| Lutecium a non-school of Lacanian/Freudian Psychoanalysis San Francisco, California |
| Speaking of symptom and desire: Lacan, language, metaphor, and metonymy Workshop by Kristopher Lichtanski, Ph.D. |
“There is so much Everything
that Nothing is hidden quite nicely” - W. Szymborska / “Reality Demands”
Understanding the function of language and speech in (Lacanian) psychoanalysis is a necessary step in the possibility of apprehending
something of the speaking subject (of the unconscious) and appreciating the direction of the cure. Although Lacan relied heavily on the
French structuralist movement, specifically Saussure and Jacobson in the area of linguistics, his own modifications to the Saussure’s
linguistic model led Lacan to later indicate the need for “linguisteria” as he reflected on the relationship between linguistics and
psychoanalysis – “a certain (per)version of linguistics which takes account of the process of saying and its relation to the (subject of
the) unconscious” – as Danny Nobus described it.
In this workshop, we will explore Lacan’s linguisteria and its effect on the psychoanalytic treatment. Starting with Lacan’s departure from
Saussure’s view of the relationship between the signifier and the signified, we will contend with the fact that a subject does not represent
an idea by means of a signifier for another subject, but that a signifier represents a subject for another signifier. We will look at the
consequences of the idea that the subject can not be considered the agent of speech, but rather that through the Other, the language
speaks the subject. We will consider the difference between the subject of the statement and the subject of the enunciation.
Lacan subsequently indicates that an analytic interpretation should not be directed at the meaningful links between the signifiers and
signifieds but at the connections between the signifiers in the patient’s associations. Instead of focusing on the meaning of the symptom
and attempting to relieve it by providing a new meaning created in the analyst’s mind, the analytic interpretation ought to aim at the
intentional displacement of the patient’s discourse.
To this end, we will review the difference between the metaphor (condensation), metonymy (displacement), and synecdoche in relation
to the symptom, desire, and object a. Following Lacan, we will see that because symptom is a metaphor, it can not be dislodged by
metaphorical kinds of intervention; the metaphoric process simply upholds the repression. In contrast, the metonymical process permits
the repressed terms to remain in associative relations to the rest of the subject’s language, producing a potentially infinite chain of
partially satisfactory substitutes for the first (lost) object of desire. Because desire is the metonymy of the lack of being, as Katrien
Libbrecht points out, “the relation between two signifiers installs this lack of being, which in turn installs a human being’s desire as
always a desire for something else (the metonymical dimension). As a corollary to this movement, the (divided) subject emerges.”
that Nothing is hidden quite nicely” - W. Szymborska / “Reality Demands”
Understanding the function of language and speech in (Lacanian) psychoanalysis is a necessary step in the possibility of apprehending
something of the speaking subject (of the unconscious) and appreciating the direction of the cure. Although Lacan relied heavily on the
French structuralist movement, specifically Saussure and Jacobson in the area of linguistics, his own modifications to the Saussure’s
linguistic model led Lacan to later indicate the need for “linguisteria” as he reflected on the relationship between linguistics and
psychoanalysis – “a certain (per)version of linguistics which takes account of the process of saying and its relation to the (subject of
the) unconscious” – as Danny Nobus described it.
In this workshop, we will explore Lacan’s linguisteria and its effect on the psychoanalytic treatment. Starting with Lacan’s departure from
Saussure’s view of the relationship between the signifier and the signified, we will contend with the fact that a subject does not represent
an idea by means of a signifier for another subject, but that a signifier represents a subject for another signifier. We will look at the
consequences of the idea that the subject can not be considered the agent of speech, but rather that through the Other, the language
speaks the subject. We will consider the difference between the subject of the statement and the subject of the enunciation.
Lacan subsequently indicates that an analytic interpretation should not be directed at the meaningful links between the signifiers and
signifieds but at the connections between the signifiers in the patient’s associations. Instead of focusing on the meaning of the symptom
and attempting to relieve it by providing a new meaning created in the analyst’s mind, the analytic interpretation ought to aim at the
intentional displacement of the patient’s discourse.
To this end, we will review the difference between the metaphor (condensation), metonymy (displacement), and synecdoche in relation
to the symptom, desire, and object a. Following Lacan, we will see that because symptom is a metaphor, it can not be dislodged by
metaphorical kinds of intervention; the metaphoric process simply upholds the repression. In contrast, the metonymical process permits
the repressed terms to remain in associative relations to the rest of the subject’s language, producing a potentially infinite chain of
partially satisfactory substitutes for the first (lost) object of desire. Because desire is the metonymy of the lack of being, as Katrien
Libbrecht points out, “the relation between two signifiers installs this lack of being, which in turn installs a human being’s desire as
always a desire for something else (the metonymical dimension). As a corollary to this movement, the (divided) subject emerges.”
| This Workshop is offered Sunday, May 24, 2009, 10am - 2pm Flood Building, 870 Market Street, San Francisco Room - 838 ________________________________________________________ |
Fee: $80 professionals / $60 interns / $40 students