Changes

[[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]].

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>

# 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 [[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]].

[[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 [[desire|satisfaction]]s of the [[child]].

[[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 [[development|stage]]s of [[development|sensoriomotor development]], but "obviously more complex [[structures]]."<ref>{{E}} p. 242</ref>

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]].

[[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>

The complex [[relationship ]] between the [[development|chronological emergence]] of phenomena and the [[development|logical sequence]] of [[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]] [[progress]]es through a sequence of [[biology|biologically]] predetermined stages (babbling, followed by [[phoneme ]] acquisition, then isolated [[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>

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 [[symbol]]ism of [[language]]" well before he can [[speak]], "well before the exteriorised appearance of [[language]]."<ref>{{S1}} p. 179; {{S1}} p. 54</ref>

However, the question of how this "initial appreciation" of the [[symbolic]] comes [[about ]] is almost [[impossible ]] to theorize, 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]].

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>

[[Lacan]]'s opposition to notions of [[development]] and [[development|evolution]] are not based on an opposition to the [[notion ]] of [[psychic change]] in itself.

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>

The [[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 [[time]]less [[structure]] of the [[dual relation]]ship; and it is this [[structure]] that constitutes the heart of the [[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 [[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 [[retroactive]]ly by the [[symbolic]] [[system]].