Changes

 ==Developmental Psychology== [[Ego-psychology]] presents [[psychoanalysis]] as a form of '[[developmental psychology]]. [[Ego-psychology]] is concerned with the [[temporal]] [[development]] of the [[child]]'s [[sexuality]]. [[Sigmund Freud]]The [[child]] through the various pregenital stages (the [[oral]] and [[anal]] stages) to maturity in the [[genital]] stage.  =Criticism===Jacques Lacan== In his early work [[Lacan]] seems to accept this [[development]]al reading of [[Freud]], at least in the matter of a genetic order for the three 'family complexes' and for [[ego]] [[defence]]s.<ref>{{E}} p.5</ref> 

# Firstly, it presupposes a [[natural]] [[order]] for [[development|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.  Thus, while both [[ego-psychology]] and [[object-relations theory]] propose the concept of a final stage of [[psychosexual]] [[development]], in which the [[subject]] attains a 'mature' relation with the [[object]], described as a [[genital]] relation, this is totally rejected by [[Lacanexists]].

====No Final Stage====Thus, while both [[ego-psychology]] and [[object-relations theory]] propose the [[Lacanconcept]] argues that such of a state [[development|final stage]] of final [[wholenesspsychosexual]] [[development]] and maturity is not possible because , in which the [[subject]] is irremediably attains a "[[splitdevelopment|mature]], and " relation with the [[metonymyobject]] of , described as a [[desiregenital]] relation, this is unstoppabletotally rejected by [[Lacan]].

Furthermore, ====Split====[[Lacan]] points out argues that "such a [[state]] of final [[wholeness]] and [[development|maturity]] is not possible because the object which corresponds to an advanced stage [[subject]] is irremediably [[split]], and the [[metonymy]] of instinctual maturity [[desire]] is a rediscovered object."<ref>{{S4}} punstoppable.15</ref>

The so-called final stage of maturity is nothing more than the encounter with the Furthermore, [[objectLacan]] of points out that "the first satisfactions object which corresponds to an advanced stage of the [[childinstinctual]]maturity is a rediscovered object."<ref>{{S4}} p.15</ref>

The so-called final stage of [[development|maturity]] is [[Lacannothing]] disputes more than the geneticist reading [[encounter]] with the [[object]] of the first [[Freuddesire|satisfaction]], describing it as a "mythology s of instinctual maturation."<ref>{{E}} pthe [[child]].54</ref>

He argues that the various '====="Mythology of Instinctual Maturation"=====[[stageLacan]]s' analysed by disputes the [[Freuddevelopment|geneticist reading]] (of [[oralFreud]], describing it as a "mythology of instinctual [[analmaturation]] and [[genital]]) are not observable biological phenomena which develop naturally, such as the stages of sensoriomotor development, but "obviously more complex structures."<ref>{{E}} p.24254</ref>

The pregenital stages He argues that the various "[[stage]]s" analysed by [[Freud]] ([[oral]], [[anal]] and [[genital]]) are not chronologically ordered moments observable [[biology|biological]] phenomena which develop [[nature|naturally]], such as the [[development|stage]]s of a child's [[development|sensoriomotor development]], but essentially timeless "obviously more complex [[structures which are projected retroactively onto the past]]."<ref>{{E}} p.242</ref>

"They =====Chronology=====The [[development|pregenital stage]]s are not [[development|chronologically ordered in the retroaction moments]] of a [[child]]'s [[development]], but essentially [[time]]less [[structure]]s which are [[projection|projected]] [[punctuation|retroactively]] onto the Oedipus complex."<ref>{{E}} p[[past]].197</ref>

<blockquote>"They are ordered in the [[Lacanpunctuation|retroaction]] thus dismisses all attempts to draw empirical evidence for the sequence of psychosexual stages by means of "the so-called direct observation of the child,[[Oedipus complex]]."<ref>{{E}} 242p. 197</ref> and places the emphasis on the reconstruction of such stages in the [[analysis]] of adults.</blockquote>

[[Lacan]] thus dismisses all attempts to draw [[science|empirical evidence]] for the sequence of [[development|psychosexual stage]]s by means of "It is by starting with the experience so-called direct observation of the adult that we must grapple, retrospectively, nachtr‰glichchild, with the supposedly original experiences."<ref>{{S1E}} p.217242</ref>and places the emphasis on the reconstruction of such [[stages]] in the [[analysis]] of [[adults]].

In 1961, <blockquote>"It is by starting with the pregenital stages are conceived by [[Lacanexperience]] as forms of the [[demandadult]]that we must grapple, retrospectively, ''nachträglich'', with the supposedly original experiences."<ref>{{S1}} p.217</ref></blockquote>

The complex relationship between In 1961, the chronological emergence of phenomena and the logical sequence of structures is also illustrated [[development|pregenital stages]] are conceived by reference to the question [[Lacan]] as forms of language acquisition[[demand]].

On =====Language Acquisition==========Chronological Sequence=====The complex [[relationship]] between the one hand, psycholinguistics has discovered a natural order [[development|chronological emergence]] of phenomena and the [[development, in which the infant progresses through a |logical sequence ]] of biologically predetermined stages (babbling, followed [[structure]]s is also illustrated by phoneme reference to the question of [[language|language acquisition, then isolated words, and then sentences of increasing complexity)]].

On the one hand, [[linguistics|psycholinguistics]] has discovered a [[nature|natural order]] of [[Lacandevelopment]], however, is not interested in this chronological which the [[infant]] [[progress]]es through a sequenceof [[biology|biologically]] predetermined stages (babbling, since it only deals with "the emergencefollowed by [[phoneme]] acquisition, properly speakingthen isolated [[word]]s, and then sentences of a phenomenon."<ref>{{S1}} pincreasing complexity).179</ref>

What interests [[Lacan]] , however, is not the phenomena (external appearance) of interested in this [[languagedevelopment|chronological sequence]] but , since it only deals with "the way emergence, properly [[languagespeaking]] positions the [[subject]] in , of a [[symbolic]] [[structure]]phenomenon."<ref>{{S1}} p. 179</ref>

In respect of the latter, =====Symbolic Structure=====What interests [[Lacan]] points out that 'is not the child already has an initial appreciation phenomena ([[external]] [[appearance]]) of [[language]] but the symbolism of way [[language' well before he can speak, "well before ]] positions the exteriorised appearance of language."<ref>{{S1}} p.179; {{S1}} p[[subject]] in a [[symbolic]] [[structure]].54</ref>

HoweverIn respect of the latter, [[Lacan]] points out that "the question of how this 'child already has an initial appreciation' of the symbolic comes about is almost impossible to theorise[[symbol]]ism of [[language]]" well before he can [[speak]], since it is not a question of a gradual acquisition of one signifier after another but "well before the 'all or nothing' entry into a 'universe' exteriorised appearance of [[signifierlanguage]]s. "<ref>{{S1}} p. 179; {{S1}} p. 54</ref>

A ====="All or Nothing"=========="Universe" of Signifiers=====However, the question of how this "initial appreciation" of the [[symbolic]] comes [[about]] is almost [signifier[impossible]] to theorize, since it is only not a question of a gradual acquisition of one [[signifier]] by virtue after [[another]] but the "all or nothing" entry into a "[[universe]]" of its relation to other signifiers, and so cannot be acquired in isolation[[signifier]]s.

Thus the transition to the symbolic A [[signifier]] is always only a question [[signifier]] by virtue of creation ex nihilo, a radical discontinuity between one order and anotherits relation to [[other]] [[signifier]]s, and never a question of a gradual evolutionso cannot be acquired in [[isolation]].

The last term =====Creation "Ex Nihilo"==========Evolutionism=====Thus the transition to the [[symbolic]] is particularly distasteful for Lacanalways a question of creation ''ex nihilo'', who warns his students to 'beware of that register of thought known as evolutionisma radical discontinuity between one [[order]] and another,' and prefers to describe psychic change in terms of metaphors never a question of creation ex nihilo.<ref>{{S7}} pa [[development|gradual evolution]].213</ref>

The last term is particularly distasteful for [[Lacan's opposition ]], who warns his students to notions "beware of that [[register]] of [[thought]] known as [[development |evolutionism]]," and evolution are not based on an opposition prefers to the notion of describe [[psychic change ]] in itself[[terms]] of [[metaphor]]s of creation ''ex nihilo''.<ref>{{S7}} p. 213</ref>

On =====Psychic Change==========Historicity of the contrary, Psyche=====[[Lacan insists on the historicity of the psyche, and sees the restoration ]]'s opposition to notions of fluidity [[development]] and movement [[development|evolution]] are not based on an opposition to the psyche as the aim [[notion]] of psychoanalytic treatment[[psychic change]] in itself.

His opposition to On the contrary, [[Lacan]] insists on the concept [[historicity]] of development only reflects his suspicion the [[psyche]], and sees the restoration of all normative models of psychic change; fluidity and movement to the [[psyche]] as the subject is involved in a continual process of becoming, but this process is threatened, not aided, by imposing a fixed 'providential' model aim of genetic development upon it[[psychoanalytic treatment]].

Lacan thus argues that'His opposition to the concept of [[development]] only reflects his suspicion of all [[normative]] models of [[psychic change]]; the [[subject]] is involved in psychoanalysisa [[development|continual process of becoming]], history but this [[process]] is threatened, not aided, by imposing a dimension different to that [[development|fixed "providential" model]] of [[development|genetic development, and that ]] upon it is an aberration to try to reduce the former to the latter.

[[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]].

While [[Lacan]] admits that the "ego is constituted at a specific [[moment ]] in the history of [[The Subject|the subject]],"<ref>{{S1}} p.l15</ref> and that there is a moment when the [[Oedipus complex]] is formed, he is not interested in the question of exactly when those moments occur.

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]].