Difference between revisions of "Subject supposed to know"
(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>).) |
(Removed repetitive links. The clutter makes it harder to read and many of the articles are blank.) (Tag: Visual edit) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
<blockquote>"As soon as the subject who is supposed to [[know]] [[exists]] somewhere there is transference."<ref>{{S11}} p. 232</ref></blockquote> | <blockquote>"As soon as the subject who is supposed to [[know]] [[exists]] somewhere there is transference."<ref>{{S11}} p. 232</ref></blockquote> | ||
| − | It is the [[analysand]]'s ''supposition'' of a | + | It is the [[analysand]]'s ''supposition'' of a subject who [[knows]] that initiates the [[analytic]] [[process]] rather than the knowledge actually possessed by the [[analyst]]. The term [[subject supposed to know]] does not designate the analyst, but rather a function which the analyst may come to embody in the [[treatment]]. It is only when the analyst is perceived by the analysand to embody this function that the transference can be said to be established.<ref>{{S11}} p. 233</ref> |
===Signification=== | ===Signification=== | ||
| − | When this occurs, what kind of | + | When this occurs, what kind of knowledge is it that the analyst is presumed to possess? |
<blockquote>"He is supposed to know that from which no one can escape, as soon as he formulates it - quite simply, signification."<ref>{{S11}} p. 253</ref></blockquote> | <blockquote>"He is supposed to know that from which no one can escape, as soon as he formulates it - quite simply, signification."<ref>{{S11}} p. 253</ref></blockquote> | ||
| − | In [[other]] [[words]], the | + | In [[other]] [[words]], the analyst is often [[thought]] to know the [[secret]] [[meaning]] of the analysand's [[word]]s, the [[signification]]s of [[speech]] of which even the [[speaker]] is unaware. This supposition alone (the supposition that the analyst is one who knows) causes otherwise insignificant details (chance gestures, ambiguous remarks) to acquire [[retroactively]] a special [[meaning]] for the [[patient]] who "supposes". |
===Practice=== | ===Practice=== | ||
| − | It may happen that the [[patient]] supposes the [[analyst]] to be a | + | It may happen that the [[patient]] supposes the [[analyst]] to be a subject who knows from the very first treatment, or even before, but it often takes some [[time]] for the transference to become established. In the latter [[case]], "when the subject enters the [[analysis]], he is far from giving the analyst this [[place]] of the [[subject supposed to know]]."<ref>{{S11}} p. 233</ref> The analysand may initially [[regard]] the analyst as a buffoon, or may withhold information from him in [[order]] to maintain his [[ignorance]].<ref>{{S11}} p. 137</ref> However, "even the [[psychoanalyst]] put in question is credited at some point with a certain infallibility."<ref>{{S11}} p.234</ref> |
| − | Sooner or later some [[chance]] gesture of the | + | Sooner or later some [[chance]] gesture of the analyst is taken by the analysand as a [[sign]] of some secret [[intention]], some hidden knowledge. At this point the analyst has come to embody the [[subject supposed to know]]; the transference is established. The [[end of analysis]] comes when the analysand de-supposes the analyst of knowledge, so that the analyst falls from the [[position]] of the [[subject supposed to know]]. |
===Position of the Analyst=== | ===Position of the Analyst=== | ||
| − | The term "[[subject supposed to know]]" also emphasizes the fact that it is a particular [[relationship]] to | + | The term "[[subject supposed to know]]" also emphasizes the fact that it is a particular [[relationship]] to knowledge that constitutes the unique position of the analyst; the analyst is aware that there is a [[split]] between him and the knowledge attributed to him. In other words, the analyst must realize that he only occupies the position of one who is presumed (by the analysand) to know, without fooling himself that he really does possess the knowledge attributed to him. The analyst must realize that, of the knowledge attributed to him by the analysand, he knows [[nothing]].<ref>{{L}} "[[Works of Jacques Lacan|Proposition du 9 octobre 1967 sur le psychanalyste de l'École]]," 1967, ''[[Scilicet]]'', no. 1 ([[1968]]) p. 20</ref> |
===Training=== | ===Training=== | ||
| − | However, the fact that it is a supposed | + | However, the fact that it is a supposed knowledge that is the mainstay of the [[treatment|analytic process]], rather than the knowledge actually possessed by the analyst, does not mean that the analyst can therefore be [[content]] with [[knowing]] nothing; on the contrary, [[Lacan]] argues that [[analysts]] should emulate [[Freud]] in becoming experts in [[cultural]], [[literary]] and [[linguistic]] matters. |
<!-- | <!-- | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
<div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small"> | <div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small"> | ||
| − | <references/> | + | <references /> |
</div> | </div> | ||
[[Category:Jacques Lacan]] | [[Category:Jacques Lacan]] | ||
Latest revision as of 05:43, 11 September 2021
| French: [[sujet supposé savoir]] |
Jacques Lacan
Translation
The term sujet supposé savoir can be translated as the "subject supposed to know" or as the "supposed subject of knowledge".
Transference
In 1964, Lacan defines transference as the attribution of knowledge to a subject.
"As soon as the subject who is supposed to know exists somewhere there is transference."[1]
It is the analysand's supposition of a subject who knows that initiates the analytic process rather than the knowledge actually possessed by the analyst. The term subject supposed to know does not designate the analyst, but rather a function which the analyst may come to embody in the treatment. It is only when the analyst is perceived by the analysand to embody this function that the transference can be said to be established.[2]
Signification
When this occurs, what kind of knowledge is it that the analyst is presumed to possess?
"He is supposed to know that from which no one can escape, as soon as he formulates it - quite simply, signification."[3]
In other words, the analyst is often thought to know the secret meaning of the analysand's words, the significations of speech of which even the speaker is unaware. This supposition alone (the supposition that the analyst is one who knows) causes otherwise insignificant details (chance gestures, ambiguous remarks) to acquire retroactively a special meaning for the patient who "supposes".
Practice
It may happen that the patient supposes the analyst to be a subject who knows from the very first treatment, or even before, but it often takes some time for the transference to become established. In the latter case, "when the subject enters the analysis, he is far from giving the analyst this place of the subject supposed to know."[4] The analysand may initially regard the analyst as a buffoon, or may withhold information from him in order to maintain his ignorance.[5] However, "even the psychoanalyst put in question is credited at some point with a certain infallibility."[6]
Sooner or later some chance gesture of the analyst is taken by the analysand as a sign of some secret intention, some hidden knowledge. At this point the analyst has come to embody the subject supposed to know; the transference is established. The end of analysis comes when the analysand de-supposes the analyst of knowledge, so that the analyst falls from the position of the subject supposed to know.
Position of the Analyst
The term "subject supposed to know" also emphasizes the fact that it is a particular relationship to knowledge that constitutes the unique position of the analyst; the analyst is aware that there is a split between him and the knowledge attributed to him. In other words, the analyst must realize that he only occupies the position of one who is presumed (by the analysand) to know, without fooling himself that he really does possess the knowledge attributed to him. The analyst must realize that, of the knowledge attributed to him by the analysand, he knows nothing.[7]
Training
However, the fact that it is a supposed knowledge that is the mainstay of the analytic process, rather than the knowledge actually possessed by the analyst, does not mean that the analyst can therefore be content with knowing nothing; on the contrary, Lacan argues that analysts should emulate Freud in becoming experts in cultural, literary and linguistic matters.
See Also
References
- ↑ 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. 232
- ↑ 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. 233
- ↑ 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. 253
- ↑ 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. 233
- ↑ 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. 137
- ↑ 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.234
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. "Proposition du 9 octobre 1967 sur le psychanalyste de l'École," 1967, Scilicet, no. 1 (1968) p. 20
