24,656
edits
Changes
no edit summary
The role of the [[analyst]] in the [[treatment]] is twofold.
Even when [[Freud]] later came to recognize the [[existence]] of 'symbolism' in [[dreams]] (i.e. the fact that there are some iamges which have fixed universal meanings in addition to their unique meaning for the individual dreamer), he always maintained thaat [[interpretation]] should focus primarily on the particular meaning and warned against "overestimating the importance of symbols in dream interpretation."<ref>Freud. 1900a. SE V. p.359-60.</ref>
--
Early on in the history of the psychoanalytic movement, [[interpretation]] rapidly came to be the most important tool of the [[analyst]], his primary means for achieving therapeutic effects in the [[patient]].
Since [[symptom]]s were held to be the expression of a [[repressed]] idea, the [[interpretation]] was seen to cure the [[symptom]] by helping the [[patient]] become [[conscious]] of the idea.
However, after the initial period in which the offering of [[interpretation]]s seemed to achieve remarkable effects, in the decade 1910-20 [[analyst]]s began to notice that their [[interpretations were becoming less effective.
In particular, the [[symptom] would persist even after the [[analyst]] had offered exhaustive [[interpretations]] of it.
---
In order to explain this, [[analyst]]s turned to the concept of [[resistance]], arguing that it is not sufficient simply to offer an [[interpretation]] of the [[unconscious]] [[meaning]] of the [[symptom]] but that it is also necessary to get rid of the [[patient]]'s [[resistance]] to becoming fully [[conscious]] of this [[meaning]].
[[Lacan]], however, proposes a different explanation.
He argues that the decreasing efficacy of [[interpretation]]s after 1920 was due to a "closure" of the [[unconscious]] which the [[analyst]]s themselves had provoked.<ref>{{S2}} p.10-11; {{S8}} p.390</ref>
Among other things, [[Lacan]] blames the increasing tendency of the first generation of [[analyst]]s to base their [[interpretation]]s more on symbolism (despite [Freud]]'s warnings to the contrary), thereby returning to the pre-psychoanalytic "decoding" method of [[interpretation]].
Not only did this reduce [[interpretation]]s to set formulas, but the [[patient]]s soon came to be able to predict exactly what the [[analyst]] would say about any particular [[symptom]] or association they produced (which, as [[Lacan]] wryly comments "is surely the most annoying trick which can be played on a fortune-teller."<ref>{{Ec}} p.462</ref>)
[[Interpretation]]s thus lacked both relevance and shock-value.
--
Other [[analyst]]s before [[Lacan]] had recognized the problems caused by the fact that [[patient]]s were increasingly knowledgable of [[psychoanalytic theory]].
However, the solution which they proposed for this problem was that "too much knowledge on the part of the patient should be replaced by more knowledge on the part of the analyst."<ref>Ferenczi and Rank, 1925: 61</ref>
In other words, they urged the [[analyst]] to elaborate even more complex theories in order to stay one step ahead of the [[patient]].
[[Lacan]], however, proposes a different solution.
What is needed, he argues, is not [[interpretations]] of every-increasing complexity, but a different way of approaching [[interpretation]] altogether.
Hence [[Lacan]] calls for a "renewed technique of interpretation,"<ref>{{E}} p.82.</ref> one that challenges the basic assumptions underlying the classical psychoanalytic model of [[interpretation]].
------
Classical [[interpretation]]s generally took the form of attributing to a [[dream]], a [[symptom]], a [[parapraxis]], or an association, a [[meaning]] not given to it by the [[patient]].
For example the [[interpretation]] may be of the form "What you really mean by this symptom is that you desire ''x''."
The fundamental assumption was that the [[interpretation unmasks a hidden meaning, the truth of which could be confirmed by the [[patient]] producing more associations.
It is this assumption that [[Lacan]] challenges, aruging that analytic [[interpretation]]s should no longer aim at discovering a hidden meaning, but rather at disrupting meaning.
<blockquote>"Interpretation is directed not so much at 'making sense' as towards reducing the signifiers to their 'non-sense' in order thereby to find the determinants of all the subject's conduct."<ref>{{S11}} p.212</ref>
[[Interpretation]] thus inverts the relationship between [[signifier]] and [[signified]]: instead of the normal production of [[meaning]] ([[signifier]] produces [[signified]]), [[interpretation]] works at the level of ''s'' to generate S: [[interpretation]] causes "irreducible signifiers" to arise, which are "non-sensical."<ref>{{S11}} p.250</ref>
Hence it is not a question, for [[Lacan]], of fitting the [[analysand]]'s [[discourse]] into a preconceived interpretive matrix or theory (as in the "decoding" method), but of disrupting all such theories.
Far from offering the [[analysand]] a new message, the [[interpretation]] should serve merely to enable the [[analysand]] to hear the message he is [[unconsciously]] addressing to himself.
The [[analysand]]'s [[speech]] always has other meanings apart from that which he [[consicously]] intends to convey.
The [[analyst]] plays on the ambiguity of the [[analysand]]'s [[speech]], bringing out its multiple meanings.
Often the most effective way for the [[interpretation]] to achieve this is for it too to be ambiguous.
By interpreting in this way, the [[analyst]] sends the [[analysand]]'s message back to the [[analysand]] in its true, inverted form.
--
An [[interpretation]] is therefore not offered to gain the [[analysand]]'s assent, but is simply a tactical device aimed at enabling the [[analysand]] to continue speaking when the flow of associations has become locked.
The value of an [[interpretation]] does not lie in its correspondence with [[reality]], but simply in its power to produce certain effects; an [[interpretation]] may therefore be inexact, in the sense of not corresponding to "the facts," but nevertheless true, in the sense of having powerful symbolic effects.<ref>{{E}} p.237</ref>
--
[[Lacan]] argues that in order to [[interpret]] in this way, the [[analyst]] mus ttake the [[analysand]]'s [[speech]] absolutely literally (''à la lettre'').
That is, the task of the [[analyst]] is not to achieve some imaginary intuitive grasp of the [[analysand]]'s 'hidden message,' but simply to read the [[analysand]]'s [[discourse]] as if it were text, attending to the formal features of this [[discourse]], the [[signifiers]] that repeat themselves.<ref>{{S2}} p.153</ref>
Hence [[Lacan]]'s frequent warnings of the dangers of "understanding."
<blockquote>"The less you understand, the better you listen."<ref>{{S2}} p.141</ref></blockquote>
Understanding (''comprendre'') has negative connotations for [[Lacan]], implying a kind of listening that seeks only to fit the other's [[speech]]] into a preformed theory.<ref>{{E}} p.270; {{S2}} p.130; {{S8}} p.229-30</ref>
In order to do avoid this, the [[analyst]], must "forget what he knows" when listening<ref>{{Ec}} p.349</ref> and when offering [[interpretation]]s must do so "exactly as if we were completely ignorant of theory."<ref>Lacan, 1953b: 227</ref>
==See Also==
* [[Analysand]]
* [[Analyst]]
==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Psychoanalysis]]
[[Category:Terms]]
[[Category:Concepts]]
[[Category:Dictionary]]
[[Category:Jacques Lacan]]
