INTERPRETATION AND FORCING FACTOR

FEINSILBER Edgardo

Freud gave expression to a difference between the interpretation and the construction within the psychoanalysis. Our proposal is aimed to review this issue and provide the sense effect renewal with a supplementary dimension which Lacan refers to as forcing factor.
The interpretation produces the psychoanalytic speech during the psychoanalysis. When the psychoanalyst is interpreting, he gives certain impetus based on what has been interpreted but that is not imperative: his suggestion (su-gestión).
As the desire belongs to the Other and in consequence it is indestructible, such desire logically operates as a previous cause and it appears already articulated in the subject; whenever the desire interpretation takes place, then it is done partially. Even though certain part of the desire remains uninterpreted, the interpretation allows it to go through its phantasmic support displayed as anguish, inhibition, and symptom which constitute a part of the reality, the subjective one. But this, as Lacan explains, "does not resolve anything, since there is no absolute certainty on any opening of the desire which we have interpreted" (12/14/66). Because another part of the reality still remains, and this is not a subjective one.
During a seminar on psychoanalytic act given by him during the subsequent semester (11/29/67), he continued looking in detail at the interpretative dimension through two operations: the decipherment and the retranslation: The decipherment takes place insofar as our interpretation reads in another way a supposed linkage about what is considered a significant articulation; in the case of the retranslation, because the significant inscription is already the translation of something. The issue is that the interpretation is neither applied to a significant organization nor it is considered as an operation that, like a revelation, allows something in concealment to appear as a preexisting drawing.
Quite the opposite, insofar as the interpretation presents an evocative characteristic and an allusive virtue, it is related to the operation of the signifier, where what has been interpreted really exists from its enunciation and the effects are pointed at the renewal of what is inappropriately called the subject -because it depends absolutely on the Other (Seminar 17: 11/26 and 12/17/69, 1/14 and 3/11/70).
In reference to the place, the structure and the means by which the interpretation takes place, we can say that if the psychoanalytical interpretation is against the common sense, if a knowledge structure which is rather true is created, then this is due to what is added to the signifiers S1 and S2 between those ones it is divided, where the subjective dimension crawls and circulates, in order that a sense effect shall arise; and there exist the enigma and the mention to support the formulation, the mention as a half-say which shall appeal to the existence of the Other in what has been said, the enigma as part of the knowledge related to the pleasure of the Other, in the enunciation.
According to the work "Finite and Non-finite Psychoanalysis", Freud points out that in order to exercise influence on a driving conflict (trieb), this must exist at present and provided that it can be externalized: "We are preparing the path when consciousness is allowed to arise by means of interpretations and constructions...". This concept has been treated again in "Constructions in the Psychoanalysis", really now that these re-construction means which belong only to a preliminary working stage are proposed in our praxis.
The interpretation is carried out from an unconscious formation, like an association or a slip, that is to say, of details.; the construction is based on conjecture in respect to a fragment of a forgotten prehistory, which may provide the individual under psychoanalytic treatment with an increasing symptoms manifestation whenever there is an approximation to the truth.
¿Why he said therein that construction is really the most appropriate designation?. It seems to be here that interpretation is subsumed under the category construction. This is due to the psychoanalyst work which implies the suggestion of a sense in both categories. The interpretation which resulted from a test carried out by Freud on an individual under psychoanalytic treatment was that, during his dream, "Jauner" (surname), wanted to say "Gauner" (thug) because both pronunciations were the same in the popular language, that is to say, with 'I'; it was confirmed by virtue of an attempt to cause a contradiction which resulted in a Freudian slip: "Gewagt" (risky, daring) pronounced with 'i'. Moreover than the indirect confirmation, there is certainly a cross of languages which allows us to untranslate while a sense is built up.
But, the question is where this way ends? In order to resolve this issue, we may commence by saying what Lacan proposes in relation to the forcing factor during the classes on psychoanalyst knowledge given by him (5/4/72). That is when he explained that we do not have a nominalistic position insofar as we do not think in accordance with dialectic in the representations of the individual under psychoanalytic treatment, but we should intervene in his sayings with the purpose of "providing him with a signifier supplement. This is what is called interpretation". Therefore, taking the allusive and evocative concepts, the decipherment and the retranslation as starting points, we arrive to the signifier supplement in order to attain to the Freudian reconstruction, the farthest the unconsciousness may reach. It is the signifier one-in-more by virtue of which there is no universe of speech, and which is written as S(A).
"Shall it be that we deceive ourselves in the election of the words? ... Though, it should be totally excessive to say that the psychoanalyst knows how to operate. Nevertheless, it should be necessary for him to have knowledge to operate conveniently and to be able to recognize the slope of words for the individual under psychoanalytic treatment, which is undeniably ignored by him" (Seminar 25: 11/15/77). Likely, during his Seminar 24 which took place some months later, he expressed the following: "Should all of you be psychoanalysts, you shall be able to see that it is just the sense that sounds through those forcing factors... But applying to the support of the poetic writing, you shall recognize the dimension of what could be the psychoanalytic interpretation... to outline two aspects, what we always enunciate, it is the law of speech as a system of setting opposite; even it should be also convenient to got over it" (4/19/77).
His innovative proposition is based on the idea that only the poetry allows us to reach the interpretation, and as no sufficiently enough poetic art appears to be on us, it is not possible to go too far within the praxis (5/17/77).
It is possible to say that the interpretation of the unconscious formation as an effect arising from the return of what appears to be repressed, comes from a structure formed without history, and then the construction of a structure with history acts as complement of the former. Both of them are the constituent parts of a saying interpretation which allows a knowledge to take place as long as it is true.
If the extension of these effects cannot be estimated, this is so because its unique sense is the phallic pleasure, which represents an insuperable obstacle in order to establish the sexual relation. From there the interpretation or the construction establishes its own limit by virtue of the sense arising from the conscious-unconscious continuity; thus the subjective transmutation undergone is a consequence derived through work: the one that allows the repetitions to become decipherable, because the resonance of the unconscious lucubration gives rise to its translation by introducing something, the S(A) which operates as significance.
Therefore the interpretative implication is recognized through the unique sense expressed univocally, the phallic element of a certain language determined by F, the Symbolic Phallus. From there, two aspects may be outlined, the one represented by the sound which appears to be subsumed under the sense element, since the phonemic aspect is made hierarchical, nevertheless the interpretation is not assumed to be understood but it produces sense swells.
When Lacan guides us to overcome this sub-position because its dialectical, oppositional and predicative nature, supported by the père-versión of the love to the Names-of-the-Father, he proposes us to link firmly the sound and the sense in order to reach at least a minimum and poetic double sense. What this "phonation" ethic achieves -as it is expressed by R. Harari in 'Les noms du Joyce', L'Harmattan, Paris, 2000, or 'Cómo se llama James Joyce?', Amorrortu, Bs. As. 1996, becomes possible due to languages elongation, untranslating with the forcing factor, as to make the letters belonging to a writing to sound, but it is not the same case for the signifiers articulated by a metaphorical chain.
That is what Lacan decided to name as the unconscious mind materials - as I likely try to speak at length in my work "Goces y materialidad de lo inconsciente" Catálogos, Bs. As., 1998. Then, as from the forcing factor arising from what has been structured, we are allowing the prediscursive indecisiveness related to the truth variety to make its way, and the knowing-doing quality achieved refers to the invention of something through which an own name is responsibly created.