Difference between revisions of "Rome Discourse"
(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>).) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
------ | ------ | ||
| − | The [[Rome Discourse]] marked [[Lacan]]'s break with the [[International Psychoanalytical Association|analytic establishment]] and the formation of his own [[school]] of [[psychoanalysis|psychoanalytic thought]]. | + | The [[Rome Discourse]] marked [[Lacan]]'s break with the [[International Psychoanalytical Association|analytic establishment]] and the [[formation]] of his own [[school]] of [[psychoanalysis|psychoanalytic thought]]. |
Characterized by a mardedly polemical style of presentation, it is a manifesto of the aims of [[Lacan]]ian [[psychoanalysis]]. | Characterized by a mardedly polemical style of presentation, it is a manifesto of the aims of [[Lacan]]ian [[psychoanalysis]]. | ||
| − | In it [[Lacan]] catigated contemporary [[psychoanalytic theory]] and [[practice]] and proposed a radical revision of the whole [[psychoanalysis|psychoanalytic]] field. | + | In it [[Lacan]] catigated contemporary [[psychoanalytic theory]] and [[practice]] and proposed a radical revision of the [[whole]] [[psychoanalysis|psychoanalytic]] field. |
------ | ------ | ||
| − | The main thrust of the [[Rome Discourse]] pushes for the revision of [[psychoanalysis]] by a [[return]] to the study of the properties of [[language]], with which the early Freud was particularly concerned. | + | The main thrust of the [[Rome Discourse]] pushes for the revision of [[psychoanalysis]] by a [[return]] to the study of the properties of [[language]], with which the early [[Freud]] was particularly concerned. |
| − | It is a long and difficult text, covering a wide variety of issues, some of which are fully developed, while others are merely mentioned briefly. | + | It is a long and difficult [[text]], covering a wide variety of issues, some of which are fully developed, while [[others]] are merely mentioned briefly. |
| − | Our aim here is not to outline its main points, concentrating on those most relevant to [[psychoanalysis]]. | + | Our aim here is not to [[outline]] its main points, concentrating on those most relevant to [[psychoanalysis]]. |
------ | ------ | ||
| − | In the [[Rome Discourse]] [[Lacan]] questioned the main concepts of [[psychoanalysis]] and took up issues shared with such [[science|human sciences]] as [[linguistics]], [[philosophy]] and [[anthropology]]. | + | In the [[Rome Discourse]] [[Lacan]] questioned the main [[concepts]] of [[psychoanalysis]] and took up issues shared with such [[science|human sciences]] as [[linguistics]], [[philosophy]] and [[anthropology]]. |
| − | In [[Lacan]]'s view, [[psychoanalysis]] is distinguished from other disciplines in that the [[analyst]] works on the [[subject]]'s [[speech]]. | + | In [[Lacan]]'s view, [[psychoanalysis]] is distinguished from [[other]] disciplines in that the [[analyst]] works on the [[subject]]'s [[speech]]. |
| − | <blockquote>"Whether it sees itself as an instrument of healing, or of exploration in depth, psychoanalysis has only a single medium: the patient's speech."<ref>{{E}} p. 40</ref></blockquote> | + | <blockquote>"Whether it sees itself as an [[instrument]] of healing, or of exploration in depth, psychoanalysis has only a single medium: the [[patient]]'s speech."<ref>{{E}} p. 40</ref></blockquote> |
| − | From the birth of [[analysis]], [[language]] has been its primary field of action and the priveleged instrument of its efficacy, it is the "talking cure."<ref>{{SE}} 2. p. 30</ref> | + | From the [[birth]] of [[analysis]], [[language]] has been its primary field of [[action]] and the priveleged instrument of its efficacy, it is the "talking [[cure]]."<ref>{{SE}} 2. p. 30</ref> |
Latest revision as of 22:24, 20 May 2019
The Rome Discourse marked Lacan's break with the analytic establishment and the formation of his own school of psychoanalytic thought.
Characterized by a mardedly polemical style of presentation, it is a manifesto of the aims of Lacanian psychoanalysis.
In it Lacan catigated contemporary psychoanalytic theory and practice and proposed a radical revision of the whole psychoanalytic field.
The main thrust of the Rome Discourse pushes for the revision of psychoanalysis by a return to the study of the properties of language, with which the early Freud was particularly concerned.
It is a long and difficult text, covering a wide variety of issues, some of which are fully developed, while others are merely mentioned briefly.
Our aim here is not to outline its main points, concentrating on those most relevant to psychoanalysis.
In the Rome Discourse Lacan questioned the main concepts of psychoanalysis and took up issues shared with such human sciences as linguistics, philosophy and anthropology.
In Lacan's view, psychoanalysis is distinguished from other disciplines in that the analyst works on the subject's speech.
"Whether it sees itself as an instrument of healing, or of exploration in depth, psychoanalysis has only a single medium: the patient's speech."[1]
From the birth of analysis, language has been its primary field of action and the priveleged instrument of its efficacy, it is the "talking cure."[2]
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p. 40
- ↑ Template:SE 2. p. 30
