Changes

=====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 [[Frenchchild]]: ''développement'') ==Developmental Psychology==s [[sexuality]].

=====Pregenital to Genital Stages=====According to this [[Ego-Psychologyinterpretation]] presents , [[psychoanalysisFreud]] as a form of 'shows how the [[developmental psychologychild]] [[progress]]es through the various [[development|pregenital stages]] (the [[development|oral]] and [[development|anal stages]]) to maturity in the [[genital|genital stage]].

[[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.  ====Jacques Lacan=========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 complexes' ]] [[complex]]es" and for [[ego]] [[defence]]s.<ref>Lacan 1938; {{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]].

Finally====No Final Stage====Thus, it assumes that while both [[ego-psychology]] and [[object-relations theory]] propose the [[concept]] of a [[development|final synthesis stage]] of [[sexualitypsychosexual]] [[development]], in which the [[subject]] attains a "[[development|mature]]" relation with the [[object]] is both possible and normal, whereas for described as a [[Lacangenital]] no such relation, this is totally rejected by [[synthesisLacan]] exists.

Thus, while both ====Split====[[ego-psychologyLacan]] and argues that such a [[object-relations theorystate]] propose the concept of a final stage of [[psychosexualwholeness]] and [[development|maturity]], in which is not possible because the [[subject]] attains a 'mature' relation with the is irremediably [[objectsplit]], described as a and the [[genitalmetonymy]] relation, this is totally rejected by of [[Lacandesire]]is unstoppable.

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

Furthermore, The so-called final stage of [[Lacandevelopment|maturity]] points out that "is [[nothing]] more than the [[encounter]] with the [[object which corresponds to an advanced stage ]] of the first [[desire|satisfaction]]s of instinctual maturity is a rediscovered object."<ref>{{S4}} pthe [[child]].15</ref>

The so-called final stage ====="Mythology of maturity is nothing more than the encounter with Instinctual Maturation"=====[[Lacan]] disputes the [[objectdevelopment|geneticist reading]] of the first satisfactions [[Freud]], describing it as a "mythology of the instinctual [[childmaturation]]."<ref>{{E}} p. 54</ref>

He argues that the various "[[stage]]s" analysed by [[Freud]] ([[oral]], [[anal]] and [[genital]]) are not observable [[Lacanbiology|biological]] disputes phenomena which develop [[nature|naturally]], such as the geneticist reading [[development|stage]]s of [[Freuddevelopment|sensoriomotor development]], describing it as a but "mythology of instinctual maturationobviously more complex [[structures]]."<ref>{{E}} p.54)242</ref>

He argues that the various '=====Chronology=====The [[development|pregenital stage]]s' analysed by are not [[development|chronologically ordered moments]] of a [[Freudchild]] ('s [[oraldevelopment]], but essentially [[analtime]] and less [[genitalstructure]]) s which are not observable biological phenomena which develop naturally, such as [[projection|projected]] [[punctuation|retroactively]] onto the stages of sensoriomotor development, but "obviously more complex structures."<ref>{{E}} p[[past]].242</ref>

The pregenital stages <blockquote>"They are not chronologically ordered moments in the [[punctuation|retroaction]] of a child's development, but essentially timeless structures which are projected retroactively onto the past[[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 "They are ordered in the retroaction so-called direct observation of the Oedipus complex.child,"<ref>{{E}} p.197242</ref>and places the emphasis on the reconstruction of such [[stages]] in the [[analysis]] of [[adults]].

<blockquote>"It is by starting with the [[Lacanexperience]] thus dismisses all attempts to draw empirical evidence for the sequence of psychosexual stages by means of "the so-called direct observation of [[adult]] that we must grapple, retrospectively, ''nachträglich'', with the child,supposedly original experiences."<ref>{{ES1}} 242p. 217</ref> and places the emphasis on the reconstruction of such stages in the [[analysis]] of adults.</blockquote>

"It is In 1961, the [[development|pregenital stages]] are conceived by starting with the experience [[Lacan]] as forms of the adult that we must grapple, retrospectively, nachtr‰glich, with the supposedly original experiences."<ref>{{Sl}} p[[demand]].217</ref>

In 1961, =====Language Acquisition==========Chronological Sequence=====The complex [[relationship]] between the [[development|chronological emergence]] of phenomena and the pregenital stages are conceived by [[Lacandevelopment|logical sequence]] of [[structure]] as forms s is also illustrated by reference to the question of [[demandlanguage|language acquisition]].

The complex relationship between On the chronological emergence one hand, [[linguistics|psycholinguistics]] has discovered a [[nature|natural order]] of phenomena and [[development]], in which the logical [[infant]] [[progress]]es through a sequence of structures is also illustrated [[biology|biologically]] predetermined stages (babbling, followed by reference to the question [[phoneme]] acquisition, then isolated [[word]]s, and then sentences of language acquisitionincreasing complexity).

On the one hand[[Lacan]], psycholinguistics has discovered a natural order of developmenthowever, is not interested in which the infant progresses through a this [[development|chronological sequence of biologically predetermined stages (babbling]], followed by phoneme acquisitionsince it only deals with "the emergence, then isolated wordsproperly [[speaking]], and then sentences of increasing complexity)a phenomenon."<ref>{{S1}} p. 179</ref>

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

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

In respect ====="All or Nothing"=========="Universe" of Signifiers=====However, the latterquestion 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 [[Lacansignifier]] points out that 'after [[another]] but the child already has an initial appreciation of the symbolism of language' well before he can speak, "well before the exteriorised appearance all or nothing" entry into a "[[universe]]" of language."<ref>{{Sl}} p.179; {{Sl}} p[[signifier]]s.54</ref>

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

A =====Creation "Ex Nihilo"==========Evolutionism=====Thus the transition to the [[signifiersymbolic]] is only always a question of creation ''ex nihilo'', a radical discontinuity between one [[signifierorder]] by virtue of its relation to other signifiersand another, and so cannot be acquired in isolationnever a question of a [[development|gradual evolution]].

Thus the transition 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 the symbolic is always a question describe [[psychic change]] in [[terms]] of [[metaphor]]s of creation ''ex nihilo, a radical discontinuity between one order and another, and never a question of a gradual evolution''.<ref>{{S7}} p.213</ref>

The last term is particularly distasteful for =====Psychic Change==========Historicity of the Psyche=====[[Lacan, who warns his students ]]'s opposition to 'beware of that register notions of thought known as evolutionism' (S7, 213), [[development]] and prefers [[development|evolution]] are not based on an opposition to describe the [[notion]] of [[psychic change ]] in terms of metaphors of creation ex nihiloitself.

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

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

His opposition [[Lacan]] thus argues that "in psychoanalysis, [[history]] is a [[dimension]] different to the concept that of development only reflects his suspicion of all normative models of psychic change; the subject is involved in a continual process of becoming, but this process and that it is threatened, not aided, by imposing a fixed 'providential' model an aberration to try to reduce the former to the latter. History only proceeds out of genetic beat with development upon it. "<ref>{{Ec}} p. 875</ref>

Lacan thus argues that'in psychoanalysis=====Two "Stages"=====What, then, history is a dimension different to that be made of developmentthe two great "stages" which dominate [[Lacan]]'s teaching, the [[mirror stage]] and that it is an aberration to try to reduce the former to the latter. [[Oedipus complex]]?

History 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 proceeds out of beat with development.<ref>{{Ec}} pinterest 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]].875</ref>

What, then, (It is interesting to be made of note that the two great [[French]] term 'stages' which dominate Lacanstade's teaching, the ' can be [[understood]] in both [[mirror stagetemporal]] and the spatial terms, as a "[[Oedipus complexstage]]? ", or as a "stadium").

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 timeless [[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 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>{{SlS1}} 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]].

[[Category:HelpEdit]]