Changes

From [[Freud]] clarified this conception of the symbol following the "[[Project]] for a psychoanalytic perspective[[Scientific]] [[Psychology]]" (1950c [1895]), the describing it as a mnemic symbol refers subsequent to all indirect and figurative representations his research into [[hysterical]] symptoms. In the [[case]] of unconscious desire (symptomsa "standard" symbol, dreams, slips of the tongue, parapraxes, etc.). This conception of connection between the unconscious symbol depends on a relation of general substitution where one thing takes and what is symbolized remains, as in the place example that Freud gives of another; but unlike the termknight who fights for his lady's conventional glove but who [[knows]] [[full]] well that the glove owes its importance to her. In this synecdoche of part for [[whole]] the conjunction of meaningis clear. With [[hysteria]] however, defined by it is the conjunction [[loss]] of the connection between the symbol and what is symbolizedthat is noteworthy: "The [[hysteric]], who weeps at A, is quite unaware that he is doing so on account of the unconscious [[association]] A-B, and B itself plays no part at all in his [[psychical]] [[life]]. The symbol is defined by a disjunction between symbol and symbolizedhas in this case taken the place of [[the thing]] entirely" (1950c, p. 349).

Freud clarified As a result of this conception disjunction of meaning, the symbol following the "Project for a Scientific Psychology" (1950c [1895[affect]), describing it as a mnemic ] that was bound to what is symbolized attaches itself to the symbol subsequent to his research into hysterical symptoms. In both instances the case of substitution assumes a "standard" symbol, the connection similarity between the symbol and what is symbolized remains(A/B), as in and thus emerges the tension at the example very heart of symbolic substitution between a nonsensical literal interpretation and a symbolic interpretation that Freud gives supports a [[surplus]] of meaning because of the knight who fights for his lady's glove but who knows full well that very [[denial]] or negation [[[négation]]] precluding the glove owes its importance to her. In this synecdoche pure and simple assimilation of part for whole the conjunction of meaning is cleartwo [[terms]] in question. With hysteria however, it is In the loss case of the connection between the hysterical symbol and what is symbolized that is noteworthy: "The hysteric, who weeps at A, is quite unaware that he it is doing so on account of the association A-B, and B itself plays no part at all in his psychical life. The symbol has in this case taken the place [[impossibility]] of invoking denial that would explain the thing entirely" (1950c, p. 349)[[symptom]]'s [[apparent]] absurdity.

As What might appear here as a result simple relation of this disjunction of meaning, the affect that was bound to what is symbolized attaches itself to the symbol. In both instances the substitution assumes a similarity between the two terms —the symbol and what is symbolized (A/B)symbolized—allows, and thus emerges the tension at the very heart of symbolic substitution between a nonsensical literal in fact, for an interpretation and where meaning might attributed according to context. The symbol's abundance derives from its polysemy, but only reference to a symbolic interpretation that supports a surplus of meaning because of the very denial or negation regulated [[négationsystem]] precluding the pure and simple assimilation of interpretation can lend precision to the two terms in question. In symbol, hence the case of requirement to define the hysterical symbol, system and determine what it is the impossibility of invoking denial that would explain the symptom's apparent absurditypermits this regulation.

What might appear here Freud hesitated between two rules of interpretation. Either it depends on [[individual]] context—specifically, a person's individual [[associations]], which permit [[them]] to discover hidden meaning, as in the hysterical symptom or in dreams—or on collective context—specifically, a simple relation [[work]] of substitution between two terms —the symbol and what is symbolized—allowstransindividual [[culture]] that clarifies meaning, as in fact"symbolic [[dream]]-[[interpreting]]" (1900a, p. 97). On the [[subject]] of the dream, he depicted [[sexual]] symbols that did not arouse associations for an interpretation where meaning might attributed according the dreamer but that the [[analysis]] would supply by referring to contextthe symbolism of collective compositions ([[myths]], tales, proverbs, songs, etc. The ); this enabled him to rediscover the correlation between the [[manifest]] and [[latent]] symbol's abundance derives from its polysemy, but only reference . This obscure and concealed comparability appeared to be based on a regulated system [[relationship]] of interpretation can lend precision to equivalence (a tree for the symbol[[male]] sex organs, hence a cave for the requirement to define the system [[female]] sex organs), but also occasionally on a relationship of proximity (nudity symbolized by clothes and determine what it is that permits this regulationuniforms).

Freud hesitated between two rules If symbols are multiple, the field of what is symbolized is highly limited, relating ultimately to the [[domain]] of interpretationsexual [[instinct]]. Either it depends on individual context—specifically, The [[theory]] of a person's individual associations, which permit them to discover hidden meaningpredetermined and stereotyped sexual symbolic, as in the hysterical symptom or in dreams—or on collective context—specificallyservice of an oneiric representability, a work corresponds with Freud's [[wish]] to contest [[Jung]]'s theory of transindividual culture that clarifies meaningsymbolism, as in whose conception of the "symbolic dream[[libido]]-interpretingsymbol" (1900a, p. 97). On ends up denying the subject importance of the dream[[sexual instinct]] in [[psychic]] [[behavior]]. Ernest [[Jones]]'s key paper, he depicted sexual symbols that did not arouse associations for the dreamer but that the analysis would supply by referring to the symbolism "The Theory of collective compositions Symbolism" (myths1916), tales, proverbs, songs, etc.); this enabled him seeks moreover to rediscover the correlation between reinforce the manifest and latent symbol. This obscure and concealed comparability appeared to be based on a relationship [[Freudian]] theory of equivalence (a tree "symbolic dream-interpretation"; for Jones all [[true]] symbolism is the male sex organs, a cave [[substitute]] for the female sex organs), but also occasionally on a relationship of proximity (nudity [[repressed]] [[drives]]/instincts: "Only that which is repressed is symbolized by clothes and uniforms)only that which is repressed requires [[symbolization]]."

If symbols are multiple, the field of what It is symbolized is highly limited, relating ultimately to the domain a question then of sexual instinct. The theory finding a rule of a predetermined and stereotyped sexual symbolic, in interpretation that can substantiate the service of an oneiric representability, corresponds with Freud's wish to contest Jung's theory of symbolism, whose conception discovery of the "libido-symbol" ends unconscious. To back up denying his theory Freud adopted the importance of the sexual instinct in psychic behavior. Ernest Jones[[linguist]] [[Hans]] Sperber's key paper, "The Theory theory of Symbolism" (1916), seeks moreover a [[primitive]] [[language]] [[[langue]]] parallel to reinforce the Freudian theory primitive language system [[[langage]]] of "[[sexuality]] in which all symbolic dream-interpretation"; for Jones all true symbolism is the substitute for repressed drives/instinctsconnections would appear as traces and relics: "Only that That which today is repressed linked [[symbolically]] was in all probability formerly linked conceptually and [[linguistically]]." Freud is symbolized thus compelled to set out from a [[real]] anteriority, in a proximate association, or [[identity]] even, that belongs, through a similar association, to language and only to a [[process]] of symbolization that which is repressed requires symbolizationinseparable from the work of instinct."

It is a question then of finding a rule of interpretation that can substantiate Thus, the discovery theory of [[the unconscious. To back up his theory Freud adopted the linguist Hans Sperber's theory symbolic]] designates more of a primitive language [langue[structural]] [[demand]] parallel to the primitive language system than a [[clinical]] [[langagetruth]] of sexuality in which all . In clinical terms, Freud always mistrusted instant symbolic connections would appear as traces and relics: "That which today is linked symbolically was in all probability formerly linked conceptually [[interpretations]] and linguistically." Freud is thus compelled preferred to set out from a real anteriority, in a proximate association, or identity even, rely on individual associations that belongs, through a similar association, to language and allowed him to uncover a process of symbolization [[linguistic]] usage that is inseparable from would justify the work use of instincta symbolic representation.

ThusFreud's theory of the symbol cannot therefore be separated from a conception of symbolization, which bears out the fact that the psychoanalytic approach is more a [[tripartite]] theory of interpretation, where it is necessary to consider the subject who symbolizes, than a theory of [[translation]] seeking to proceed via the simple substitution of one term for another. Freud's uncertainty demonstrates the symbolic designates more difficulty of constructing a structural demand than theory of the symbol while making allowances for the symbol both as a clinical truth. In clinical termsmotivated [[sign]] (the symbol for Ferdinand de [[Saussure]], Freud always mistrusted instant symbolic interpretations corresponding to a [[natural]] analogy between symbol and symbolized) and preferred as an [[arbitrary]] sign (the symbol for Charles Sanders Pierce, corresponding to rely on individual associations that allowed him the standard rule governing the [[signifier]] and [[signified]], in [[other]] [[words]] to uncover a the arbitrary linguistic usage that would justify the use of a symbolic representationsign).

Freud's What is problematic with this theory of the symbol cannot therefore be separated from a symbolic is the conception of symbolization, which bears out as a failure of [[sublimation]] rather than as its accomplishment. This opposition marks a [[return]] in too radical a fashion to the fact that opposition between a symbolism of the psychoanalytic approach is more unconscious and a tripartite theory symbolism of interpretation, where it is necessary language. Post-Freudian theorists have sought to consider reconcile these different aspects of the subject who symbolizessymbol, than whether through a theory semantic perspective associated with the [[image]], as in the case of translation seeking to proceed via Melanie [[Klein]] and post-[[Kleinian]] theorists, or through a syntactic approach associated with language, as in the simple substitution case of one term for anotherJacques [[Lacan]]. Freud's uncertainty demonstrates the difficulty of constructing It is a theory question in both cases of reviving the symbol while making allowances for Freudian intuition of the symbol both as the result of a motivated sign (process of symbolization. To Klein's interpretation of the symbol for Ferdinand de Saussure[[imaginary]], corresponding to which retains a natural analogy between symbol and symbolized) and as an arbitrary sign (the symbol for Charles Sanders Piercecertain [[psychological]] realism, corresponding Lacan opposed reference to the standard rule governing the signifier and signified, in other words to symbolic [[order]] that represents an [[intellectualization]] of the arbitrary linguistic sign)unconscious.

What is problematic with this theory of the symbolic is the conception of symbolization as a failure of sublimation rather than as its accomplishment. This opposition marks a return in too radical a fashion to the opposition between a symbolism of the unconscious and a symbolism of language. Post-Freudian theorists have sought to reconcile these different aspects of the symbol, whether through a semantic perspective associated with the image, as in the case of Melanie Klein and post-Kleinian theorists, or through a syntactic approach associated with language, as in the case of Jacques Lacan. It is a question in both cases of reviving the Freudian intuition of the symbol as the result of a process of symbolization. To Klein's interpretation of the imaginary, which retains a certain psychological realism, Lacan opposed reference to the symbolic order that represents an intellectualization of the unconscious. The approach to symbolization as a process presupposes the preservation of that which Freud, rather awkwardly, wished always to have prevail: namely, the [[necessity ]] for a [[dualism]], for the articulation of a viable [[distinction ]] between the symbolism of the image and the symbolism of language. The truth of Freudian [[empiricism ]] in the theory of primitive language, like the original proximity of the symbol, is no [[doubt ]] to mark the importance of this fundamental proximity of the [[psyche ]] with the [[body ]] as the juncture between representation and affect, between meaning and primitive [[animism]], characteristic of the [[hallucinatory ]] [[satisfaction ]] of desire. ALAIN GIBEAULT See also: Anagogical interpretation; Archetype (analytical psychology); "Claims of Psycho-Analysis to Scientific Interest"; Compensation (analytical psychology); Complex (analytical psychology); Dream symbolism; Idea/representation; Infantile psychosis; Negation; Psychology of the Unconscious, The; "Project for a Scientific Psychology, A"; Self (analytical psychology); Symptom-formation; Mnemic symbol; Symbolic, the (Lacan); Symbolism; Thought-thinking apparatus; Visual arts and psychoanalysis.Bibliography  * Freud, Sigmund. (1900a). The interpretation of dreams. Part I, SE, 4: 1-338; Part II, SE, 5, 339-625. * ——. (1950c [1895]). Project for a scientific psychology. SE, 1: 281-387. * Jones, Ernest. (1916). The theory of symbolism. Papers on psychoanalysis. Boston: Beacon. Further Reading  * Segal, Hanna. (1978). On symbolism. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 59, 315-320.