The Letter, Issue 57, Autumn 2014, Pages 1 - 27
THE PSYCHOANALYTIC DISCOURSE A SECOND READING OF LACAN’S L’ÉTOURDIT
C. Fierens, Le discours psychanalytique. Une deuxième lecture de L’étourdit de Lacan. Toulouse, Point hors ligne, Erès, 2012. Trans. C. Gallagher 2014.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Presentation ...4 Introduction: The differance...7 1 THE ROLES OF THE ANALYST...11 The analyst who knows. The dogmatic analyst The analyst who does not know. The sceptical analyst The analyst who tracks stating. The dynamic analyst The analyst who says what there is. The analyst as witness
2 THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE PSYCHOANALYTIC DISCOURSE
Without resources With resilience ‘There is no sexual relationship’ or the development of the matheme of the impossible
The undecidable Conclusion
3 THE LOGICS OF SEXUATION
The ‘masculine phallic formulae’
The question of the subject The impasse The ‘feminine phallic formulae’
4 THE STUFF OF THE PSYCHOANALYTIC DISCOURSE AND ITS CUT
The philosophical discourse and the psychoanalytic discourse: the same stuff The cut-the stitch, the effacing of the psychoanalytic discourse The novelty of the psychoanalytic discourse
Saying privileged in the psychoanalytic discourse
5 THE SENSE OF THE PSYCHOANALYTIC DISCOURSE
The comfort and the impossibility of the psychoanalytic group
The rejected psychoanalyst The directive idea of the psychoanalytic discourse The psychoanalytic discourse as compared to the other discourses
6 THE STRUCTURE OF THE PSYCHOANALYTIC DISCOURSE,
IS INTERPRETATION Between meaning and absence, the flickering of sense Structure The equivocation of interpretation The three kernel-points of equivocation and the psychoanalytic discourse as Borromean
PERSPECTIVES FOR THE PSYCHOANALYTIC DISCOURSE BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
Discourse creates a social bond. How express (dire) the social bond specific to psychoanalysis? Must we base ourselves on the persons concerned by analysis?
Discourse in general does not have protagonists; it is not determined by the agents that are supposed to precede it. On the contrary, it is the discourse which gives their place to people who will find in it their consistency by allowing it to resonate in them. It is the master discourse which determines the master and not the inverse. It is the hysterical discourse which challenges the hysteric and makes her exist and not the inverse. It is the academic discourse which knows how to organise the academic and not the inverse. In the same way, the psychoanalytic discourse is not the discourse held by the analyst, nor is it the discourse held by the analyser. There is no analyst and no analyser who maintains the psychoanalytic discourse. It is on the contrary the latter which maintains and sustains them. One should not confuse the psychoanalytic discourse and the discourse of the analyst.