Difference between revisions of "Biology"

From No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
biology (biologie)              Freud's work is full of references to biology. Freud
+
biology (biologie)               
  
regarded biology as a model of scientific rigour on which to base the new
+
==Freud and Biology==
 +
Freud's work is full of references to biology.
 +
Freud regarded biology as a model of scientific rigour on which to base the new science of psychoanalysis.
  
science of psychoanalysis. Lacan, however, is strongly opposed to any attempt
+
==Lacan's Critique of 'Biologism'==
 +
Lacan, however, is strongly opposed to any attempt to construct psychoanalysis upon a biological model, arguing that the direct application of biological (or ethological/psychological) concepts (such as [[adaptation]]) to psychoanalysis will inevitably be misleading and will obliterate the essential distinction between [[nature]] and [[:category:culture|culture]].
 +
Such biologising explanations of human behaviour ignore, according to Lacan, the primacy of the [[symbolic]] [[order]] in human [[existence]].
 +
Lacan sees this '[[biologism]]' in the work of those [[psychoanalysts]] who have confused [[desire]] with [[need]], and [[drives]] with [[instincts]], concepts which he insists on distinguishing.
  
to construct psychoanalysis upon a biological model, arguing that the direct
+
These arguments are evident from the very earliest of Lacan's psychoanalytic writings.
 +
In his 1938 work on the family, for example, he rejects any attempt to explain family structures on the basis of purely biological data, and argues that human psychology is regulated by complexes rather than by instincts.<ref>Lacan, 1938: 23-4</ref>
  
application of biological (or ethological/psychological) concepts (such               as
+
Lacan argues that his refusal of biological reductionism is not a contradiction of Freud but a return to the essence of Freud's work.
 +
When Freud used biological models, he did so simply because biology was at that time a model of scientific rigour in general, and because the conjectural sciences had not then achieved the same degree of rigour.
 +
Freud certainly did not confuse psychoanalysis with biology or any other exact science, and when he borrowed concepts from biology (such as the concept of the drive) he reworked them in such a radical way that they become totally new concepts.
 +
For example, the concept of the death instinct "is not a question of biology."<ref>E, 102</ref> 
 +
Lacan expresses his point with a paradox: "Freudian biology has nothing to do with biology."<ref>S2, 75</ref>
  
ADAPTATION) to psychoanalysis will inevitably be misleading and will obliter-
+
Lacan, like Freud, uses concepts borrowed from biology (e.g. imago, dehiscence), and then reworks them in an entirely symbolic framework.
  
ate the essential distinction between        NATURE and culture. Such biologising
+
==Phallus==
 +
Perhaps the most significant example of this is Lacan's concept of the [[phallus]], which he conceives as a [[signifier]] and not as a bodily organ.
 +
Thus while Freud conceives of the [[castration complex]] and [[sexual difference]] in terms of the [[presence]] and [[absence]] of the [[penis]], Lacan theorises them in non-biological, non-anatomical terms (the presence and absence of the phallus).
 +
This has been one of the main attractions of Lacanian theory for certain [[:category:feminist theory|feminist]] writers who have seen it as a way of constructing a [[essentialism|non-essentialist]] account of gendered [[subjectivity]].
  
explanations of human behaviour ignore, according to Lacan, the primacy of
+
==Culturalism==
 +
However, while Lacan consistently rejects all forms of biological reductionism, he also rejects the culturalist position which completely ignores the relevance of biology.<ref>Ec, 723</ref>.
 +
If 'biologising' is understood correctly (that is, not as the reduction of psychic phenomena to crude biological determination, but as discerning the precise way in which biological data impact on the psychical field), then Lacan is all in favour of biologising thought.<ref>Ec, 723</ref>
 +
The clearest examples of this are Lacan's appeals to examples from animal ethology to demonstrate the power of images to act as releasing mechanisms; hence Lacan's references to pigeons and locusts in his account of the [[mirror stage]]<ref>E, 3</ref>, and to crustaceans in his account of mimicry.<ref>Sll, 99</ref>
  
the symbolic order in human existence. Lacan sees this 'biologism' in the work
+
Thus in his account of [[sexual difference]], Lacan follows Freud's rejection of the false dichotomy between "anatomy or convention."<ref>Freud, 1933a: SE XXII, 114</ref>
 +
Lacan's concern is not to privilege either term but to show how both interact in complex ways in the process of assuming a sexual position.
  
of those psychoanalysts who have confused desire with need, and drives with
 
  
instincts, concepts which he insists on distinguishing.
+
==References==
 +
<reference/>
  
    These arguments    are evident from the very earliest of Lacan's psycho-
 
  
analytic writings. In his 1938 work on the family, for example, he rejects
 
  
any attempt to explain family structures on the basis of purely biological data,
+
==See Also==
 +
* [[Biogenetics]]
  
and argues that human psychology is regulated by complexes rather than by
 
  
instincts (Lacan, 1938: 23-4).
 
  
    Lacan argues that his refusal of biological reductionism is not a contra-
+
[[Category:Terms]]
 
+
[[Category:Concepts]]
diction of Freud but a return to the essence of Freud's work. When Freud used
+
[[Category:Science]]
 
+
[[Category:Freudian psychology]]
biological models, he did so simply because biology was at that time a model
+
[[Category:Psychoanalysis]]
 
+
[[Category:Jacques Lacan]]
of scientific rigour in general, and because the conjectural sciences had not
+
[[Category:Sexuality]]
 
 
then achieved the      same degree of rigour. Freud certainly did not confuse
 
 
 
psychoanalysis with biology or any other exact science, and when he bor-
 
 
 
rowed concepts from biology (such as the concept of the drive) he reworked
 
 
 
them in such      a radical way that they become totally        new concepts. For
 
 
 
example, the concept of the death instinct 'is not a question of biology' (E,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  102). Lacan expresses his point with a paradox: 'Freudian biology has nothing
 
 
 
  to do with biology' (S2, 75).
 
 
 
      Lacan, like Freud,      uses concepts borrowed from biology (e.g. imago,
 
 
 
dehiscence), and then reworks them in              an entirely symbolic framework.
 
 
 
Perhaps the      most significant example of this is Lacan's concept of the
 
 
 
  PHALLUS, which he conceives as a signifier and not as a bodily organ. Thus
 
 
 
    while Freud conceives of the castration complex and sexual difference in terms
 
 
 
  of the presence and absence of the penis, Lacan theorises them in                non-
 
 
 
biological, non-anatomical terms (the presence and absence of the phallus).
 
 
 
  This has been    one of the main attractions of Lacanian theory for certain
 
 
 
  feminist writers who have seen it as a way of constructing a non-essentialist
 
 
 
  account of gendered subjectivity.
 
 
 
      However, while Lacan consistently rejects all forms of biological reduction-
 
 
 
ism, he also rejects the culturalist position which completely ignores the
 
 
 
  relevance of biology (Ec, 723). If 'biologising' is understood correctly (that
 
 
 
is, not as the reduction of psychic phenomena to crude biological determi-
 
 
 
nation, but as discerning the precise way in which biological data impact on
 
 
 
  the psychical field), then Lacan is all in favour of biologising thought (Ec,
 
 
 
723). The clearest examples of this        are Lacan's appeals to examples from
 
 
 
  animal ethology to demonstrate the power of images to act              as releasing
 
 
 
mechanisms; hence Lacan's references to pigeons and locusts in his account
 
 
 
  of the mirror stage (E, 3), and to crustaceans in his account of mimicry (Sll,
 
 
 
99) (see GESTALT).
 
 
 
      Thus in his account of sexual difference, Lacan follows Freud's rejection of
 
 
 
  the false dichotomy between 'anatomy or convention' (Freud, 1933a: SE XXII,
 
 
 
114). Lacan's concern is not to privilege either term but to show how both
 
 
 
interact in complex ways in the process of assuming a sexual position.
 

Revision as of 02:57, 22 May 2006

biology (biologie)

Freud and Biology

Freud's work is full of references to biology. Freud regarded biology as a model of scientific rigour on which to base the new science of psychoanalysis.

Lacan's Critique of 'Biologism'

Lacan, however, is strongly opposed to any attempt to construct psychoanalysis upon a biological model, arguing that the direct application of biological (or ethological/psychological) concepts (such as adaptation) to psychoanalysis will inevitably be misleading and will obliterate the essential distinction between nature and culture. Such biologising explanations of human behaviour ignore, according to Lacan, the primacy of the symbolic order in human existence. Lacan sees this 'biologism' in the work of those psychoanalysts who have confused desire with need, and drives with instincts, concepts which he insists on distinguishing.

These arguments are evident from the very earliest of Lacan's psychoanalytic writings. In his 1938 work on the family, for example, he rejects any attempt to explain family structures on the basis of purely biological data, and argues that human psychology is regulated by complexes rather than by instincts.[1]

Lacan argues that his refusal of biological reductionism is not a contradiction of Freud but a return to the essence of Freud's work. When Freud used biological models, he did so simply because biology was at that time a model of scientific rigour in general, and because the conjectural sciences had not then achieved the same degree of rigour. Freud certainly did not confuse psychoanalysis with biology or any other exact science, and when he borrowed concepts from biology (such as the concept of the drive) he reworked them in such a radical way that they become totally new concepts. For example, the concept of the death instinct "is not a question of biology."[2] Lacan expresses his point with a paradox: "Freudian biology has nothing to do with biology."[3]

Lacan, like Freud, uses concepts borrowed from biology (e.g. imago, dehiscence), and then reworks them in an entirely symbolic framework.

Phallus

Perhaps the most significant example of this is Lacan's concept of the phallus, which he conceives as a signifier and not as a bodily organ. Thus while Freud conceives of the castration complex and sexual difference in terms of the presence and absence of the penis, Lacan theorises them in non-biological, non-anatomical terms (the presence and absence of the phallus). This has been one of the main attractions of Lacanian theory for certain feminist writers who have seen it as a way of constructing a non-essentialist account of gendered subjectivity.

Culturalism

However, while Lacan consistently rejects all forms of biological reductionism, he also rejects the culturalist position which completely ignores the relevance of biology.[4]. If 'biologising' is understood correctly (that is, not as the reduction of psychic phenomena to crude biological determination, but as discerning the precise way in which biological data impact on the psychical field), then Lacan is all in favour of biologising thought.[5] The clearest examples of this are Lacan's appeals to examples from animal ethology to demonstrate the power of images to act as releasing mechanisms; hence Lacan's references to pigeons and locusts in his account of the mirror stage[6], and to crustaceans in his account of mimicry.[7]

Thus in his account of sexual difference, Lacan follows Freud's rejection of the false dichotomy between "anatomy or convention."[8] Lacan's concern is not to privilege either term but to show how both interact in complex ways in the process of assuming a sexual position.


References

<reference/>


See Also

  • Lacan, 1938: 23-4
  • E, 102
  • S2, 75
  • Ec, 723
  • Ec, 723
  • E, 3
  • Sll, 99
  • Freud, 1933a: SE XXII, 114