Difference between revisions of "Perversion"

From No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis
Jump to: navigation, search
(The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (<a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles">https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles</a>).)
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
perversion (perversion)                 
+
{{Top}}[[pervert]]|perversion{{Bottom}}
−
Perversion was defined by Freud as any form of sexual behaviour which deviates from the norm of heterosexual genital intercourse (Freud, 1905d). However, this defmition is problematised by Freud's own notions of the polymorphous perversity of all human sexuality, which is characterised by the absence of any pregiven natural order.
 
  
−
  Lacan overcomes this impasse in Freudian theory by defining perversion not    as a form of behaviour but as a clinical [[Structure]].
+
=====Sigmund Freud=====
−
“What is perversion? It is not simply        an aberration in relation to social criteria, an anomaly contrary to good morals, although this register is not absent, nor is it an atypicality according to natural criteria, namely that it more or less derogates from the reproductive finality of the sexual union. It is something else in its very structure.” (Sl, 221)
+
[[Perversion]] was defined by [[Freud]] as any [[form]] of ''[[perversion|sexual behaviour]]'' which deviates from the [[perversion|norm]] of [[sexuality|heterosexual]] [[sexual relationship|genital intercourse]].<ref>{{F}} ''[[Works of Sigmund Freud|Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality]]''. [[SE]] VII, 125. 1905d.</ref>
  
−
The distinction between perverse acts and the perverse structure implies that, while there are certain sexual acts which are closely associated with perverse structures, it is also possible that such acts may be engaged in by non-perverse subjects, and equally possible that            a perverse subject may      never actually engage in such acts. It also implies              a universalist position; while social disapproval and the infraction of 'good morals' may be what determines whether a particular act is perverse          or not, this is not the      essence of the perverse structure. A perverse structure remains perverse even when the acts associated with it are socially approved. Hence Lacan regards homosexuality    as a perversion even when practised in Ancient Greece, where it was widely tolerated (S8, 43). (This is not because homosexuality or any other form of sexuality is naturally perverse; on the contrary, the perverse nature of homosexuality is entirely a question of its infringement of the normative requirements of the Oedipus complex (S4, 201). Thus Lacan criticises Freud for forgetting at times that the importance of heterosexuality in the Oedipal myth is      a question of norms and not of nature (Ec, 223). The analyst's neutrality forbids him from taking sides with these norms; rather than defending such norms or attacking them, the analyst seeks merely to expose their incidence in the subject's history.)
+
=====Polymorphous Perversity=====
 +
However, this defmition is problematized by [[Freud]]'s own notions of the [[perversion|polymorphous perversity]] of all [[human]] [[sexuality]], which is characterized by the [[absence]] of any [[nature|pregiven natural order]].
  
−
      There  are  two main ways in which Lacan characterises the perverse    structure.
+
=====Jacques Lacan=====
 +
[[Lacan]] overcomes this [[impasse]] in [[Freud]]ian [[theory]] by defining [[perversion]] not as a form of ''[[behaviour]]'' but as a [[structure|clinical structure]].
  
 +
<blockquote>"What is perversion? It is not simply an aberration in relation to [[social]] criteria, an anomaly contrary to [[good]] morals, although this [[register]] is not [[absent]], nor is it an atypicality according to natural criteria, namely that it more or less derogates from the [[reproductive]] finality of the [[sexual]] union. It is something else in its very structure."<ref>{{S1}} p. 221</ref></blockquote>
  
 +
=====Perverse Acts, Perverse Structure=====
 +
The [[distinction]] between [[perversion|perverse acts]] and the [[perversion|perverse structure]] implies that, while there are certain [[perversion|sexual acts]] which are closely associated with [[perversion|perverse structures]], it is also possible that such [[perversion|act]]s may be engaged in by [[perversion|non-perverse subjects]], and equally possible that a [[perversion|perverse subject]] may never actually engage in such [[perversion|act]]s.
  
−
  ï    The [[Phallus]] and [[Disavowal]] Perversion is distinguished from the other    clinical  structures by the operation of disavowal. The pervert disavows castration; he perceives that the mother lacks the phallus, and at the same time refuses to accept the [[Real]]ity of this traumatic perception. This is most evident in FETISHISM (the 'perversion of perversions'; S4, 194), where the fetish is a [[Symbolic]] substitute for the mother's missing phallus. However, this problematic relation to the phallus is not exclusive to fetishism but extends to all the perversions (S4, 192-3). 'The whole problem of the perversions consists in conceiving how the child, in his relation to the mother      .  . . identifies himself with the [[Imaginary]] object of [her] desire [i.e. the phallus]' (E, 197-8). This is why the preoedipal [[Imaginary]] triangle plays such an important role in the perverse structure. In the perversions, the phallus can only function as veiled (see Lacan's discussion of the role of the veil in fetishism, transvestism, homosexuality and exhibitionism; S4, 159-63).
+
=====Social Dis/Approval=====
−
The [[Drive]] Perversion is also a particular way in which the subject situates himself in relation to the drive. In perversion, the subject locates himself as object of the drive, as the means of the other's jouissance (Sll, 185). This is to invert the structure of [[Fantasy]], which is why the formula for perversion appears as a0S in the first schema in 'Kant with Sade' (Ec, 774), the inversion of the matheme of fantasy. The pervert assumes the position of the object-instrument of the 'will-to-enjoy' (volontÈ-de-jouissance), which is not his own will but that of the [[big Other]]. The pervert does not pursue his activity for his own pleasure, but for the enjoyment of the [[big Other]]. He finds enjoyment precisely in this instrumentalisation, in working for the enjoyment of the Other; 'the subject here makes himself the instrument of the Other's jouissance' (E, 320). Thus in scopophilia (also spelled scoptophilia), which comprises exhibitionism and voyeurism, the pervert locates himself as the object of the scopic drive. In SADISM/MASOCHISM, the subject locates himself as the object of the invocatory drive (S11, 182-5). The pervert is the person in whom the structure of the drive is most clearly revealed, and also the person who carries the attempt to go beyond the pleasure principle to the limit, 'he who goes as far as he can along the path of jouissance' (E, 323).
+
It also implies a universalist [[position]]; while social disapproval and the infraction of "good morals" may be what determines whether a [[particular]] [[perversion|act]] is [[perversion|perverse]] or not, this is not the [[essence]] of the [[perversion|perverse structure]].  
  
−
Freud's remark that 'the neuroses are the negative of the perversions' has sometimes been interpreted as meaning that perversion is simply the direct expression of a natural instinct which is repressed in NEUROSIS (Freud, 1905d: SE VII, 165). However, Lacan rejects this interpretation entirely (S4, 113, 250). Firstly, the drive is not to be conceived of as a natural instinct which could be discharged in a direct way; it has no zero degree of satisfaction.
+
A [[perversion|perverse structure]] remains [[perversion|perverse]] even when the [[perversion|acts]] associated with it are socially approved.
−
Secondly, as is clear from the above remarks, the pervert's relation to the drive.
+
Moreover, in Lacan's formulation, it is the [[neurotic subject]] who is in [[conflict]] with the [[Name-of-the-Father]], in other [[words]], with [[Law]] as such. The [[perverse subject]], on the other hand, '[[knows]] very well' the [[letter]] of the [[Law]]--in other words, knows what the [[Other]] desires. The perverse structure follows the [[Law]] to the letter, follows the "''No''" of the [[Father]]--the dictum not to [[enjoy]]. According to Jean Clavreul, " As far as the pervert is concerned, this conflict [between [[desire]] and [[Law]]] is resolved by making desire the law of his [[acts]]."[http://www.lacan.com/conformperf.htm]
  
−
i Just as complex and elaborated as that of the neurotic. From the point of view of genetic development, perversion is at the same level as neurosis; both have reached the third 'time' of the Oedipus complex (S4, 251). Perversion therefore 'presents the same dimensional richness as [a neurosis], the same abundance, the    same rhythms, the    same stages' (S4, 113). It is therefore necessary to interpret Freud's remark in another way: perversion is structured    in an inverse way to neurosis, but is equally structured (S4, 251).
+
=====Homosexuality=====
 +
Hence [[Lacan]] regards [[perversion|homosexuality]] as a [[perversion]] even when practiced in Ancient [[Greece]], where it was widely tolerated.<ref>{{S8}} p. 43</ref>
  
−
        While neurosis is characterised by a question, perversion is characterised by    the lack of a question; the pervert does not doubt that his acts serve the    jouissance of the Other. Thus it is extremely rare for a perverse subject to    demand analysis, and in the rare cases when he does, it is not because he seeks    to change his mode of jouissance. This perhaps explains why many psycho-    analysts have argued that psychoanalytic treatment is not appropriate for    perverse subjects,    a line which    even  some Lacanian analysts have taken,    comparing the certainty of the pervert with that of the psychotic, and arguing    that perverts cannot take the position of 'one who does not know' before a      'subject supposed to know' (Clavreul, 1967). However, most Lacanian analysts do not take this view, since it is a view completely at odds with Lacan's      own position. In the seminar of 1956-7, for example, Lacan points to the    dream of the young homosexual [[Woman]] whom Freud treated      as  a clear      manifestation of transference in a perverse subject (S4, 106-7;          see Freud,      1920a). Also, in the 1960-1 seminar, Lacan's principal example of transference is that shown by Alcibiades, whom he clearly regards as a pervert (see E,    323; 'Alcibiades is certainly not a neurotic'). Thus Lacan argues that perverse subjects can be treated at the same level as neurotics, although there will of course be different problems in the direction of the treatment. One important implication of this is that the psychoanalytic treatment of a perverse subject does not set as its objective the elimination of his perverse behaviour.
+
This is not because [[perversion|homosexuality]] or any other form of [[sexuality]] is [[nature|naturally]] [[perversion|perverse]]; on the contrary, the [[perversion|perverse nature]] of [[perversion|homosexuality]] is entirely a question of its infringement of the [[normative]] requirements of the [[Oedipus complex]].<ref>{{S4}} p. 201</ref>
  
 +
=====Norms Not Nature=====
 +
Thus [[Lacan]] criticizes [[Freud]] for [[forgetting]] at [[times]] that the importance of [[perversion|heterosexuality]] in the [[Oedipus complex|Oedipal myth]] is a question of [[perversions|norms]] and not of [[nature]].<ref>{{Ec}} p. 223</ref>
  
−
== def ==
+
The [[analyst]]'s [[ethics|neutrality]] forbids him from taking sides with these [[perversion|norms]]; rather than defending such [[perversion|norms]] or attacking [[them]], the [[analyst]] seeks merely to expose their incidence in the [[subject]]'s [[history]].
−
The pursuit of "abnormal" sexual objects without repression. Freud at one point lists five forms of perversion, which is to say five ways that an individual "differs from the normal": "first, by disregarding the barrier of species (the gulf between men and animals), secondly, by overstepping the barrier against disgust, thirdly that against incest (the prohibition against seeking sexual satisfaction from near blood-relations), fourthly that against members of one's own sex and fifthly the transferring of the part played by the genitals to other organs and areas of the body" (Introductory Lectures 15.208). He makes clear that a young child will not recognize any of these five points as abnormal—and only does so through the process of education. For this reason, he calls children "polymorphously perverse."<ref>(Introductory Lectures 15.209)</ref>
 
  
−
Polymorphous Perversity:      The ability to find erotic pleasure out of any part of the body. According to Freud, a young child is, by nature, "polymorphously perverse" (Introductory Lectures 15.209), which is to say that, before education in the conventions of civilized society, a child will turn to various bodily parts for sexual gratification and will not obey the rules that in adults determine perverse behavior. Education however quickly suppresses the polymorphous possibilities for sexual gratification in the child, eventually leading, through repression, to an amnesia about such primitive desires. Some adults retain such polymorphous perversity, according to Freud.
+
=====Perverse Structure=====
 +
There are two main ways in which [[Lacan]] characterizes the [[perversion|perverse structure]].
  
−
== References ==
+
=====Disavowal=====
 +
[[Perversion]] is distinguished from the other [[structure|clinical structures]] by the operation of [[disavowal]].
 +
 
 +
The [[perversion|pervert]] [[disavowal|disavows]] [[castration]]; he perceives that the [[mother]] [[lack]]s the [[phallus]], and at the same [[time]] refuses to accept the [[reality]] of this [[traumatic]] [[perception]].
 +
 
 +
This is most evident in [[fetishism]] (the "[[perversion|perversion of perversions]]")<ref>{{S4}} p. 194</ref> where the [[fetish]] is a [[symbolic]] [[metaphor|substitute]] for the [[mother]]'s [[lack|missing]] [[phallus]]. One can also formulate the fetish object as a
 +
[[veil]] that the perverse subject erects in front of the [[Thing]] in [[order]] to avoid an [[encounter]] with it.
 +
 
 +
=====Phallus=====
 +
However, this problematic relation to the [[phallus]] is not exclusive to [[fetishism]] but extends to all the [[perversion]]s.<ref>{{S4}} p. 192-3</ref>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>"The [[whole]] problem of the perversions consists in conceiving how the [[child]], in his relation to the mother      .  . . [[identifies]] himself with [[the imaginary]] object of [her] desire [i.e. the phallus]."<ref>{{E}} p. 197-8</ref></blockquote>
 +
 
 +
This is why the [[preoedipal]] [[imaginary]] [[structure|triangle]] plays such an important [[role]] in the [[perversion|perverse structure]].
 +
 
 +
In the [[perversion]]s, the [[phallus]] can only function as veiled.
 +
 
 +
=====Drive=====
 +
[[Perversion]] is also a particular way in which the [[subject]] situates himself in relation to the [[drive]].
 +
 
 +
In [[perversion]], the [[subject]] locates himself as [[object]] of the [[drive]], as the means of the [[Other]]'s ''[[jouissance]]''.<ref>{{S11}} p. 185</ref>
 +
 
 +
This is to [[inversion|invert]] the [[structure]] of [[fantasy]], which is why the [[formula]] for [[perversion]] appears as ''a <> $'' in the first [[matheme|schema]] in "[[Kant with Sade]]",<ref>{{Ec}} p. 774</ref> the [[inversion]] of the [[matheme]] of [[fantasy]].
 +
 
 +
=====Instrumentalization=====
 +
The [[perversion|pervert]] assumes the position of the [[perversion|object-instrument]] of the "[[perversion|will-to-enjoy]]" (''[[perversion|volonté-de-jouissance]]''), which is not his own will but that of the [[Other|big Other]].
 +
 
 +
The [[perversion|pervert]] does not pursue his [[activity]] for his own [[pleasure]], but for the [[enjoyment]] of the [[Other|big Other]].
 +
 
 +
He finds [[enjoyment]] precisely in this [[perversion|instrumentalization]], in [[working]] for the [[enjoyment]] of the [[Other]].
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>"The subject here makes himself the [[instrument]] of the Other's jouissance."<ref>{{E}} p. 320</ref></blockquote>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Thus in [[perversion|scopophilia]] (also spelled [[perversion|scoptophilia]]), which comprises [[perversion|exhibitionism]] and [[perversion|voyeurism]], the [[perversion|pervert]] locates himself as the [[object]] of the [[drive|scopic drive]].
 +
 
 +
In [[sadism/masochism]], the [[subject]] locates himself as the [[object]] of the [[drive|invocatory drive]].<ref>{{S11}} p. 182-5</ref>
 +
 
 +
The [[perversion|pervert]] is the person in whom the [[structure]] of the [[drive]] is most clearly revealed, and also the person who carries the attempt to go beyond the [[pleasure principle]] to the [[limit]], "he who goes as far as he can along the path of jouissance."<ref>{{E}} p. 323</ref>
 +
 
 +
=====Natural Instinct=====
 +
[[Freud]]'s remark that "the [[neuroses]] are the [[negative]] of the perversions" has sometimes been [[interpretation|interpreted]] as [[signification|meaning]] that [[perversion]] is simply the direct expression of a [[natural]] [[instinct]] which is [[repression|repressed]] in [[neurosis]].<ref>{{F}} 1905d: [[SE]] VII, 165</ref>
 +
 
 +
However, [[Lacan]] rejects this [[interpretation]] entirely.<ref>{{S4}} p. 113, 250</ref>
 +
 
 +
Firstly, the [[drive]] is not to be conceived of as a [[natural]] [[instinct]] which could be [[discharged]] in a direct way; it has no zero degree of [[satisfaction]].
 +
 
 +
Secondly, as is clear from the above remarks, the [[perversion|pervert]]'s relation to the [[drive]] is just as [[complex]] and elaborated as that of the [[neurotic]].
 +
 
 +
From the point of view of [[development|genetic development]], [[perversion]] is at the same level as [[neurosis]]; both have reached the [[third]] "time" of the [[Oedipus complex]].<ref>{{S4}} p. 251</ref>
 +
 
 +
=====Neurosis=====
 +
[[Perversion]] therefore "presents the same dimensional richness as [a neurosis], the same abundance, the same rhythms, the    same [[stages]]."<ref>{{S4}} p. 113</ref>
 +
 
 +
It is therefore necessary to [[interpretation|interpret]] [[Freud]]'s remark in [[another]] way: [[perversion]] is [[structure]]d in an [[inversion|inverse]] way to [[neurosis]], but is equally [[structure]]d.<ref>{{S4}} p. 251</ref>       
 +
 
 +
While [[neurosis]] is characterized by a question, [[perversion]] is characterised by the [[lack]] of a question; the [[perversion|pervert]] does not [[doubt]] that his [[perversion|acts]] serve the ''[[jouissance]]'' of the [[Other]].
 +
 
 +
=====Psychoanalytic Treatment=====
 +
Thus it is extremely rare for a [[perversion|perverse subject]] to [[demand]] [[treatment|analysis]], and in the rare cases when he does, it is not because he seeks to [[change]] his mode of ''[[jouissance]]''.
 +
 
 +
This perhaps explains why many [[psychoanalysis|psychoanalysts]] have argued that [[psychoanalytic treatment]] is not appropriate for [[perversion|perverse subjects]], a line which even some [[Lacan]]ian [[psychoanalysis|analysts]] have taken, comparing the [[certainty]] of the [[perversion|pervert]] with that of the [[psychosis|psychotic]], and arguing that [[perversion|perverts]] cannot take the position of "one who does not [[know]]" before a  "[[subject supposed to know]]."
 +
 
 +
However, most [[Lacan]]ian [[psychoanalysis|analysts]] do not take this view, since it is a view completely at odds with [[Lacan]]'s own position.
 +
 
 +
In the [[seminar]] of 1956-7, for example, [[Lacan]] points to the [[formation|dream]] of the young [[homosexual]] [[woman]] whom [[Freud]] treated as a clear manifestation of [[transference]] in a [[perversion|perverse subject]].<ref>{{S4}} p. 106-7; {{F}} 1920a</ref>
 +
 
 +
Also, in the 1960-1 [[seminar]], [[Lacan]]'s principal example of [[transference]] is that shown by [[Alcibiades]], whom he clearly regards as a [[perversion|pervert]] ("Alcibiades is certainly not a neurotic").<ref>{{E}} p. 323</ref>
 +
 
 +
Thus [[Lacan]] argues that [[perversion|perverse subjects]] can be treated at the same level as [[neurosis|neurotics]], although there will of course be different problems in the direction of the [[treatment]].
 +
 
 +
One important implication of this is that the [[psychoanalytic treatment]] of a [[perversion|perverse subject]] does not set as its [[objective]] the elimination of his [[perversion|perverse behaviour]].
 +
 
 +
=====See Also=====
 +
{{See}}
 +
{{Also}}
 +
 
 +
=====References=====
 +
<div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small">
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
−
[[Category:Dictionary]]
+
</div>
−
[[Category:Jacques Lacan]]
+
 
−
[[Category:Terms]]
+
{{OK}}
−
[[Category:Concepts]]
+
 
−
[[Category:Psychoanalysis]]
+
__NOTOC__

Latest revision as of 20:56, 20 May 2019

French: [[pervert|perversion]]
Sigmund Freud

Perversion was defined by Freud as any form of sexual behaviour which deviates from the norm of heterosexual genital intercourse.[1]

Polymorphous Perversity

However, this defmition is problematized by Freud's own notions of the polymorphous perversity of all human sexuality, which is characterized by the absence of any pregiven natural order.

Jacques Lacan

Lacan overcomes this impasse in Freudian theory by defining perversion not as a form of behaviour but as a clinical structure.

"What is perversion? It is not simply an aberration in relation to social criteria, an anomaly contrary to good morals, although this register is not absent, nor is it an atypicality according to natural criteria, namely that it more or less derogates from the reproductive finality of the sexual union. It is something else in its very structure."[2]

Perverse Acts, Perverse Structure

The distinction between perverse acts and the perverse structure implies that, while there are certain sexual acts which are closely associated with perverse structures, it is also possible that such acts may be engaged in by non-perverse subjects, and equally possible that a perverse subject may never actually engage in such acts.

Social Dis/Approval

It also implies a universalist position; while social disapproval and the infraction of "good morals" may be what determines whether a particular act is perverse or not, this is not the essence of the perverse structure.

A perverse structure remains perverse even when the acts associated with it are socially approved. Moreover, in Lacan's formulation, it is the neurotic subject who is in conflict with the Name-of-the-Father, in other words, with Law as such. The perverse subject, on the other hand, 'knows very well' the letter of the Law--in other words, knows what the Other desires. The perverse structure follows the Law to the letter, follows the "No" of the Father--the dictum not to enjoy. According to Jean Clavreul, " As far as the pervert is concerned, this conflict [between desire and Law] is resolved by making desire the law of his acts."[1]

Homosexuality

Hence Lacan regards homosexuality as a perversion even when practiced in Ancient Greece, where it was widely tolerated.[3]

This is not because homosexuality or any other form of sexuality is naturally perverse; on the contrary, the perverse nature of homosexuality is entirely a question of its infringement of the normative requirements of the Oedipus complex.[4]

Norms Not Nature

Thus Lacan criticizes Freud for forgetting at times that the importance of heterosexuality in the Oedipal myth is a question of norms and not of nature.[5]

The analyst's neutrality forbids him from taking sides with these norms; rather than defending such norms or attacking them, the analyst seeks merely to expose their incidence in the subject's history.

Perverse Structure

There are two main ways in which Lacan characterizes the perverse structure.

Disavowal

Perversion is distinguished from the other clinical structures by the operation of disavowal.

The pervert disavows castration; he perceives that the mother lacks the phallus, and at the same time refuses to accept the reality of this traumatic perception.

This is most evident in fetishism (the "perversion of perversions")[6] where the fetish is a symbolic substitute for the mother's missing phallus. One can also formulate the fetish object as a veil that the perverse subject erects in front of the Thing in order to avoid an encounter with it.

Phallus

However, this problematic relation to the phallus is not exclusive to fetishism but extends to all the perversions.[7]

"The whole problem of the perversions consists in conceiving how the child, in his relation to the mother . . . identifies himself with the imaginary object of [her] desire [i.e. the phallus]."[8]

This is why the preoedipal imaginary triangle plays such an important role in the perverse structure.

In the perversions, the phallus can only function as veiled.

Drive

Perversion is also a particular way in which the subject situates himself in relation to the drive.

In perversion, the subject locates himself as object of the drive, as the means of the Other's jouissance.[9]

This is to invert the structure of fantasy, which is why the formula for perversion appears as a <> $ in the first schema in "Kant with Sade",[10] the inversion of the matheme of fantasy.

Instrumentalization

The pervert assumes the position of the object-instrument of the "will-to-enjoy" (volonté-de-jouissance), which is not his own will but that of the big Other.

The pervert does not pursue his activity for his own pleasure, but for the enjoyment of the big Other.

He finds enjoyment precisely in this instrumentalization, in working for the enjoyment of the Other.

"The subject here makes himself the instrument of the Other's jouissance."[11]


Thus in scopophilia (also spelled scoptophilia), which comprises exhibitionism and voyeurism, the pervert locates himself as the object of the scopic drive.

In sadism/masochism, the subject locates himself as the object of the invocatory drive.[12]

The pervert is the person in whom the structure of the drive is most clearly revealed, and also the person who carries the attempt to go beyond the pleasure principle to the limit, "he who goes as far as he can along the path of jouissance."[13]

Natural Instinct

Freud's remark that "the neuroses are the negative of the perversions" has sometimes been interpreted as meaning that perversion is simply the direct expression of a natural instinct which is repressed in neurosis.[14]

However, Lacan rejects this interpretation entirely.[15]

Firstly, the drive is not to be conceived of as a natural instinct which could be discharged in a direct way; it has no zero degree of satisfaction.

Secondly, as is clear from the above remarks, the pervert's relation to the drive is just as complex and elaborated as that of the neurotic.

From the point of view of genetic development, perversion is at the same level as neurosis; both have reached the third "time" of the Oedipus complex.[16]

Neurosis

Perversion therefore "presents the same dimensional richness as [a neurosis], the same abundance, the same rhythms, the same stages."[17]

It is therefore necessary to interpret Freud's remark in another way: perversion is structured in an inverse way to neurosis, but is equally structured.[18]

While neurosis is characterized by a question, perversion is characterised by the lack of a question; the pervert does not doubt that his acts serve the jouissance of the Other.

Psychoanalytic Treatment

Thus it is extremely rare for a perverse subject to demand analysis, and in the rare cases when he does, it is not because he seeks to change his mode of jouissance.

This perhaps explains why many psychoanalysts have argued that psychoanalytic treatment is not appropriate for perverse subjects, a line which even some Lacanian analysts have taken, comparing the certainty of the pervert with that of the psychotic, and arguing that perverts cannot take the position of "one who does not know" before a "subject supposed to know."

However, most Lacanian analysts do not take this view, since it is a view completely at odds with Lacan's own position.

In the seminar of 1956-7, for example, Lacan points to the dream of the young homosexual woman whom Freud treated as a clear manifestation of transference in a perverse subject.[19]

Also, in the 1960-1 seminar, Lacan's principal example of transference is that shown by Alcibiades, whom he clearly regards as a pervert ("Alcibiades is certainly not a neurotic").[20]

Thus Lacan argues that perverse subjects can be treated at the same level as neurotics, although there will of course be different problems in the direction of the treatment.

One important implication of this is that the psychoanalytic treatment of a perverse subject does not set as its objective the elimination of his perverse behaviour.

See Also
References
  1. ↑ Freud, Sigmund. Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality. SE VII, 125. 1905d.
  2. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book I. Freud's Papers on Technique, 1953-54. Trans. John Forrester. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. p. 221
  3. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre VIII. Le transfert, 1960-61. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 43
  4. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 201
  5. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p. 223
  6. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 194
  7. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 192-3
  8. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 197-8
  9. ↑ 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. 185
  10. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p. 774
  11. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 320
  12. ↑ 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. 182-5
  13. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 323
  14. ↑ Freud, Sigmund. 1905d: SE VII, 165
  15. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 113, 250
  16. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 251
  17. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 113
  18. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 251
  19. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p. 106-7; Freud, Sigmund. 1920a
  20. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 323


Retrieved from "https://nosubject.com/index.php?title=Perversion&oldid=46454"