Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Structure

9,027 bytes added, 07:39, 3 September 2006
no edit summary
==Jacques Lacan==
=====Early Work=====
=====Social Structure=====
In his [[Jacques Lacan:Bibliography|early work]], [[Lacan]] uses the term "[[structure]]" to refer to "[[structure|social structures]]" by which he means a specific set of [[affect]]ive relations between family members.
In his =====Family Complexes=====The [[Jacques Lacan:Bibliography|early workchild]], [[Lacan]] uses perceives these relations much more profoundly than the term "[[structureadult]]" to describe ", and [[structureintrojection|social structuresinternalizes]]" such as them in the specific set of [[affect|affectivecomplex]] relations between members of a family.<ref>{{Ec}} p.89</ref>.
In his =====Nature of the Psyche=====The term serves as a peg upon which [[Jacques Lacan:Bibliography|early work]], can hang his own views of the "[[Lacanstructure|relational]] uses the term "[[structurenature]]" to describe "of the [[structure|social structurespsyche]]" such as , in opposition to the specific set of atomistic theories then current in [[affect|affectivepsychology]] relations between family members.<ref>{{1936}}</ref>
=====Inter- and Intra- subjectivity=====
From this point on, the term "[[structure]]" retains this sense of something both '''[[intersubjectivity|intersubjective]]''' and '''[[intersubjectivity|intrasubjective]]''', the '''internal [[representation]] of [[intersubjectivity|interpersonal relations]]'''.
===Social Structures======Intersubjectivity===This remains a key point throughout [[Lacan]]'s [[Jacques Lacan:Bibliography|work]], in which the emphasis on [[structure]] is a constant reminder that what determines the [[subject]] is not some supposed "essence" but simply his position with respect to other [[subject]]s and other [[signifier]]s.
Already in 1938, we find [[Lacan]] arguing that "the most notable defect of analytic doctrine" at that time was that it tended "to ignore structure in favour of a dynamic approach."<ref>{{1938}} p. 58</ref>
This anticipates his later emphasis on the [[symbolic order]] as the realm of [[structure]] which [[analyst]]s have ignored in favour of the [[imaginary]]; "social structures are symbolic."<ref>{{Ec}} p. 132</ref>
=====Structural Linguistics=====
In the mid-1950s, when [[Lacan]] begins to reformulate his ideas in terms borrowed from [[Saussure]]an [[Saussure|structural linguistics]], the term "[[structure]]" comes to be increasingly associated with [[Saussure]]'s model of [[language]].
[[Saussure]] analyzed [[language]] (''[[language|la langue]]'') as a system in which there are no positive terms, only differences.<ref>[[Ferdinand de Saussure|Saussure, Ferdinand de]]. 1916: 120</ref>
It is this concept of a system in which each unit is constituted purely by virtue of its differences from the other units which comes to constitute the core meaning of the term "[[structure]]" in [[Lacan]]'s [[{{LB}}|work]] from this point on.
[[Language]] is the paradigmatic [[structure]], and [[Lacan]]'s famous dictum, "the unconscious is structured like a language", is therefore tautologous, since "to be structured" and "to be like a language" mean the same thing.
=====Claude Lévi-Strauss=====
=====Structuralist Movement=====
=====Structuralist Approach=====
[[Saussure]]'s structural approach to [[linguistic]]s was developed further by [[Roman Jakobson]], who developed phoneme theory; [[Jakobson]]'s work was then taken up by the French anthropologist, [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]], who used the [[structure|structural phonemic model]] to analyze non-linguistic cultural data such as [[anthropology|kinship relations]] and [[myth]].
This application of [[structure|structural analysis]] to [[anthropology]] launched the [[structure|structuralist movement]] by showing how the [[Saussure]]an concept of [[structure]] could be applied to an object of enquiry other than [[language]].
[[Lacan]] was heavily influenced by all three of these thinkers, and in this sense he can be seen as part of the [[structure|structuralist movement]].
However, [[Lacan]] prefers to dissociate himself from this movement, arguing that his approach differs in important ways from the [[structure|structuralist approach]].<ref>{{S20}} p.93</ref>
=====Mathematics=====
Alongside the references to [[language]], [[Lacan]] also refers the concept of [[structure]] to [[mathematics]], principally to [[mathematics|set theory]] and [[topology]].
In 1956, for example, he states that "a structure is in the first place a group of elements forming a covariant set."<ref>{{S3}} p. 183</ref>
 
=====Topology=====
Two years later he again links the concept of [[structure]] with [[mathematics|mathematical set theory]], and adds a reference to [[topology]].<ref>{{Ec}} p. 648-9</ref>).
 
By the 1970s, [[topology]] has replaced [[language]] as the principal paradigm of [[structure]] for [[Lacan]].
 
He now argues that [[topology]] is not a mere [[metaphor]] for [[structure]]; it is that [[structure]] itself.<ref>{{L}} 1973b</ref>
 
=====Surface and Depth=====
The concept of [[structure]] is often taken to imply an opposition between surface and depth, between directly observable phenomena and "deep structures" which are not the object of immediate experience.
 
Such would seem to be the opposition implied in the distinction [[Lacan]] draws between [[symptoms]] (surface) and [[structure]]s (depth).
 
However, [[Lacan]] does not in fact agree that such an opposition is implicit in the concept of [[structure]].<ref>{{Ec}} p. 649</ref>
 
On the one hand, he rejects the concept of "directly observable phenomena", arguing that observation is always already theoretical.
 
On the other hand, he also rejects the idea that [[structure]]s are somehow "deep" or distant from experience, arguing that they are present in the field of experience itself; the [[unconscious]] is on the surface, and looking for it in "the depths" is to miss it.
 
As with many other binary oppositions, the model [[Lacan]] prefers is that of the [[moebius strip]]; just as the two sides of the [[strip]] are in fact [[continuous]], so [[structure]] is continuous with phenomena.
 
=====Structural Position=====
The most important feature of [[structure|structural analysis]] is not, then, any supposed distinction between [[structure|surface]] and [[structure|depth]], but, as [[Lévi-Strauss]] shows in his [[structure|structural analysis]] of [[myth]], the discovery of fixed relations between loci which are themselves empty.<ref>[[Lévi-Strauss]] 1955</ref>
 
In other words, whatever elements may be placed in the positions specified by a given [[structure]], the relations between the positions themselves remain the same.
 
Thus the elements interact not on the basis of any inherent or intrinsic properties they possess, but simply on the basis of the positions which they occupy in the [[structure]].
 
====="Clinical Structures"=====
In line with many other [[psychoanalyst]]s, [[Lacan]] distinguishes three principal nosographic categories; [[neurosis]], [[psychosis]] and [[perversion]].
 
His originality lies in the fact that he regards these categories as [[structure]]s rather than simply as collections of [[symptom]]s.<ref>(N.B. [[Lacan]] prefers to speak in terms of "[[structure|Freudian structures]]" rather than "[[structure|clinical structures]]", but the latter term is the one which predominates in the writings of [[Lacan]]ian [[psychoanalyst]]s today.)</ref>
 
=====[[Lacan]]ian Nosography=====
[[Lacan]]ian nosography is a categorical classification system based on a discrete series, rather than a dimensional system based on a continuum.
 
The three major [[structure|clinical structures]] are therefore mutually exclusive; a [[subject]] cannot be both [[neurotic]] and [[psychotic]], for example.
 
The three major [[structure|clinical structures]] together constitute all the three possible positions of the [[subject]] in relation to the [[Other]]; every [[subject]] encountered in [[psychoanalytic treatment]] can therefore be diagnosed as either [[neurotic]], or [[psychotic]], or [[perverse]].
 
Each [[structure]] is distinguished by a different operation: [[neurosis]] by the operation of [[repression]], [[perversion]] by the operation of [[disavowal]], and [[psychosis]] by the operation of [[foreclosure]].
 
[[Lacan]] follows [[Freud]] in arguing that the classical method of [[psychoanalytic treatment]] (involving [[free association]] and the use of the couch) is only appropriate for [[neurotic]] [[subject]]s and [[perverse]] [[subject]]s, and not for [[psychotic]]s.
 
Thus when [[Lacanian]] [[analyst]]s work with psychotic patients, they use a substantially modified method of [[treatment]].
 
=====Critical Period Hypothesis=====
One of the most fundamental axioms of [[psychoanalysis]] is that the [[subject]]'s [[structure|clinical structure]] is determined by his experiences in the first years of life.
 
In this sense, [[psychoanalysis]] is based on a "critical period hypothesis"; the first years of life are the critical period in which the [[subject]]'s [[structure]] is determined.
 
Although it is not clear how long this critical period lasts, it is held that after this critical period the clinical structure is fixed for ever and cannot be changed.
 
Neither [[psychoanalytic treatment]] nor anything else can, for example, turn a [[psychotic]] into a [[neurotic]].
 
Within each of the three major [[clinical structure]]s [[Lacan]] distinguishes various subdivisions.
 
For example within the [[clinical structure]] of [[neurosis]], he distinguishes two kinds of [[neurosis]] ([[obsessional neurosis]] and [[hysteria]]), and within the [[clinical structure]] of [[psychosis]] he distinguishes between [[paranoia]], [[schizophrenia]] and [[manic-depressive]] [[psychosis]].
==See Also==
{{See}}
* [[complexComplex]]* [[Intersubjectivity]]||* [[Language]]* [[Linguistics]]||* [[Mathematics]]* [[Neurosis]]||* [[Psychoanalysis]]* [[Psychosis]]||* [[Subject]]* [[Symptom]]||* [[Topology]]* [[Treatment]]
{{Also}}
Root Admin, Bots, Bureaucrats, flow-bot, oversight, Administrators, Widget editors
24,654
edits

Navigation menu