24,656
edits
Changes
no edit summary
{{Top}}développement{{Bottom}}
==Developmental ===Ego-Psychology==========Temporal Development=====
[[Psychoanalysis]] is presented by [[ego-psychology]] as a form of [[development|developmental psychology]], with the emphasis placed on the [[time|temporal]] [[development]] of the [[child]]'s [[sexuality]].
=====Pregenital to Genital Stages=====
According to this [[interpretation]], [[Freud]] shows how the [[child]] [[progress]]es through the various [[development|pregenital stages]] (the [[development|oral]] and [[development|anal stages]]) to maturity in the [[genital|genital stage]].
====Jacques Lacan======Family Complexes===Genetic Order=====In his [[Works of Jacques Lacan|early work ]] [[Lacan]] seems to accept this [[development]]al reading of [[Freud]], at least in the matter of a [[development|genetic order ]] for the three "[[family]] [[complex]]es" and for [[ego]] [[defence]]s.<ref>{{E}} p. 5</ref>
=====Criticism=====
In the early 1950s, [[Lacan]] becomes critical of [[development]] for various reasons.
==Natre====Nature======
Firstly, it presupposes a [[natural]] [[order]] for [[sexual]] [[development]] and takes no account of the [[symbolic]] articulation of [[human]] [[sexuality]], thus ignoring the fundamental differences between [[drive]]s and [[instinct]]s.
======Time======Secondly, it is based on a [[time|linear concept ]] of [[time]] which is completely at odds with the [[psychoanalytic theory]] of [[time]].
======Synthesis======Finally, it assumes that a final [[dialectic|synthesis ]] of [[sexuality]] is both possible and [[neurosis|normal]], whereas for [[Lacan]] no such [[synthesis]] exists.
==Sexuality===Criticism=====In the early 1950s, [[Lacan]] becomes critical of [[development]] for various reasons. # Firstly, it presupposes a [[natural]] [[order]] for [[sexual]] [[development]] and takes no account of the [[symbolic]] articulation of [[human]] [[sexuality]], thus ignoring the fundamental differences between [[drive]]s and [[instinct]]s. # Secondly, it is based on a [[time|linear concept]] of [[time]] which is completely at odds with the [[psychoanalytic theory]] of [[time]]. # Finally, it assumes that a final [[dialectic|synthesis]] of [[sexuality]] is both possible and [[neurosis|normal]], whereas for [[Lacan]] no such [[synthesis]] exists. ====No Final Stage====Thus, while both [[ego-psychology]] and [[object-relations theory]] propose the concept of a [[development|final stage ]] of [[psychosexual]] [[development]], in which the [[subject]] attains a "[[development|mature]]" relation with the [[object]], described as a [[genital]] relation, this is totally rejected by [[Lacan]].
=="Maturity"==Split====
[[Lacan]] argues that such a state of final [[wholeness]] and [[development|maturity]] is not possible because the [[subject]] is irremediably [[split]], and the [[metonymy]] of [[desire]] is unstoppable.
Furthermore, [[Lacan]] points out that "the object which corresponds to an advanced stage of instinctual maturity is a rediscovered object."<ref>{{S4}} p.15</ref>
The so-called final stage of [[development|maturity]] is nothing more than the encounter with the [[object]] of the first satisfactions [[desire|satisfaction]]s of the [[child]].
==Chronology==="Mythology of Instinctual Maturation"=====[[Lacan]] disputes the [[development|geneticist reading ]] of [[Freud]], describing it as a "mythology of instinctual maturation."<ref>{{E}} p.54</ref>
He argues that the various "[[stage]]s" analysed by [[Freud]] ([[oral]], [[anal]] and [[genital]]) are not observable [[biology|biological]] phenomena which develop [[nature|naturally]], such as the stages [[development|stage]]s of sensoriomotor [[development|sensoriomotor development]], but "obviously more complex structures."<ref>{{E}} p.242</ref>
=====Chronology=====The [[development|pregenital stage]]s are not [[development|chronologically ordered moments ]] of a [[child]]'s [[development]], but essentially [[time]]less [[structure]]s which are [[projection|projected]] [[punctuation|retroactively]] onto the past.
<blockquote>"They are ordered in the [[punctuation|retroaction ]] of the [[Oedipus complex]]."<ref>{{E}} p. 197</ref></blockquote>
[[Lacan]] thus dismisses all attempts to draw [[science|empirical evidence ]] for the sequence of [[development|psychosexual stage]]s by means of "the so-called direct observation of the child,"<ref>{{E}} p. 242</ref> and places the emphasis on the reconstruction of such stages in the [[analysis]] of adults.
<blockquote>"It is by starting with the experience of the adult that we must grapple, retrospectively, ''nachträglich'', with the supposedly original experiences."<ref>{{S1}} p. 217</ref></blockquote>
In 1961, the [[development|pregenital stages]] are conceived by [[Lacan]] as forms of [[demand]].
=====LanguageAcquisition==========Chronological Sequence=====The complex relationship between the [[development|chronological emergence ]] of phenomena and the [[development|logical sequence ]] of structures [[structure]]s is also illustrated by reference to the question of [[language|language acquisition]].
On the one hand, [[linguistics|psycholinguistics ]] has discovered a [[nature|natural order]] of [[development]], in which the [[infant]] progresses [[progress]]es through a sequence of [[biology|biologically]] predetermined stages (babbling, followed by phoneme acquisition, then isolated words[[word]]s, and then sentences of increasing complexity).
[[Lacan]], however, is not interested in this [[development|chronological sequence]], since it only deals with "the emergence, properly speaking, of a phenomenon."<ref>{{S1}} p. 179</ref>
=====Symbolic Structure=====
What interests [[Lacan]] is not the phenomena (external appearance) of [[language]] but the way [[language]] positions the [[subject]] in a [[symbolic]] [[structure]].
In respect of the latter, [[Lacan]] points out that "the child already has an initial appreciation of the symbolism [[symbol]]ism of [[language]]" well before he can speak, "well before the exteriorised appearance of [[language]]."<ref>{{S1}} p. 179; {{S1}} p. 54</ref>
====="All or Nothing"=========="Universe" of Signifiers=====However, the question of how this "initial appreciation" of the [[symbolic]] comes about is almost impossible to theorisetheorize, since it is not a question of a gradual acquisition of one [[signifier]] after another but the "all or nothing" entry into a "universe" of [[signifier]]s.
A [[signifier]] is only a [[signifier]] by virtue of its relation to other [[signifier]]s, and so cannot be acquired in isolation.
==Transition to the Symbolic===Creation "Ex Nihilo"==========Evolutionism=====Thus the transition to the [[symbolic]] is always a question of creation ''ex nihilo'', a radical discontinuity between one [[order]] and another, and never a question of a [[development|gradual evolution]].
The last term is particularly distasteful for [[Lacan]], who warns his students to "beware of that register of thought known as [[development|evolutionism]]," and prefers to describe [[psychic change ]] in terms of [[metaphor]]s of creation ''ex nihilo''.<ref>{{S7}} p. 213</ref>
=====Psychic Change==========Historicity of the Psyche=====[[Lacan]]'s opposition to notions of [[development]] and [[development|evolution]] are not based on an opposition to the notion of [[psychic change ]] in itself.
On the contrary, [[Lacan]] insists on the [[historicity ]] of the [[psyche]], and sees the restoration of fluidity and movement to the [[psyche]] as the aim of [[psychoanalytic treatment]].
His opposition to the concept of [[development]] only reflects his suspicion of all normative models of [[psychic change]]; the [[subject]] is involved in a [[development|continual process of becoming]], but this process is threatened, not aided, by imposing a [[development|fixed "providential" model ]] of [[development|genetic development ]] upon it.
[[Lacan]] thus argues that "in psychoanalysis, history is a dimension different to that of development, and that it is an aberration to try to reduce the former to the latter. History only proceeds out of beat with development."<ref>{{Ec}} p. 875</ref>
=====Two "Stages"=====
What, then, is to be made of the two great "stages" which dominate [[Lacan]]'s teaching, the [[mirror stage]] and the [[Oedipus complex]]?
The [[mirror Mirror stage]] is clearly related to an event which can be located in a specific [[time ]] in the life of the [[child]] (between six to eighteen months), but this event is only of interest to [[Lacan]] because it illustrates the essentially timeless [[time]]less [[structure]] of the [[dual relation]]ship; and it is this [[structure]] that constitutes the heart of the [[mirror Mirror stage]].
(It is interesting to note that the [[French]] term ''stade'' can be understood in both temporal and spatial terms, as a '"[[stage]]'", or as a '"stadium'").
Likewise, while [[Freud]] locates the [[Oedipus complex]] at a specific [[time|age ]] (the third to the fifth year of life), [[Lacan]] conceives of the [[Oedipus complex]] as a timeless [[time]]less [[structure|triangular ]] [[structure]] of [[subjectivity]].
=====History of the Subject=====
It follows that questions of exactly when the [[ego]] is constituted, or when the [[child]] enters the [[Oedipus complex]], which have led to so much controversy between other [[school]]s of [[psychoanalysis]], are of little interest to [[Lacan]].
The question of when the [[child]] makes his entry into the [[symbolic]] [[order]] is irrelevant to [[psychoanalysis]].
All that matters is that before he does so he is incapable of [[speech]] and so inaccesible to [[psychoanalysis]], and that after he does so everything prior to that moment is transformed retroactively [[retroactive]]ly by the [[symbolic]] system.
==See Also==
