精神病 274

精神病 274

There is a twofold alienation in the movement of Freudian theory.


There is the other as imaginary. It’s here in the imaginary relation with the
other that traditional Selbst-Beimisstsein or self-consciousness is instituted.
There is no way that the unity of the subject can be brought about in this
direction. The ego isn’t even the place, the indication, the rallying point, the
organizing center of the subject. It’s profoundly dissymmetrical to it. Although
it is in this sense that he is going to begin by getting one to understand the
Freudian dialectic – 1 can in no way expect to attain my accomplishment and
my unity from the recognition of an other who is caught up with me in a
relation of mirage.


There is also the other who speaks from my place, apparently, this other
who is within me. This is an other of a totally different nature from the other,
my counterpart.


That’s what Freud contributes.


If this still required confirmation, we would only have to observe the way
in which the technique of the transference is prepared. Everything is designed
to avoid the relation of ego to ego, the imaginary relation that could be established
with the analyst. The subject isn’t face to face with the analyst. Everything
is designed to efface the entire dual, counterpart-to-counterpart relation.


On the other hand, analytic technique derives from the necessity for an
ear, an other, a listener. The analysis of a subject can only be brought about
with an analyst. This is a reminder to us that the unconscious is essentially
speech, speech of the other, and can only be recognized when the other sends
it back to you.


Before I finish I would still like to speak about what Freud added towards
the end of his life, when he had already left his troop of followers behind him
a long time before. I’m unable to doubt for one instant, merely from the
evidence of the style and tone of Freud’s dialogue with all around him, that
he had a profound notion of their radical inadequacy, of their total incomprehension.


There is a period in Freud’s work, between 1920 and 1924, when
he quite simply broke off. He knew that he didn’t have very long to live – he
died at 83 years of age, in 1939 – and he went straight to the heart of the
problem, namely the compulsion to repeat [automatism de repetition].


This notion of repetition is so perplexing for us that one tries to reduce it
to a repetition of needs. If on the contrary we read Freud we see that the
compulsion to repeat was based, as it always had been from the beginning of
his entire theory of memory, on the question raised for him by the insistence
of speech which returns in the subject until it has said its final word, speech
that must return, despite the resistance of the ego which is a defense, that is,
the adherence to the imaginary misconstrual of identification with the other.
Repetition is fundamentally the insistence of speech.



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: