Changes

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]].

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 ]] [[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.

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}} "[[Works of Sigmund Freud|The Neuro-Psychoses of Defence]]", 1895d. [[SE]] III, 43. p. 117</ref>

The [[purpose ]] of the [[interpretation]] was to help the [[patient]] become [[conscious]] of [[unconscious]] [[thoughts]].

The [[model ]] of [[interpretation]] was set down by [[Freud]] in ''[[The Interpretation of Dreams]]''.<ref>{{F}} ''[[The Interpretation of Dreams]]'', 1900a. [[SE]] V.</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]] -- [[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 [[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 follows that the same [[image]] will mean very different things if dreamed by different [[people]].

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}} ''[[The Interpretation of Dreams]]'', 1900a. [[SE]] V., pp. 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]].

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]].

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]].

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. "The [[Development ]] of [[Psychoanalysis]]," trans. [[Caroline ]] Newton, J. ''Nerv. Ment. Dis.'', Monograph, no. 40. 1925. 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]].

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''."

<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>

[[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.

By interpreting in this way, the [[analyst]] sends the [[analysand]]'s [[message]] back to the [[analysand]] in its [[true]], [[inversion|inverted form]].

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]] 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>

<blockquote>"The less you [[understand]], the better you listen."<ref>{{S2}} p. 141</ref></blockquote>

[[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}} "[[Works of Jacques Lacan|The Neurotic's Individual Myth]]," 1953b, 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>