|
DOES THE UNCONSCIOUS ADVANCE ? TOURINHO PERES Urania L'inconscient ne se laisse plus faire comme au temps de Freud et c'est là le grand tournant, la revision déchirante à quoi, dans les années trente, a dû s'astreindre leur technique. (1)
It is possible to think that the second argument moved forward in relation to the first one, and the conceptualization of death pulsion was decisive to understand the human condition granted by Freud, that is, we observe an evolution in theory. However, the value of the first texts, such as The Interpretation of Dreams and The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, cannot be denied, as they transmit the notion of the unconscious. Science advances and brings theories that overcome other theories. Thomas Kuhn, in his book A estrutura das revoluções científicas(4), introduces the concept of paradigm to explain advances in the scientific field. A new paradigm rises when science is in crisis. In a text which we title The Lacanian Paradigm, we question whether, in fact, it can be considered that the introduction of the three registers in human reality -the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary- implies a new paradigm, which would place us before a new form of psychoanalyses. We do not believe so, although it is important to specify that we have not read Lacan from the point of view of the amalgam Lacan-Freud. We consider the creative side of his doctrine, highlighting one of the most important inventions within our area: the "a" object. The verb advance, according to the Webster's Dictionary of the English Language means "to move or bring forward"(5). While in French avancer, according to Le petit Robert I has the meaning of "pousser, porter en avance", and its derived avance, or 'fait d'avancer, avantage, profit'. (6) The lecture that took place on 8th July 1953(7)- where, for the first time, the three registers of the human reality, that is, the Imaginary, the Symbolic and the Real, were introduced- occupies an important position in the interpretation that was then proposed to be realized on the Freudian text, which is nearly a manifest, as taking a position. In that interpretation Lacan asks: What is this experience, singular among all, that is going to bring such deep transformations to the individual? And what is its motive? He answers saying that for many years an analytic doctrine has been elaborated in order to answer this question. We can also add that Lacan is going to carry on in this direction of giving an answer to a question, which is always the same one. The question of what psychoanalysis is will reappear in various moments of his teaching, reaffirming that is the only way of defining psychoanalysis. In one of the last seminars, on 10th January 1978, he finally confirms the impossibility of truly finding an answer, unless it is done by an analysis requirement, and he specifies "require me an analysis"(8). That interrogation can be searched, and probably even found, between an analyst and an analyzer. Therefore we emphasize two questions: "What is the unconscious?" and "What is psychoanalysis?" And then we are going to discuss the idea of advance. If we take some texts written by Lacan after 1975, which we can consider as being witnesses of a life end, what will be found in his own words is an ambiguity in what refers to his relation with the Freudian text. In the same way, he affirms his absolute fidelity to Freud as well as he affirms his difference in relation to him. However, contradictory statements are part of the Lacanian doctrine. Uncertainties in which psychoanalysts can be found are mentioned in the Ouverture de la section clinique (1977), and it can be deduced that they are mostly caused by the lack of clarity in the difference, aroused by him, in relation to the Freudian unconscious. Lacan even states that the unconscious is not Freud's but his, despite the field is Freudian. This is due to the fact that Freud did not do what he did, that is, he did not isolate the unconscious by its symbolic function, indicated in the notion of significant. He concludes by saying that psychoanalytic clinic consists in questioning everything Freud had said(9). On the other hand, that same year, in C'est à la lecture de Freud, he stated: Il suffit d'ouvrir Freud à n'importe quelle page, pour être saisi du fait qu'il ne s'agit que de langage dans ce qu'il nous découvre de l'inconscient. (10) In Ouverture du séminaire, le 10-11-1978 (À Ste.-Anne - Prof. Deniker), he makes a summery of his career in psychoanalysis, which is very useful for our reflection, and which we are summarizing and commenting. He begins with an allusion to his youth, in 1954, when he pretended, with his speech, to take from Freudianism everything that was covering it. He uses the verb déblayer - which according to Le petit Robert means 'débarraser (un endroit) de ce qui encombre' (11)- and states having remained for six years in that job of unveiling the unconscious. That movement took him progressively to make a presentation of the unconscious in a mathematical way. Emphasizing the word presentation, he says he presents the thing under the form, already engaged, of the Borromean knot. The imaginary supports the real and realizes the mathematical ratiocination, which permits the topology articulation. Ce qui, sous le nom de topologie, donne sa consistance au raisonnement mathématique, fait partie du lien où le Symbolique et le Réel dépendent l'un de l'autre(12). The symbolic, the language, in relation to real, is what can be stated under the name of unconscious. L'inconscient, c'est le Symbolique, et c'est en cela qu'il tient au Réel (...) le Réel c'est l'impossible: il est tout à fait impossible que le langage régisse le Réel (...) Cette prééminence du Symbolique sur le Réel, c'est ce qui constitue à proprement parler l'inconscient(13). Lacan concludes saying that he used topology, what is most advanced in mathematical ratiocination, in order to comprehend and présenter ce qu'il en était de l'inconscient. (14) This effort takes us to retake the question from which we departed and query whether there is, in fact, an advance in relation to the Freudian unconscious, or whether the attempt of showing the unconscious only implies a theoretical development. Theory advances but the unconscious does not. Our conclusion is: Psychoanalysis advances and theorizing continues as a methonimical course of the psychoanalyst's wish. Although the unconscious remains Freudian, it does not advance, and therefore Lacan uses what is most advanced in math's to try to define it once more.
|