Involuntary commitment and psychoanalysis: how can they be reconciled? Involuntary commitment marks something within the subject, just as a crisis does. Within the moment of a crisis, the overwhelming real is initially limited via a literal restriction of the freedom of movement. During the moment of crisis the subject often first makes a “failed” attempt to limit the overwhelming experience by way of an acting out or passage à l’acte. The subject is forced to do “something”. Freedom, both that of the subject and of society, has disappeared. A decision has to be made. In this scenario, we are very far removed from a subject with a demand for therapy or psychoanalysis. Nevertheless a certain dialectic can be initiated via involuntary commitment. The point without any dialectic is precisely the real that emerges during the moment of crisis. Using cases to illustrate, we discuss more elegant solutions. At the same time we are also confronted with the impossibility of such a clinic of the real.
This paper reviews the Freudian notion of the “Wiederkehr”, or “return”, as elaborated in Lacan’s Seminar on The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis. Futhermore, the author describes how the possibility of a return is implied in the psychoanalytic intervention strategy on a psychiatric ward for crisis intervention with drug addicts.
Some reflections on urgency, psychiatry and the position of the analyst are the main themes of this article. First of all he takes an historical detour via the figure of Gia¬como Casanova. With his work Ma voisine, la postérité the author compares a medical emergency with the sort of crisis intervention inspired by psychoanalysis. In the second part of the article a crisis is viewed as a place of rime/rhyme – crisis as a frozen discourse of the subject, beyond the deceptive glitter. Concepts from Lacan’s seminar on transfer¬ence and from Winnicott are used to support this view. The goal of this article is to argue in favour of a place for the odd (anti-rhyme) in the work with subjects in crisis. This in¬fluences the position of the analyst.
This article poses three related questions on the basis of a clinical example of a psychotic young man who develops a suicidal crisis.First of all there is the question of the cause of this crisis, at a moment when the subject makes the transfer from school life to ‘adult life’. A particular fragility (and the inability of others to recognize this) seems to cause this crisis. Secondly: what is the goal of clinical work in a psychiatric setting? It is clear that we must support the solutions of the subject itself, instead of focusing on our ideology of therapeutic objectives and workplans. Thirdly, what is the relationship between remedial education and psychoanalysis? An educational/corrective approach is completely incompatible with the ethics of psychoanalysis. The question of whether a reciprocal influence is possible is posed throughout the article which, amongst other things, problematizes the concept of “school”.