Difference between revisions of "Interpretation"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | : [[Fr]]. ''[[interprétation]]'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | =====Role of the Analyst===== | ||
The role of the [[analyst]] in the [[treatment]] is twofold. | The role of the [[analyst]] in the [[treatment]] is twofold. | ||
First and foremost, he must listen to the [[analysand]], but he must also intervene by speaking to the [[analysand]]. | First and foremost, he must listen to the [[analysand]], but he must also intervene by speaking to the [[analysand]]. | ||
| − | Although the [[analyst]]'s [[speech]] is characterized by many different kinds of [[speech|speech act]] | + | =====Function of Interpretation===== |
| − | + | Although the [[analyst]]'s [[speech]] is characterized by many different kinds of [[speech|speech act]] -- asking questions, giving instructions, etc. -- it is the offering of [[interpretation]]s which plays the most crucial and distinctive role in the [[treatment]]. | |
| − | |||
| − | + | Broadly speaking, the [[analyst]] can be said to offer an [[interpretation]] when he says something that subverts the [[analysand]]'s [[conscious]] "everyday" way of looking at something. | |
| − | [[Freud]] first began offering [[interpretation]]s to his [[patient]]s in order to help them remember an idea that had been [[repressed]] from [[memory]]. | + | =====Sigmund Freud===== |
| + | [[Freud]] first began offering [[interpretation]]s to his [[patient]]s in order to help them [[memory|remember]] an idea that had been [[repressed]] from [[memory]]. | ||
These [[interpretation]]s were educated guesses about what the [[patient]]s had omitted from their account of the events which led up to the [[formation]] of their [[symptom]]s. | These [[interpretation]]s were educated guesses about what the [[patient]]s had omitted from their account of the events which led up to the [[formation]] of their [[symptom]]s. | ||
| + | =====Example===== | ||
For example, in one of the earliest [[interpretation]]s, [[Freud]] told one [[patient]] that she had not revealed all her motives for the intense affection she showed towards her employer's children, and went on to say; "I believe that really you are in love with your employer, the Director, though perhaps without being aware of it yourself."<ref>{{F}} 1895d. SE II. p.117</ref> | For example, in one of the earliest [[interpretation]]s, [[Freud]] told one [[patient]] that she had not revealed all her motives for the intense affection she showed towards her employer's children, and went on to say; "I believe that really you are in love with your employer, the Director, though perhaps without being aware of it yourself."<ref>{{F}} 1895d. SE II. p.117</ref> | ||
| + | =====Purpose of Interpretation===== | ||
The purpose of the [[interpretation]] was to help the [[patient]] become [[conscious]] of [[unconscious]] thoughts. | The purpose of the [[interpretation]] was to help the [[patient]] become [[conscious]] of [[unconscious]] thoughts. | ||
| − | + | =====Psychoanalytic Method of Interpretation===== | |
| − | + | The model of [[interpretation]] was set down by [[Freud]] in ''[[The Interpretation of Dreams]]''.<ref>{{F}} 1900a. ''The Interpretation of Dreams'', [[SE]] V.</ref> | |
| − | The model of [[interpretation]] was set down by [[Freud]] in ''[[The Interpretation of Dreams]]''.<ref>{{F}} 1900a.</ref> | ||
| − | Though only concerned explicitly with [[dreams]], [[Freud]]'s comments on [[interpretation]] in this work apply equally to all the other [[formation]]s of the [[unconscious]] | + | Though only concerned explicitly with [[dreams]], [[Freud]]'s comments on [[interpretation]] in this work apply equally to all the other [[formation]]s of the [[unconscious]] -- [[parapraxes]], [[jokes]], [[symptoms]], etc. |
| − | In the second chapter of this work the psychoanalytic method of [[interpretation]] is distinguished from the "decoding" method of [[interpretation]] by the use of the method of [[free association]]: a psychoanalytic [[interpretation]] does not consist in attributing a meaning to a [[dream]] by referring to a pre-existing system of equivalences but by referring to the associations of the dreamer himself. | + | ====="Decoding" Method of Interpretation===== |
| + | In the second chapter of this work the psychoanalytic method of [[interpretation]] is distinguished from the "decoding" method of [[interpretation]] by the use of the method of [[free association]]: a [[psychoanalytic]] [[interpretation]] does not consist in attributing a [[signification|meaning]] to a [[dream]] by referring to a pre-existing system of equivalences but by referring to the [[free association|associations]] of the dreamer himself. | ||
| − | It | + | It follows that the same [[image]] will mean very different things if dreamed by different people. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| + | =====Sigmund Freud===== | ||
| + | Even when [[Freud]] later came to recognize the [[existence]] of "symbolism" in [[dreams]] (i.e. the fact that there are some images 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>{{F}} 1900a. ''The Interpretation of Dreams'', [[SE]] V., pp. 359-60.</ref> | ||
| + | =====Interpretation in Analysis===== | ||
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]]. | 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. | + | =====Interpretation of Unconscious Meaning of the Symptom===== |
| + | 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 [[ | + | =====Declining Effect of Interpretation===== |
| + | 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 [[interpretation]]s were becoming less effective. | ||
In particular, the [[symptom] would persist even after the [[analyst]] had offered exhaustive [[interpretations]] of it. | In particular, the [[symptom] would persist even after the [[analyst]] had offered exhaustive [[interpretations]] of it. | ||
| − | + | =====Possible Explanation===== | |
| − | + | =====Resistance to Becoming Conscious===== | |
| − | |||
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]]. | 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]]. | ||
| + | =====Jacques Lacan===== | ||
[[Lacan]], however, proposes a different explanation. | [[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> | 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 | + | Among other things, [[Lacan]] blames the increasing tendency of the first generation of [[analyst]]s to base their [[interpretation]]s more on [[symbol]]ism (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 | + | 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 [[free association|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. | [[Interpretation]]s thus lacked both relevance and shock-value. | ||
| − | + | =====Popularity of Psychoanalytic Theory===== | |
Other [[analyst]]s before [[Lacan]] had recognized the problems caused by the fact that [[patient]]s were increasingly knowledgable of [[psychoanalytic theory]]. | 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 | + | 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, Sándor and Rank, Otto. 1925. "The development of psychoanalysis," trans. Caroline Newton, J. ''Nerv. Ment. Dis.'', Monograph, no.40. p.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]]. | In other words, they urged the [[analyst]] to elaborate even more complex theories in order to stay one step ahead of the [[patient]]. | ||
| + | =====Jacques Lacan===== | ||
[[Lacan]], however, proposes a different solution. | [[Lacan]], however, proposes a different solution. | ||
| Line 70: | Line 76: | ||
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]]. | 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 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]]. | 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''." | 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 | + | =====Interpretation Unmasks Hidden Unconscious Meaning===== |
| + | The fundamental assumption was that the [[interpretation]] unmasks a hidden [[meaning]], the [[truth]] of which could be confirmed by the [[patient]] producing more [[free association|association]]s. | ||
| − | It is this assumption that [[Lacan]] challenges, | + | It is this assumption that [[Lacan]] challenges, arguing that [[analytic]] [[interpretation]]s should no longer aim at discovering a hidden [[meaning]], but rather at disrupting [[meaning]]. |
| + | =====Interpretation as Disruption of 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></blockquote> | <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></blockquote> | ||
| Line 87: | Line 93: | ||
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. | 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. | + | =====Analysand's Message Addressed to Himself===== |
| + | 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 | + | The [[analysand]]'s [[speech]] always has other [[meaning]]s 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. | The [[analyst]] plays on the ambiguity of the [[analysand]]'s [[speech]], bringing out its multiple meanings. | ||
| Line 95: | Line 102: | ||
Often the most effective way for the [[interpretation]] to achieve this is for it too to be ambiguous. | 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. | + | By interpreting in this way, the [[analyst]] sends the [[analysand]]'s [[message]] back to the [[analysand]] in its true, [[inversion|inverted form]]. |
| − | + | =====Tactic of Interpretation===== | |
| − | + | 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 [[speech|speaking]] when the flow of [[free association|association]]s has become locked. | |
| − | 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 | ||
| + | =====Interpretation and Reality===== | ||
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> | 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> | ||
| − | + | =====Role of the Analyst===== | |
| + | =====Analysand's Speech as Text===== | ||
| + | [[Lacan]] argues that in order to [[interpret]] in this way, the [[analyst]] must take 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> | ||
| − | + | =====Understanding===== | |
| − | + | Hence [[Lacan]]'s frequent warnings of the dangers of "[[Interpretation|understanding]]." | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | 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> | <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 | + | [[Interpretation|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>{{L}} 1953b. "The neurotic's individual myth," trans. Martha Evans, in L. Spurling (ed.), ''Sigmund Freud: Critical Assessments,'', vol. II, ''The Theory and Practice of Psychoanalysis'', London and New York: Routledge, 1989, p. 227.</ref> | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
Revision as of 07:52, 18 August 2006
Contents
- 1 Role of the Analyst
- 2 Function of Interpretation
- 3 Sigmund Freud
- 4 Example
- 5 Purpose of Interpretation
- 6 Psychoanalytic Method of Interpretation
- 7 "Decoding" Method of Interpretation
- 8 Sigmund Freud
- 9 Interpretation in Analysis
- 10 Interpretation of Unconscious Meaning of the Symptom
- 11 Declining Effect of Interpretation
- 12 Possible Explanation
- 13 Resistance to Becoming Conscious
- 14 Jacques Lacan
- 15 Popularity of Psychoanalytic Theory
- 16 Jacques Lacan
- 17 Classical Psychoanalytic Model of Interpretation
- 18 Interpretation Unmasks Hidden Unconscious Meaning
- 19 Interpretation as Disruption of Meaning
- 20 Analysand's Message Addressed to Himself
- 21 Tactic of Interpretation
- 22 Interpretation and Reality
- 23 Role of the Analyst
- 24 Analysand's Speech as Text
- 25 Understanding
- 26 See Also
- 27 References
Role of the Analyst
The role of the analyst in the treatment is twofold.
First and foremost, he must listen to the analysand, but he must also intervene by speaking to the analysand.
Function of Interpretation
Although the analyst's speech is characterized by many different kinds of speech act -- asking questions, giving instructions, etc. -- it is the offering of interpretations which plays the most crucial and distinctive role in the treatment.
Broadly speaking, the analyst can be said to offer an interpretation when he says something that subverts the analysand's conscious "everyday" way of looking at something.
Sigmund Freud
Freud first began offering interpretations to his patients in order to help them remember an idea that had been repressed from memory.
These interpretations were educated guesses about what the patients had omitted from their account of the events which led up to the formation of their symptoms.
Example
For example, in one of the earliest interpretations, Freud told one patient that she had not revealed all her motives for the intense affection she showed towards her employer's children, and went on to say; "I believe that really you are in love with your employer, the Director, though perhaps without being aware of it yourself."[1]
Purpose of Interpretation
The purpose of the interpretation was to help the patient become conscious of unconscious thoughts.
Psychoanalytic Method of Interpretation
The model of interpretation was set down by Freud in The Interpretation of Dreams.[2]
Though only concerned explicitly with dreams, Freud's comments on interpretation in this work apply equally to all the other formations of the unconscious -- parapraxes, jokes, symptoms, etc.
"Decoding" Method of Interpretation
In the second chapter of this work the psychoanalytic method of interpretation is distinguished from the "decoding" method of interpretation by the use of the method of free association: a psychoanalytic interpretation does not consist in attributing a meaning to a dream by referring to a pre-existing system of equivalences but by referring to the associations of the dreamer himself.
It follows that the same image will mean very different things if dreamed by different people.
Sigmund Freud
Even when Freud later came to recognize the existence of "symbolism" in dreams (i.e. the fact that there are some images 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."[3]
Interpretation in Analysis
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.
Interpretation of Unconscious Meaning of the Symptom
Since symptoms 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.
Declining Effect of Interpretation
However, after the initial period in which the offering of interpretations seemed to achieve remarkable effects, in the decade 1910-20 analysts 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.
Possible Explanation
Resistance to Becoming Conscious
In order to explain this, analysts 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.
Jacques Lacan
Lacan, however, proposes a different explanation.
He argues that the decreasing efficacy of interpretations after 1920 was due to a "closure" of the unconscious which the analysts themselves had provoked.[4]
Among other things, Lacan blames the increasing tendency of the first generation of analysts to base their interpretations 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 interpretations to set formulas, but the patients 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"[5]).
Interpretations thus lacked both relevance and shock-value.
Popularity of Psychoanalytic Theory
Other analysts before Lacan had recognized the problems caused by the fact that patients 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."[6]
In other words, they urged the analyst to elaborate even more complex theories in order to stay one step ahead of the patient.
Jacques Lacan
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,"[7] one that challenges the basic assumptions underlying the classical psychoanalytic model of interpretation.
Classical Psychoanalytic Model of Interpretation
Classical interpretations 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."
Interpretation Unmasks Hidden Unconscious Meaning
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, arguing that analytic interpretations should no longer aim at discovering a hidden meaning, but rather at disrupting meaning.
Interpretation as Disruption of Meaning
"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."[8]
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."[9]
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.
Analysand's Message Addressed to Himself
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.
Tactic of Interpretation
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.
Interpretation and Reality
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.[10]
Role of the Analyst
Analysand's Speech as Text
Lacan argues that in order to interpret in this way, the analyst must take 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.[11]
Understanding
Hence Lacan's frequent warnings of the dangers of "understanding."
"The less you understand, the better you listen."[12]
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.[13]
In order to do avoid this, the analyst, must "forget what he knows" when listening[14] and when offering interpretations must do so "exactly as if we were completely ignorant of theory."[15]
See Also
References
- ↑ Freud, Sigmund. 1895d. SE II. p.117
- ↑ Freud, Sigmund. 1900a. The Interpretation of Dreams, SE V.
- ↑ Freud, Sigmund. 1900a. The Interpretation of Dreams, SE V., pp. 359-60.
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-55. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1988. p.10-11; Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre VIII. Le transfert, 1960-61. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p.390
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p.462
- ↑ Ferenczi, Sándor and Rank, Otto. 1925. "The development of psychoanalysis," trans. Caroline Newton, J. Nerv. Ment. Dis., Monograph, no.40. p.61
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.82.
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book XI. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, 1964. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1977. p.212
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book XI. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, 1964. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1977. p.250
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.237
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-55. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1988. p.153
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-55. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1988. p.141
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.270; Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-55. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1988. p.130; Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre VIII. Le transfert, 1960-61. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p.229-30
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p.349
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. 1953b. "The neurotic's individual myth," trans. Martha Evans, in L. Spurling (ed.), Sigmund Freud: Critical Assessments,, vol. II, The Theory and Practice of Psychoanalysis, London and New York: Routledge, 1989, p. 227.
