Difference between revisions of "Adaptation"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{Top}} adaptation {{Bottom}} | + | {{Top}}adapt|adaptation{{Bottom}} |
| + | ==Biology== | ||
| + | The concept of [[adaptation]] is a [[biology|biological]] [[:category:concepts|concept]]; [[biology|organism]]s are supposed to be driven to [[adapt]] themselves to fit the [[biology|environment]]. | ||
| − | + | [[Adaptation]] implies a harmonious relation between the ''[[Adaptation|Innenwelt]]'' (inner world) and ''[[adaptation|Umwelt]]'' (surrounding world). | |
| − | + | ==Ego-Psychology== | |
| − | + | [[Ego-psychology]] applies the [[biological]] concept of [[adaptation]] to [[psychoanalysis]], explaining [[neurotic]] [[symptom]]s in terms of [[maladaptive]] [[behavior]] (such as applying archaic [[defense mechanism]]s in contexts where they are no longer appropriate) and arguing that the aim of [[psychoanalytic treatment]] is to help the [[patient]] [[adapt]] to [[reality]]. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | ==Ego- | ||
| − | [[Ego-psychology]] applies the [[biological]] concept of [[adaptation]] to [[psychoanalysis]] | ||
[[Ego-psychology]] explain [[neurotic]] [[symptom]]s in terms of maladaptive [[behaviour]]. | [[Ego-psychology]] explain [[neurotic]] [[symptom]]s in terms of maladaptive [[behaviour]]. | ||
| Line 16: | Line 14: | ||
==Jacques Lacan== | ==Jacques Lacan== | ||
| − | From his early work in the 1930s on, [[Lacan]] opposes any attempt to explain human phenomena in terms of [[adaptation]].<ref>{{Ec}} p.158; {{Ec}} p.171-2</ref> | + | From his early work in the 1930s on, [[Lacan]] opposes any attempt to explain human phenomena in terms of [[adaptation]].<ref>{{Ec}} p.158; {{Ec}} p. 171-2</ref> |
| − | This forms a constant theme in [[Lacan]]'s work; in 1955, for example, he states that "the dimension discovered by analysis is the opposite of anything which progresses through adaptation."<ref>{{S2}} p.86</ref> | + | This forms a constant theme in [[Lacan]]'s work; in 1955, for example, he states that "the dimension discovered by analysis is the opposite of anything which progresses through adaptation."<ref>{{S2}} p. 86</ref> |
He takes this view for several reasons: | He takes this view for several reasons: | ||
| − | === | + | ===Reality=== |
| − | The stress on the adaptive function of the [[ego]] misses the [[ego]]'s [[alienating]] | + | The stress on the [[adaptation|adaptive function]] of the [[ego]] misses the [[ego]]'s [[alienation|alienating function]] and is based on a simplistic and unproblematic view of "[[reality]]". |
| − | Reality is not a simple, objective thing to which the ego must adapt, but is itself a product of the ego's | + | [[Reality]] is not a simple, objective thing to which the [[ego]] must [[adapt]], but is itself a product of the [[ego]]'s [[fiction]]al [[mirror stage|misrepresentations]] and [[projection]]s. |
| − | Therefore | + | <blockquote>"[Therefore] it is not a question of adapting to it [reality], but of showing it [the ego] that it is only too well adapted, since it assists in the construction of that very reality."<ref>{{E}} p. 236</ref></blockquote> |
The task of [[psychoanalysis]] is rather to subvert the [[illusory]] sense of [[adaptation]], since this blocks access to the [[unconscious]]. | The task of [[psychoanalysis]] is rather to subvert the [[illusory]] sense of [[adaptation]], since this blocks access to the [[unconscious]]. | ||
| − | === | + | ===Analyst=== |
To set [[adaptation]] as the [[aim]] of the [[treatment]] is to turn the [[analyst]] into the arbiter of the [[patient]]'s [[adaptation]]. | To set [[adaptation]] as the [[aim]] of the [[treatment]] is to turn the [[analyst]] into the arbiter of the [[patient]]'s [[adaptation]]. | ||
| Line 41: | Line 39: | ||
[[reality]] onto the [[patient]]; this is not [[psychoanalysis]] but [[suggestion]]. | [[reality]] onto the [[patient]]; this is not [[psychoanalysis]] but [[suggestion]]. | ||
| − | === | + | ===Gap=== |
| − | The idea of [[harmony]] between the organism and its environment, implicit in the concept of [[adaptation]], is inapplicable to human | + | The idea of [[harmony]] between the [[biology|organism]] and its [[biology|environment]], implicit in the concept of [[adaptation]], is inapplicable to [[human]] [[being]]s because [[human|man]]'s inscription in the [[symbolic]] [[order]] [[nature|de-naturalises]] him and means that "in man the [[imaginary]] relation [to nature] has deviated". |
| + | |||
| + | Whereas "all animal machines are strictly riveted to the conditions of the external environment,"<ref>{{S2}} p. 322</ref> in the [[human]] [[being]] there is "a certain biological gap."<ref>{{S2}} p. 323</ref> | ||
Any attempt to regain [[harmony]] with [[nature]] overlooks the essentially excessive [[drive]] potential summed up in the [[death drive]]. | Any attempt to regain [[harmony]] with [[nature]] overlooks the essentially excessive [[drive]] potential summed up in the [[death drive]]. | ||
| − | Human | + | [[Human]] [[being]]s are essentially [[maladaptive]]. |
| − | + | ==Treatment== | |
[[Lacan]] argues that the stress put by [[ego-psychology]] on the [[adaptation]] of the [[patient]] to [[reality]] reduces [[psychoanalysis]] to an instrument of social control and conformity. | [[Lacan]] argues that the stress put by [[ego-psychology]] on the [[adaptation]] of the [[patient]] to [[reality]] reduces [[psychoanalysis]] to an instrument of social control and conformity. | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
-- | -- | ||
| − | [[Lacan]] regards it as significant that the [[adaptation]] theme was developed by the European | + | [[Lacan]] regards it as significant that the [[adaptation]] theme was developed by the European [[psychoanalyst]]s who had emigrated to the USA in the late 1930s. |
| − | These | + | These [[analyst]]s felt not only that they had to [[adapt]] to life in the USA, but also that they had to [[adapt]] [[psychoanalysis]] to American tastes.<ref>{{E}} p.115</ref> |
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
| + | {{See}} | ||
| + | * [[Analyst]] | ||
* [[Biology]] | * [[Biology]] | ||
| + | * [[Death drive]] | ||
| + | || | ||
| + | * [[Ego]] | ||
| + | * [[Ego-psychology]] | ||
| + | * [[Factor C]] | ||
| + | || | ||
* [[Gap]] | * [[Gap]] | ||
| + | * [[Nature]] | ||
| + | * [[Neurosis]] | ||
| + | || | ||
| + | * [[Pleasure principle]] | ||
| + | * [[Psychoanalysis]] | ||
* [[Suggestion]] | * [[Suggestion]] | ||
| + | || | ||
| + | * [[Symptom]] | ||
| + | * [[Treatment]] | ||
| + | * [[Unconscious]] | ||
| + | {{Also}} | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
| Line 76: | Line 94: | ||
[[Category:Concepts]] | [[Category:Concepts]] | ||
[[Category:Terms]] | [[Category:Terms]] | ||
| + | {{OK}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | __NOTOC__ | ||
Revision as of 06:51, 24 August 2006
| French: adaptation |
Biology
The concept of adaptation is a biological concept; organisms are supposed to be driven to adapt themselves to fit the environment.
Adaptation implies a harmonious relation between the Innenwelt (inner world) and Umwelt (surrounding world).
Ego-Psychology
Ego-psychology applies the biological concept of adaptation to psychoanalysis, explaining neurotic symptoms in terms of maladaptive behavior (such as applying archaic defense mechanisms in contexts where they are no longer appropriate) and arguing that the aim of psychoanalytic treatment is to help the patient adapt to reality.
Ego-psychology explain neurotic symptoms in terms of maladaptive behaviour.
Ego-psychology argues that the aim of psychoanalytic treatment is to help the patient adapt to reality.
Jacques Lacan
From his early work in the 1930s on, Lacan opposes any attempt to explain human phenomena in terms of adaptation.[1]
This forms a constant theme in Lacan's work; in 1955, for example, he states that "the dimension discovered by analysis is the opposite of anything which progresses through adaptation."[2]
He takes this view for several reasons:
Reality
The stress on the adaptive function of the ego misses the ego's alienating function and is based on a simplistic and unproblematic view of "reality".
Reality is not a simple, objective thing to which the ego must adapt, but is itself a product of the ego's fictional misrepresentations and projections.
"[Therefore] it is not a question of adapting to it [reality], but of showing it [the ego] that it is only too well adapted, since it assists in the construction of that very reality."[3]
The task of psychoanalysis is rather to subvert the illusory sense of adaptation, since this blocks access to the unconscious.
Analyst
To set adaptation as the aim of the treatment is to turn the analyst into the arbiter of the patient's adaptation.
The analyst's own "relation to reality thus goes without saying."[4]
It is automatically assumed that the analyst is better adapted than the patient.
This inevitably turns psychoanalysis into the exercise of power, in which the analyst forces his own particular view of reality onto the patient; this is not psychoanalysis but suggestion.
Gap
The idea of harmony between the organism and its environment, implicit in the concept of adaptation, is inapplicable to human beings because man's inscription in the symbolic order de-naturalises him and means that "in man the imaginary relation [to nature] has deviated".
Whereas "all animal machines are strictly riveted to the conditions of the external environment,"[5] in the human being there is "a certain biological gap."[6]
Any attempt to regain harmony with nature overlooks the essentially excessive drive potential summed up in the death drive.
Human beings are essentially maladaptive.
Treatment
Lacan argues that the stress put by ego-psychology on the adaptation of the patient to reality reduces psychoanalysis to an instrument of social control and conformity.
He sees this as a complete betrayal of psychoanalysis, which he regards as an essentially subversive practice.
--
Lacan regards it as significant that the adaptation theme was developed by the European psychoanalysts who had emigrated to the USA in the late 1930s.
These analysts felt not only that they had to adapt to life in the USA, but also that they had to adapt psychoanalysis to American tastes.[7]
See Also
References
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p.158; Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p. 171-2
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-55. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1988. p. 86
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 236
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.230
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-55. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1988. p. 322
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-55. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1988. p. 323
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.115
