOM?
point elsewhere. As a result, besides murder, there remains essentially
only one big sexual taboo: paedophilia, where reciprocal consent does
not apply.
An emergency discourse
All of this changes the place of psychoanalysis: it is in direct conflict
with the operation of capitalist bio-power. The latter has two sides: on
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
from the common clamour?
Psychoanalysis treats, certainly, it even wants to treat but without
lying about either the relation that lacks, or about the Real and the
parlêtre
tion of victims of global capitalism—always producing more subjects
outside the social bond—is enlarging the psychoanalyst’s field of action
rather than reducing it. That is, in fact, what the notion of the Lacanian
field that Lacan introduced in 1970 is about.
DISSIDENCE OF THE SYMPTOM?
construct via their semblants, make up for the lacking relation in con-
structing the implicit norms of love.
(Kernberg, 1995). He explains the characteristics of mature
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
DISSIDENCE OF THE SYMPTOM?
for a tradition that they confuse, incorrectly, with the efficacy of the
father, who moan about our times, and who denounce subjects prey to
subject (the fall of the semblants introjected from the Other)—which is
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
that governs him? “Cynical remainder” of analysis, said Lacan. Now,
doesn’t capitalism also produce, by other means, the fall of the great
PSYCHOANALYSIS AND CAPITALISM
clamour as globalised, as I said earlier, as the capitalist discourse itself.
Depression, morosity, impotent rebellions, the sudden collapse of sol-
diers, abulias, distractions, violence, different excesses, repeated trau-
of scraping a living within the balance of producer-consumer, more-
less. This clamour protests against the pre-treatment of subjects by the
norms of desire and
the curse on sex which destroys all the semblants that cover it in the
other discourses. Another affinity with psychoanalysis. The malaise is
going to increase, like the dark shadow of the well-being that capitalism
Each discourse—what Freud called civilisation—constructs a type of
social bond, a sort of standard couple: master and slave, teacher and
student, hysteric and master, and then psychoanalyst and psychoana-
denounced, but all make a bond, and can be used as recourse against
the programmed misfortunes of the sexual couple. But there is no such
of the discourse of the master, and can only constitute a single, barely
same time, dissatisfactions. Indeed, all the offers which this discourse
makes in terms of consumption and “narcynical” success, as I have
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
PSYCHOANALYSIS AND CAPITALISM
world. And human rights try in vain to maintain a final barrier against
The derision of speech
But even so, can’t we credit our times with the fact of accepting the
articulation of complaint, recognising it enough to allow a good lis-
tener, someone who is not simply an instrument of the social order
there to redress a symptomatic deviance? There is no doubt that this
it is one that totalitarianisms as well as fundamentalisms exclude. We
religious order, individual voices are only acceptable if that they are in
unison with the one and only message. From that point on, all truth-
value is automatically refused to the symptom’s deviance. Such a dis-
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
of conversation is no more, for chatter and silence are now one. The gag
has not been lifted: it has only changed its terms. I also see here one of
the reasons for the unprecedented development of techniques of listen-
PSYCHOANALYSIS AND CAPITALISM
Encore
doubtless, but what the effect of language leaves them with regard
to satisfaction—which is nothing if not limited, fragmented, and cer-
tainly unable to create the fusion of which Eros dreams—makes them
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
This is so true that there is a question of knowing what made the
emergence and success of Freud possible. Freud’s success is that a cen-
tury later there are still psychoanalysts and psychoanalysands, subjects
who continue to make the offer of an analysis and others who take up
this offer in order to do an analysis with them.
Freud masked
PSYCHOANALYSIS AND CAPITALISM
two very different operations. Hence the question: what weapons does
1. I’m alluding here to Descrates’ remark “At the moment of stepping
Malaise in psychoanalysis
case, for the concern for the survival of psychoanalysis was there
since the time of Freud. The difference, however, is that it was
then translated into a fighting stance—the texts and correspondence
generally attest to this and it was also the case with Lacan. Today, some-
pleasant voice and a delivery suited to a very large audience, dispenses
them come from the mouth of a psychoanalyst? Must we suppose that
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
On the other hand, how many forecasts have there been about
the future of psychoanalysis over the last thirty years saying that it
does not have one! The novelty in recent years is that there are still
MALAISE IN PSYCHOANALYSIS
capitalism? The potential candidates for an analysis are perhaps not the
only ones whose desire is imbued with the values of capitalism.
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
Has an analyst ever once received a single subject who, in
demanding an analysis, does not arrive equipped with a word, with
a sentence he has heard, with a reading that indexes the one he is
addressing? That it will usually be with the greatest misunderstanding
MALAISE IN PSYCHOANALYSIS
the Lacanian path. We know that the practitioners of analysis find both
associative groups, and perhaps today, a shelter against the inquisitions
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
of the State as well. But the logic of these groupings is not that of the
it is only partially true. It is indeed a question of what psychoanaly-
sis teaches, of what each has learned from his analysis that may pos-
be reproduced for others; of what the analyst himself knows about it
and how he acts in relation to it. From the beginning, the old notion of
MALAISE IN PSYCHOANALYSIS
in act of the analyst. A School is made to sustain this desire. Indeed,
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
analysis, Sándor Ferenczi was the first to really see the price that
had to be paid by the one who offers himself as support for the ana-
lysand’s transference. Several terms have been produced to say what
this is: “abstinence” and “neutrality” said Freud in order to designate a
suspension of the person’s prejudices, tastes and essential choices—in
brief, all of his own options—with the aim of maintaining an even inter-
est in all the statements of the subject and aiming only at their interpre-
tation. All analytic currents agree on this point: the analytic function
supposes that the analyst will put into suspense what there is of him-
object that causes him. Indeed, the term “counter-transference”, of
which so much is made in both theory and practice in Ego psychology,
MALAISE IN PSYCHOANALYSIS
is indicative of the difficulty of this abnegation and the ever-present
temptation to give voice to the person of the analyst in the treatment
No doubt the analyst suffers from having to efface his person—in
other words, to put his phantasy and his symptom in parentheses—in
order to make himself, for the length of the treatment, the cause of the
analysand’s work. This is the price of the analytic act. It is true that this
ing to the exigencies of the analyst’s own narcissism, and it is necessary
to establish a specific desire here, called the “desire of the analyst”. This
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
it is a lot and it is perhaps the maximum, if it shows him the effect of
division that annuls introspection and renders all self-analysis impos-
sible. A true “subversion of the subject” said Lacan in designating this
with his aims for mastery. Lapsus of intentions, counter-will of uncon-
MALAISE IN PSYCHOANALYSIS
identify with the analyst defined by his act. We might as well say that
from the precepts of his Church, but not without the Other, even an
Other of reward. The condemnation of Madame Guyon is exemplary
here: to question the God of reward with his “pure love” was to threaten
the whole edifice (see Le Brun, 2002).
Obviously no such thing applies to the analyst. The refuse of his
discourse, he can expect nothing from the capitalist discourse, except
objection. That discourse can promise him nothing: its path turns in a
closed circuit. Lacan described this in 1970 in terms of an infernal cycle
chain of language which governs the production of surplus
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
come undone, it is, on the contrary, the desire for integration that rages
in proportion to the sense of dereliction. We see this everywhere today,
and analysts escape even less from this logic that now dominates their
211
CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE
What does the psychoanalyst want?
he fact remains that putting psychoanalysis in the singular is
becoming more and more of a problem, in the singular, with the
fragmentation of associations and doctrines. Could we really
say that it has only one politics, inherent to the relational procedure
invented by Freud? Indeed, we can consider, as did Lacan, that this pro-
cedure is even more important than the discovery of the unconscious
and, and that the constraints it establishes and the rules that it promotes
prevail over the diversity of players involved.
Thus, from the free association required of the analysand and the
eral formulas, but it would be an agreement without consequence if
they do not ask of the unconscious: “What is it?” and from there, “what
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
If you say, for example, as was the case in a certain current, that
there is certainly a diabolical unconscious, fomenter of trouble and
anomalies—that is, symptoms—but this Freudian plague isn’t the
only thing, there is also a healthy, rational part of the ego with which
we can reason, and which makes use of mechanisms of consciousness
independent of the drives and can contribute to the reinforcement of its
autonomy, well, then what!
WHAT DOES THE PSYCHOANALYST WANT?
is the case. Indeed, he subordinates what he calls precisely the politics
of the analyst, its ends, to the instrument used—speech in the field of
language—and its potentialities. He thus suggests an order that goes
from understanding to analytic action and from knowledge to politi-
cal orientation. Take for example an imperative such as “Desire must
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
emergence of modern science possible as to those that opened Freud’s
path, and it seems to me to be even more certain today than yesterday.
The other side of cognitivism
The catch here is that once this effect of division is recognised, we must
also recognise that it spares nothing, not even thought, which we would
sic] could be spared. But no, the desire on which thought
lives is no less subject to the effect of division than any other desire.
In this sense, we cannot really think the division of the subject; at best
demned discourse, for there is no coherence of discourse which the
Encore
, that “reality is
approached with the apparatuses of
A sole apparatus, language, organises access to perception, thought
WHAT DOES THE PSYCHOANALYST WANT?
of psychoanalytic thought” (Lacan, 1968b, p. 50) and to restore its
scientific aim. But, on the other hand, there is no thought at all that
escapes the effects of division: the “I think” is divided, and for each
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
statements that the analytic work registers, it is a saying that satisfies.
satis-fait], enough for the one who enters the procedure. The
WHAT DOES THE PSYCHOANALYST WANT?
played a role in this evolution, and a part of what it teaches us has, in
taste? At the most he could observe that once puritanical repression
are permitted, subjects are hardly more cheerful, that is a fact. He will
tre
LACAN—THE UNCONSCIOUS REINVENTED
subversion must be taking place somewhere else! Perhaps with those
who still dare to attempt the adventure of an analysis, even if they can-
not know in advance where it will lead them.
1. See the three “lines of development” that Anna Freud distinguished,
that of the ego, that of object relations, and that of the drives.
2. I use this expression in reference to the “formations of the unconscious”
introduced by Lacan, to indicate that the symptom is also
Claudel, P. (1967).
. Paris: Gallimard, Èditions de La Pléiade.
Freud, S. (1920g).
Beyond the Pleasure Principle. S. E., 18
Freud, S. (1926d).
Lacan, J. (1975b). Joyce le symptôme 1. In: J. Aubert (Ed.),
Lacan, J. (1975c). Introduction à l’édition allemande d’un premier volume
Lacan, J. (2001c). Annexes.
Autres Écrits
Soler, C. (2008a). Lacan réévalué par Lacan. In:
L’anthropologie structurale de
Critique of Pure Reason
crossing the phantasy 101
cynical remainder of analysis 190
depreciation 139
“direction of the treatment, The”
Ellman, Richard 137
eld 99
Encore
Kernberg, O. 185
Lacan, J. xv, 4–6, 8–9, 12–13, 18,
Freud masked 196–197
no sexual relation 190
processes of monopolisation of
pure love 209
real subjects 11–14
re-evaluations 9–11
structuralist 5–6
structuralist moment, the 6–8
transferential hystorisation 46
war neuroses 180
Witz

Приложенные файлы

  • pdf 14698065
    Размер файла: 791 kB Загрузок: 0

Добавить комментарий