Changes

The decorum of this memorial tones down the attacks against [[Jones ]] who had been called the "little [[child ]] of [[psychoanalysis]]." After a few personal and historical reminders, [[Lacan ]] tackles the [[theoretical ]] divergences. If he pays homage to Jones for choosing [[Freud ]] against [[Jung]], he also stresses his numer�ous mistakes, especially concerning the function of [[language]]. For [[symbolism ]] one must [[substitute ]] [[Symbolic]]: "As the [[need ]] is submitted to the [[demand]], it is the [[concrete ]] incidence of the [[signifier ]] that, by repressing [[desire ]] into the po�sition of [[being ]] misknown [meconnu], gives its [[order ]] to the [[unconscious]]." Many pages address the question of the [[phallus]]. The [[author ]] attacks Jones's articles on [[sexual ]] [[difference ]] (1927 and 1932) and his address to the [[Society ]] of [[Vienna ]] (1935), in which, joining "Melanie [[Klein]]'s genetism of [[fantasies]]," he would have largely contributed to misleading all [[psychoanalytic ]] [[thought ]] in the direction of symbolism. Only Lacan's 1953 [[Discourse ]] in Rome would have finally broken the malevolent spell. The [[seminars ]] often [[present ]] Jones as "the champion of [[English ]] feminists": he is accused of practicing "[[figure ]] skating" in order to take the opposite view of Freud's positions on the [[phallic ]] [[phase]], while claiming to be in perfect agreement. Elsewhere, his [[Protestantism ]] seems to be [[responsible ]] for his "misconstructions" [meconnaissances]. In any [[case]], he did not see that "the only [[notion ]] that allows [[understanding ]] of the symbolism of the phallus is the specificity of its function as signifier" and "as signifier of [[lack]]" (39, 41). However, in the end he is saved in spite of himself. His study on Punchinello truly reveals the winged phallus, the "un�conscious [[fantasy ]] of [[male ]] desire's impossibilities, the treasure in which wom�an's infinite [[impotence ]] [impuissance] is exhausted."