Changes

[[development]] ([[French]]: ''[[{{Top}}développement]]'') ==Developmental Psychology=={{Bottom}}

[[=====Ego-Psychology==========Temporal Development=====[[Psychoanalysis]] presents is presented by [[psychoanalysisego-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 [[Ego-Psychologyinterpretation]] is concerned with , [[Freud]] shows how the [[temporalchild]] [[progress]] es through the various [[development|pregenital stages]] of (the [[childdevelopment|oral]] and [[development|anal stages]]'s ) to maturity in the [[sexualitygenital|genital stage]].

[[Sigmund Freud]]The [[child]] through the various pregenital stages (the [[oral]] and [[anal]] stages) to maturity in the [[genital]] stage.  ==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>=Criticism=====

# 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]].

Secondly====No Final Stage====Thus, it is based on while both [[ego-psychology]] and [[object-relations theory]] propose the [[concept]] of a linear concept [[development|final stage]] of [[timepsychosexual]] [[development]] , in which is completely at odds the [[subject]] attains a "[[development|mature]]" relation with the [[psychoanalytic theoryobject]], described as a [[genital]] of relation, this is totally rejected by [[timeLacan]].

Finally, it assumes ====Split====[[Lacan]] argues that such a [[state]] of final synthesis of [[sexualitywholeness]] and [[development|maturity]] is both not possible because the [[subject]] is irremediably [[split]], and normal, whereas for the [[Lacanmetonymy]] no such of [[synthesisdesire]] existsis unstoppable.

ThusFurthermore, while both [[ego-psychologyLacan]] and [[points out that "the object-relations theory]] propose the concept of a final which corresponds to an advanced stage of [[psychosexualinstinctual]] [[development]], in which the [[subject]] attains maturity is a 'mature' relation with the [[rediscovered object]], described as a [[genital]] relation, this is totally rejected by [[Lacan]]. "<ref>{{S4}} p.15</ref>

The so-called final stage of [[Lacandevelopment|maturity]] argues that such a state of final is [[wholenessnothing]] and maturity is not possible because more than the [[subjectencounter]] is irremediably with the [[splitobject]], and of the first [[metonymydesire|satisfaction]] s of the [[desirechild]] is unstoppable.

Furthermore, ====="Mythology of Instinctual Maturation"=====[[Lacan]] points out that disputes the [[development|geneticist reading]] of [[Freud]], describing it as a "the object which corresponds to an advanced stage mythology of instinctual maturity is a rediscovered object[[maturation]]."<ref>{{S4E}} p.1554</ref>

The so-called final He argues that the various "[[stage of maturity is nothing more than the encounter with ]]s" analysed by [[Freud]] ([[oral]], [[anal]] and [[genital]]) are not observable [[biology|biological]] phenomena which develop [[nature|naturally]], such as the [[objectdevelopment|stage]] s of the first satisfactions of the [[childdevelopment|sensoriomotor development]], but "obviously more complex [[structures]]."<ref>{{E}} p. 242</ref>

=====Chronology=====The [[Lacandevelopment|pregenital stage]]s are not [[development|chronologically ordered moments]] disputes the geneticist reading of a [[Freudchild]]'s [[development]], describing it as a "mythology of instinctual maturation."<ref>{{E}} pbut essentially [[time]]less [[structure]]s which are [[projection|projected]] [[punctuation|retroactively]] onto the [[past]].54</ref>

He argues that <blockquote>"They are ordered in the various '[[stagepunctuation|retroaction]]s' analysed by of the [[Freud]] ([[oralOedipus complex]], [[anal]] 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.242197</ref></blockquote>

The pregenital stages are not chronologically ordered moments [[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 a the child's development, but essentially timeless structures which are projected retroactively onto "<ref>{{E}} p. 242</ref> and places the emphasis on the pastreconstruction of such [[stages]] in the [[analysis]] of [[adults]].

<blockquote>"They are ordered in It is by starting with the retroaction [[experience]] of the Oedipus complex[[adult]] that we must grapple, retrospectively, ''nachträglich'', with the supposedly original experiences."<ref>{{ES1}} p.197217</ref></blockquote>

In 1961, the [[development|pregenital stages]] are conceived by [[Lacan]] thus dismisses all attempts to draw empirical evidence for the sequence of psychosexual stages by means of "the so-called direct observation as forms of the child,"<ref>{{E}} 242</ref> and places the emphasis on the reconstruction of such stages in the [[analysisdemand]] of adults.

"It =====Language Acquisition==========Chronological Sequence=====The complex [[relationship]] between the [[development|chronological emergence]] of phenomena and the [[development|logical sequence]] of [[structure]]s is also illustrated by starting with reference to the experience question of the adult that we must grapple, retrospectively, nachtr‰glich, with the supposedly original experiences."<ref>{{Sl}} p[[language|language acquisition]].217</ref>

In 1961On the one hand, [[linguistics|psycholinguistics]] has discovered a [[nature|natural order]] of [[development]], in which the pregenital [[infant]] [[progress]]es through a sequence of [[biology|biologically]] predetermined stages are conceived (babbling, followed by [[Lacanphoneme]] as forms of acquisition, then isolated [[demandword]]s, and then sentences of increasing complexity).

The complex relationship between the [[Lacan]], however, is not interested in this [[development|chronological emergence of phenomena and the logical sequence of structures is also illustrated by reference to ]], since it only deals with "the question emergence, properly [[speaking]], of language acquisitiona phenomenon."<ref>{{S1}} p. 179</ref>

On =====Symbolic Structure=====What interests [[Lacan]] is not the one hand, psycholinguistics has discovered a natural order phenomena ([[external]] [[appearance]]) of development, [[language]] but the way [[language]] positions the [[subject]] in which the infant progresses through a sequence of biologically predetermined stages (babbling, followed by phoneme acquisition, then isolated words, and then sentences of increasing complexity)[[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]], however, is not interested in this chronological sequence, since it only deals with "well before the emergence, properly speaking, exteriorised appearance of a phenomenon[[language]]."<ref>{{SlS1}} p.179; {{S1}} p. 54</ref>

What interests ====="All or Nothing"=========="Universe" of Signifiers=====However, the question of how this "initial appreciation" of the [[Lacansymbolic]] comes [[about]] is not the phenomena (external appearance) of almost [[languageimpossible]] but the way to theorize, since it is not a question of a gradual acquisition of one [[languagesignifier]] positions the after [[subjectanother]] in but the "all or nothing" entry into a "[[symbolicuniverse]] " of [[structuresignifier]]s.

In respect A [[signifier]] is only a [[signifier]] by virtue of the latterits relation to [[other]] [[signifier]]s, and so cannot be acquired in [[Lacanisolation]] points out that 'the child already has an initial appreciation of the symbolism of language' well before he can speak, "well before the exteriorised appearance of language."<ref>{{Sl}} p.179; {{S1}} p.54</ref>

However, =====Creation "Ex Nihilo"==========Evolutionism=====Thus the question of how this 'initial appreciation' of transition to the [[symbolic comes about is almost impossible to theorise, since it ]] is not always a question of creation ''ex nihilo'', a gradual acquisition of radical discontinuity between one signifier after [[order]] and another but the 'all or nothing' entry into , and never a 'universe' question of a [[signifierdevelopment|gradual evolution]]s.

A The last term is particularly distasteful for [[signifierLacan]] is only a , who warns his students to "beware of that [[signifierregister]] by virtue of its relation to other signifiers[[thought]] known as [[development|evolutionism]], " and so cannot be acquired prefers to describe [[psychic change]] in isolation[[terms]] of [[metaphor]]s of creation ''ex nihilo''.<ref>{{S7}} p. 213</ref>

Thus =====Psychic Change==========Historicity of the transition Psyche=====[[Lacan]]'s opposition to the symbolic is always a question notions of creation ex nihilo, a radical discontinuity between one order [[development]] and another, and never a question [[development|evolution]] are not based on an opposition to the [[notion]] of a gradual evolution[[psychic change]] in itself.

The last term is particularly distasteful for On the contrary, [[Lacan]] insists on the [[historicity]] of the [[psyche]], who warns his students to 'beware of that register and sees the restoration of thought known as evolutionism' (S7, 213), fluidity and prefers movement to describe psychic change in terms of metaphors the [[psyche]] as the aim of creation ex nihilo[[psychoanalytic treatment]].

Lacan's His opposition to notions the concept of [[development and evolution are not based on an opposition to the notion ]] only reflects his suspicion of all [[normative]] models of [[psychic change ]]; the [[subject]] is involved in itselfa [[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.

On the contrary[[Lacan]] thus argues that "in psychoanalysis, Lacan insists on the historicity [[history]] is a [[dimension]] different to that of the psychedevelopment, and sees that it is an aberration to try to reduce the restoration of fluidity and movement former to the psyche as the aim latter. History only proceeds out of psychoanalytic treatmentbeat with development."<ref>{{Ec}} p. 875</ref>

His opposition =====Two "Stages"=====What, then, is to the concept be made of development only reflects his suspicion of all normative models of psychic change; the subject is involved in a continual process of becomingtwo great "stages" which dominate [[Lacan]]'s teaching, but this process is threatened, not aided, by imposing a fixed 'providential' model of genetic development upon it. the [[mirror stage]] and the [[Oedipus complex]]?

Lacan thus argues that'The [[Mirror stage]] is clearly related to an [[event]] which can be located in a specific [[time]] in psychoanalysisthe [[life]] of the [[child]] (between six to eighteen months), history but this event is a dimension different only of interest to that [[Lacan]] because it illustrates the essentially [[time]]less [[structure]] of development, the [[dual relation]]ship; and that it is an aberration to try to reduce this [[structure]] that constitutes the former to heart of the latter[[Mirror stage]].

History only proceeds out of beat with development(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").<ref>{{Ec}} p.875</ref>

WhatLikewise, then, is to be made of the two great 'stages' which dominate Lacan's teaching, the while [[mirror stageFreud]] and locates the [[Oedipus complex]]?  The [[mirror stage]] is clearly related to an event which can be located in at a specific time in the life of the [[childtime|age]] (between six to eighteen months), but this event is only of interest to [[Lacan]] because it illustrates the essentially timeless [[structure]] of the [[dual relationthird]]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 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]]