拉康論移情 1123h

拉康論移情 1123h


Transference 論移情

1960 – 1961
Translated by Cormac Gallagher from unedited French typescripts
Cormac Gallagher 根據未編輯的法語錄音英譯

Seminar 2; Wednesday 23 November 1960

Greek love, you have to get used to this idea, is the love of
beautiful boys. And then, hyphen, nothing else. It is quite
clear that when one speaks about love one is not speaking about
something else. All the efforts that we make to put this in its
place are destined to fail in advance. I mean that in order to
see exactly what it is we are obliged to move the furniture
around in a certain way, to reestablish certain perspectives, to
put ourselves in a certain more or less oblique position, to say
that this was not necessarily all there was… obviously…. of


It nevertheless remains that on the plane of love there was nothing but that. But then on the other hand, if one says that, you are going to tell me that love for boys is something which was universally accepted.


Well no! Even when one says that it nevertheless remains that in a whole part of Greece a very poor view was taken of it, that in a whole other part of Greece – Pausanias underlines it for us in the Symposium – it was very well regarded, and since it was the totalitarian part of Greece,
the Boeotians, the Spartans who belonged to the totalitarians (everything that is not forbidden is obligatory) not alone was it very well regarded, it was what was commanded.


One could not stand apart from it. And Pausanias says: there are people who are much better. Among us, Athenians, it is well regarded but
it is prohibited all the same, and naturally that reinforces the
value of the thing. This is more or less what Pausanias tells us.


All of this, of course, fundamentally, does not teach us very much, except that it was more credible on a single condition, that we should understand more or less what it corresponds to.


To have an idea of it, you must refer to what I said last year about courtly love. It is not of course the same thing, but it occupies an analogous function.


I mean that it is quite obviously of the order and of the function of sublimation, in the sense that I tried last year to contribute to this subject a slight rectification in your minds about what is really involved
in the function of sublimation.


(13) Let us say that there is nothing involved here which we [cannot] put under the register of a kind of regression on a collective scale. I mean that this something which analytic doctrine indicates to us as being the support of the social bond as such, of fraternity among men, homosexuality, attaches it to the neutralisation of the bond. .


It is not a question of dissolving this social bond, of returning to the innate form, it is quite obviously something else.


It is a cultural happening and it is also clear that it is in the milieu of the masters of Greece, amongst people of a certain class, at the level at which there reigns and at which there is elaborated culture, that this
love is put into practice.


It is obviously the major centre for the elaboration of interhuman relationships.


I recall in a different form, the thing that I already indicated at the end of the last seminar, the schema of the relationship of perversion with culture in so far as it is distinguished from society.


If society brings with it by its censoring effect a form of disintegration which is called neurosis, it is in a contrary sense of development, of construction, of sublimation – let us say the word – that perversion can be conceived when it is produced by culture.


And if you wish, the circle closes in on itself: perversion contributing elements which torment society, neurosis favouring the creation of new elements of culture.


However much a sublimation it may be, this does not prevent Greek
love from being a perversion. No culturalist point of view should predominate here. We cannot tell ourselves on the pretext that it was an accepted, approved, even celebrated perversion… homosexuality remains nevertheless what it was: a perversion.


That to want to tell us in order to arrange things that if, we, for our part, treat homosexuality, it is because in our day homosexuality is something quite different, it is no longer the fashion, and that in the time of the Greeks on the contrary it played its cultural function and as such is worthy of all our respect, this really is to evade what is properly speaking the problem.


The only thing which differentiates the contemporary homosexuality with which we have to deal and the Greek perversion, God knows, I believe that one can scarcely find it elsewhere than in the quality of objects.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: