Discourse analysis

From No Subject
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Discourse analysis in the context of psychoanalysis refers to a range of theoretical and clinical practices concerned with the interpretation of speech, language, and signification within both the psychic and social domains. Distinct from linguistic or sociological discourse analysis, psychoanalytic discourse analysis is grounded in a theory of the unconscious and centers on the relation between language, subjectivity, and desire. Drawing from the foundational work of Sigmund Freud and elaborated by Jacques Lacan, psychoanalytic discourse analysis attends to clinical phenomena (such as transference, symptom formation, and resistance) as well as broader symbolic and cultural structures.

Definition

In psychoanalytic theory, discourse is not merely a communicative act but a structured field of signifiers through which the subject is constituted. Discourse analysis thus involves interpreting not only what is said but how it is said—attending to speech, silences, lapses, repetitions, and figurative expressions as manifestations of unconscious processes.

Central to this approach is Lacan’s assertion that the unconscious is “structured like a language,” and that language precedes and constitutes the subject. Discourse, in this context, also refers to socially and linguistically organized configurations of desire, authority, and knowledge. This structural understanding of discourse is elaborated most systematically in Lacan’s Four Discourses theory, which conceptualizes intersubjective relations in terms of fixed speech positions and their relation to truth, knowledge, and enjoyment (jouissance).

Historical Development

Freudian Foundations

Freud’s invention of the Talking Cure established speech as the privileged medium through which unconscious material could be accessed and transformed. In texts such as The Interpretation of Dreams (1900) and The Psychopathology of Everyday Life (1901), Freud demonstrated how slips, jokes, and symptomatic speech reflect unconscious desires and conflicts. Psychoanalytic interpretation, for Freud, is a form of discourse analysis: it involves listening to manifest speech to uncover latent meanings.

Freud’s metapsychology introduced the mechanisms of displacement, condensation, and secondary revision—processes through which unconscious thoughts are transformed into communicable forms, such as dreams or symptoms. Thus, from its origins, psychoanalysis developed as a methodology for analyzing the psychic significance of discourse.

Structural and Linguistic Influences

In the mid-20th century, psychoanalytic theory engaged deeply with structuralism, particularly the linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure and the anthropology of Claude Lévi-Strauss. These influences laid the groundwork for Lacan’s structural return to Freud, particularly in his claim that the subject is “spoken” by the signifier.

Language, for Lacan, is not an instrument of expression but the very condition of subjectivity. The subject’s relation to the unconscious is mediated through the symbolic order of language. This structural orientation laid the foundation for Lacan’s later theory of discourse as a formal apparatus.

Major Theoretical Approaches

Lacan’s Theory of the Four Discourses

Lacan introduced the Four Discourses in Seminar XVII (1969–1970) as a formal framework for understanding the relations between speech, knowledge, power, and desire. These discourses are not modes of conversation, but structural matrices of subject positions and speech functions:

  • The Discourse of the Master enacts authority and produces knowledge.
  • The Discourse of the University legitimizes and institutionalizes knowledge, repressing desire.
  • The Discourse of the Hysteric articulates the divided subject who questions the Other.
  • The Discourse of the Analyst places the analyst in the position that elicits the analysand's speech, facilitating the emergence of unconscious truth.

Each discourse operates through a rotation of four elements: the agent of enunciation, the Other (addressee), the truth (beneath the agent), and the product (or effect). This model informs both clinical technique and the analysis of social bonds.

Post-Structuralist and Cultural Extensions

Later theorists such as Julia Kristeva, Slavoj Žižek, and others have extended psychoanalytic discourse analysis into fields such as semiotics, ideology critique, and cultural theory. These approaches often draw on Lacanian categories—such as the symbolic, imaginary, and real—to interpret how fantasy and desire are embedded in social and textual formations.

While these extensions differ in emphasis, they share the psychoanalytic commitment to the split subject and to language as a site of psychic investment. In such work, discourse analysis becomes a means of interrogating cultural, political, and aesthetic phenomena through the logic of the unconscious.

Clinical Applications

In psychoanalytic practice, discourse analysis involves listening to the analysand’s speech not for narrative coherence, but for structural patterns, contradictions, and symptomatic formations. Analysts interpret repetitions, slips, metaphors, and silences as clues to unconscious desire and conflict.

In the framework of the Discourse of the Analyst, the analyst does not offer authoritative knowledge but facilitates a space in which the subject can articulate their own unconscious truth. This involves occupying a position of non-knowledge, allowing the analysand's speech to be restructured in the analytic process.

Relation to Other Forms of Discourse Analysis

Linguistic and Conversation Analysis

Linguistic discourse analysis and conversation analysis focus on formal and pragmatic features of speech—such as turn-taking, syntax, and cohesion. These approaches tend to be descriptive and empirical, avoiding interpretive claims about unconscious meaning.

In contrast, psychoanalytic discourse analysis is interpretive, oriented around subjective division, and concerned with what is disavowed, repressed, or symptomatic in speech. It treats language as both structure and symptom.

Sociological and Foucauldian Discourse Theory

Michel Foucault conceptualized discourse as a system of knowledge and power that constitutes subjects and social practices. While Foucauldian analysis shares with psychoanalysis an interest in subject formation through language, it departs from psychoanalysis by rejecting the notion of an unconscious interiority.

Psychoanalytic and Foucauldian discourse theories may converge in their analyses of subjectivity, but they differ in epistemological focus: Foucault emphasizes historical and institutional regimes, whereas psychoanalysis emphasizes psychic structure, fantasy, and desire.

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

Critical Discourse Analysis (e.g., Norman Fairclough) examines how discourse maintains or challenges ideological power structures. While some CDA theorists incorporate psychoanalytic concepts—such as fantasy or jouissance—CDA generally foregrounds sociopolitical critique, whereas psychoanalytic discourse analysis retains its focus on unconscious dynamics and subjective division.

Critiques and Limitations

Psychoanalytic discourse analysis has been critiqued for its resistance to empirical validation and for its reliance on interpretive authority. Feminist and postcolonial scholars have raised concerns about its complicity with certain patriarchal or Eurocentric assumptions, particularly in classical formulations.

Within psychoanalytic circles, Lacan’s formal discourse theory has been praised for its rigor but also criticized for abstraction and inaccessibility. Debates continue over its clinical efficacy and its relevance to contemporary analytic technique.

See Also

References

  • Freud, S. (1900). The Interpretation of Dreams. Standard Edition, Vol. 4–5.
  • Freud, S. (1901). The Psychopathology of Everyday Life. Standard Edition, Vol. 6.
  • Lacan, J. (2007). The Other Side of Psychoanalysis: The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XVII (1969–1970). Trans. R. Grigg. New York: Norton.
  • Lacan, J. (1977). Écrits: A Selection. Trans. A. Sheridan. New York: Norton.
  • Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge. Trans. A.M. Sheridan Smith. New York: Pantheon.
  • Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Žižek, S. (1989). The Sublime Object of Ideology. London: Verso.
  • Parker, I. & Pavón-Cuéllar, D. (Eds.) (2014). Lacan, Discourse, Event: New Psychoanalytic Approaches to Textual Indeterminacy. London: Routledge.
  • Alcorn, M. W. (1994). “Discourse and Displacement in Lacan’s Theory of the Subject.” *Psychoanalytic Review*, 81(1).

References


Retrieved from "https://nosubject.com/index.php?title=Discourse_analysis&oldid=60074"