#redirect {{Top}}sujet supposé savoir{{Bottom}} ==Translation==The term "[[Subject Supposed supposed to Knowknow|sujet supposé savoir]]" can be translated as the "[[subject supposed to know]]" or as the "[[Subject supposed to know|supposed subject of knowledge]]". ==Self-Consciousness==The [[illusion]] of a [[self-consciousness]] which is transparent to itself in its [[act]] of [[knowledge|knowing]], constituted in the [[mirror stage]], is put into question by [[psychoanalysis]]. ==Symbolic Knowledge==[[Psychoanalysis]] demonstrates that [[knowledge]] (''[[savoir]]'') is not located in any particular [[subject]] but is, in fact, [[intersubjective]].<ref>{{L}} [[Seminar IX|Le Séminaire. Livre IX. L'identification, 1961-62]]'', unpublished. [[Seminar]] of 15 November 1961.</ref> ==Transference==In 1964, [[Lacan]] defines [[transference]] as the attribution of [[knowledge]] to a [[subject]]. <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 [[subject]] who [[knowledge|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==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> 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==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 withold 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 [[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. ==End of Analysis==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 realise 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 realise 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==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 [[analyst]]s should emulate [[Freud]] in becoming experts in [[cultural]], [[literary]] and [[linguistic]] matters. ==Analysand==[[Lacan]] also remarks that, for the [[analyst]], the [[analysand]] is a [[subject supposed to know]]. When the [[analyst]] explains the [[fundamental rule]] of [[free association]] to the [[analysand]], he is effectively saying; "Come on, say anything, it will all be marvellous."<ref>{{Sl7}} p.59</ref> In other words, the [[analyst]] tells the [[analysand]] to behave as if he knew what it was all about, thereby instituting him as a [[subject supposed to know]]. == References ==<references/> [[Category:Jacques Lacan]][[Category:Terms]][[Category:Dictionary]][[Category:New]][[Category:Concepts]][[Category:Psychoanalysis]][[Category:Subject]][[Category:People]]{{OK}} __NOTOC__
