Changes

{{TopTopp}}[[forclusion]]{{Bottom}}  From his doctoral dissertation in 1932 on, one of the central quests which animates Lacan's work is that of identifying a specific psychical cause for [[psychosis]].  In the course of addressing this problem, two themes are constant.

As early as 1938 [[Lacan ]] relates the origin of [[psychosis ]] to an [[exclusion ]] of the [[father ]] from the [[family ]] [[structure]], with the consequent reduction of the latter to [[mother]]-[[child relations (Lacan, ]] [[dual|relation]]s.<ref>{{1938: }} p. 49). </ref> Later on in his [[Works of Jacques Lacan|work]], when [[Lacan ]] distinguishes between the [[real]], [[imaginary ]] and [[symbolic ]] [[father]], he specifies that it is the [[absence ]] of the [[symbolic ]] [[father ]] which is linked to [[psychosis]].

[[Freud ]] uses the term ''[[foreclosure|Verwerfung]]'' (translated <ref>Translated as '"[[foreclosure|repudiation' ]]" in the [[Standard Edition) ]]</ref> in a [[number ]] of disparate ways (see Laplanche and Pontalis, 1967: 166), but [[Lacan ]] focuses on one in [[particular]]: namely, the [[sense ]] of a specific [[defence mechanism ]] which is distinct from [[repression ]] (Verdr‰ngung''[[repression|Verdrängung]]''), in which '"the ego rejects the incompatible [[idea ]] together with its [[affect ]] and behaves as if the idea had never occurred to the ego at all' (."<ref>{{F}} "[[Work of Sigmund Freud|The Neuro-Psychoses of Defence]]", 1894a: [[SE ]] III, 58). </ref> In 1954, basing himself on a [[reading ]] of the '"[[Wolf Man' ]]" [[case ]] [[history (see ]],<ref>{{F}} "[[Work of Sigmund Freud|From the History of an Infantile Neurosis]], " 1918b: [[SE ]] XVII, 79-80), </ref> [[Lacan ]] [[identifies ]] ''[[foreclosure|Verwerfung ]]'' as the specific [[mechanism ]] of [[psychosis]], in which an element is rejected [[outside ]] the [[symbolic order ]] just as if it had never [[existence|existed (]].<ref>{{Ec, }} p. 386-7; Sl, {{S1}} p. 57-9).  At this time Lacan proposes various ways of translating the term Verwerfung into French, rendering it as rejet, refus (Sl, 43) and retranchement (Ec, 386). It is not until 1956 that Lacan proposes the term forclusion (a term in use in the French legal system; in English, 'foreclosure ) as the best way of translating Verwerfung into French (S3, 321). It is this term that Lacan continues to use for the rest of his work. In 1954, when Lacan first turns to the Freudian concept of Verwerfung in his search for a specific mechanism for psychosis, it is not clear exactly what is repudiated; it can be castration that is repudiated, or speech itself (Sl, 53), or 'the genital plane' (Sl, 58). Lacan finds a solution to the problem at the end of 1957, when he proposes the idea that it is the NAME-OF-THE-FATHER (a fundamental signifier) that is the object of foreclosure (E, 217). In this way Lacan is able to combine in one formula both of the themes that had previously dominated his thinking on the causality of psychosis (the absence of the father and the concept of Verwerfung). This formula remains at the heart of Lacan's thinking on psychosis throughout the rest of his work. When the Name-of-the-Father is foreclosed for a particular subject, it leaves a hole in the symbolic order which can never be filled; the subject can then be said to have a psychotic structure, even if he shows none of the classical signs of psychosis. Sooner or later, when the foreclosed Name-of-the-Father reappears in the real, the subject is unable to assimilate it, and the result of this 'collision with the inassimilable signifier' (S3, 321) is the 'entry into psychosis' proper, characterised typically by the onset of HALLUCINATIONS and</or DELUSIONS.ref>

At this [[time]] [[Lacan]] proposes various ways of translating the term ''[[Foreclosure is to be distinguished from other operations such |Verwerfung]]'' into [[French]], rendering it as REPRESSION''rejet'', NEGATION''refus'' and ''retranchement''.<ref>{{S1}} p. 43; {{Ec}} p. 386</ref> It is not until 1956 that [[Lacan]] proposes the term ''[[foreclosure|forclusion]]'' (a term in use in the French [[legal]] [[system]]; in [[English]], and PROJECTION"[[foreclosure]]") as the best way of translating ''[[foreclosure|Verwerfung]]'' into [[French]].<ref>{{S3}} p. 321</ref> It is this term that [[Lacan]] continues to use for the rest of his work.

===Repression=Name-of-the-Father== Foreclosure differs from repression In 1954, when [[Lacan]] first turns to the [[Freud]]ian [[concept]] of ''[[foreclosure|Verwerfung]]'' in his [[search]] for a specific [[defence|mechanism]] for [[psychosis]], it is not clear exactly what is repudiated; it can be [[castration]] that is repudiated, or [[speech]] itself, or "the [[genital]] plane".<ref>{{S1}} p. 53, 58</ref> [[Lacan]] finds a solution to the problem at the end of 1957, when he proposes the foreclosed element idea that it is not buried the [[Name-of-the-Father]] -- a [[fundamental signifier]] -- that is the [[object]] of [[foreclosure]].<ref>{{E}} p. 217</ref> In this way [[Lacan]] is able to combine in one [[formula]] both of the themes that had previously dominated his [[thinking]] on the [[causality]] of [[psychosis]] -- the [[absence]] of the [[father]] and the concept of ''[[foreclosure|Verwerfung]]''. This formula remains at the unconscious but expelled from heart of [[Lacan]]'s thinking on [[psychosis]] throughout the unconsciousrest of his [[Work of Jacques Lacan|work]].

Repression ===Psychotic Structure===When the [[Name-of-the-Father]] is [[foreclosed]] for a particular [[subject]], it leaves a [[hole]] in the operation [[symbolic order]] which constitutes neurosiscan never be filled; the [[subject]] can then be said to have a [[psychotic]] [[structure]], whereas foreclosure even if he shows none of the classical [[sign]]s of [[psychosis]]. Sooner or later, when the foreclosed [[Name-of-the-Father]] reappears in the [[real]], the [[subject]] is unable to assimilate it, and the result of this "collision with the inassimilable signifier" is the operation which constitutes "entry into psychosis" proper, characterised typically by the onset of [[hallucinations]] and/or [[delusions]].<ref>{{S3}} p.321</ref>