Select Page

TILTING AT A METONYMIC PROLIFERATION OF SYMPTOMATIC WINDMILLS: THE MATTER WITH SPEECH, AND ANALOGOUS READINGS OF FREUD AND HEGEL BY WAY OF LACAN

Summary: The first section of this paper traces, in brief, a conceptual evolution of psychoanalysis from its Freudian foundation in 19th century empirical science to Lacan’s reformulation of psychoanalytic method, based in part on mid-20th century structural linguistics, as one that is not, strictly speaking, scientific. Throughout this movement, the therapeutic aim and the medium of speech remain at the center of psychoanalytic praxis. The author, therefore, explores the questions: what is speech and what is at stake for human subjects in speaking? In part two, parallels are drawn between four (ana)logical pairings of conceptual moments in Freudo-Lacanian and Hegelian theory in order to elucidate dynamic and topological intricacies in each. The Oedipus complex is described as a dialectical unfolding, wherein Hegelian and Freudian theorizing and Lacanian mythmaking are, similarly, creative retorts to contradiction and ambivalence. These subjective responses effect the Aufhebung or Verdrängung (in neurosis) of the conflictual impasse, and institute a vehicle for the transgenerational transmission of Kultur—what Hegel called Geist and Freud rendered Unbewusst.

About Lacanian Practice: Ethics, Technique, and the Clinic versus Today’s Discontent of Desire

Rejecting the formalism of the IPA, lacanian practice is subject to the technique of Speaking Well. The cure is a dialectical experience aimed at desire which moreover affects jouissance. The analyst engages his or her subjectivity, judgement and desire in the cure. The present day analyst must reinvent his or her practice in order to respond to the effects of jouissance which arise out of capitalist discourse. He or she must guard against reverting to a master discourse and persist in carrying the question of desire .