Changes

{{Top}}[[sujet ]] supposé savoir{{Bottom}}

==Jacques Lacan=====Translation===The term "[[Subject supposed to know|sujet supposé savoir]]" can be translated as the "[[subject supposed to know]]" or as the "[[Subject supposed to know|supposed subject of knowledge]]".

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]].

[[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 L'identification, 1961-62]]'', unpublished.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]].

==Transference==In 1964, [[Lacan]] defines [[transference]] <blockquote>"As soon as the attribution of subject who is supposed to [[knowledgeknow]] to a [[subjectexists]]somewhere there is transference."<ref>{{S11}} p.232</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>"As soon as It is the [[analysand]]'s ''supposition'' of a subject who is [[knows]] that initiates the [[analytic]] [[process]] rather than the knowledge actually possessed by the [[analyst]]. The term [[subject supposed to know exists somewhere there ]] 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 transferencecan be said to be established."<ref>{{S11}} p. 232233</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?

In [[other ]] [[words]], the analyst is often [[analystthought]] 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=Practice===The It may happen that the [[end of analysispatient]] comes when supposes the [[analysandanalyst]] de-supposes to be a subject who knows from the very first treatment, or even before, but it often takes some [[analysttime]] of for the transference to become established. In the latter [[knowledgecase]], so that "when the subject enters the [[analystanalysis]] falls , he is far from giving the position 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>

==Position of the Analyst==The term "Sooner or later some [[subject supposed to knowchance]]" also emphasizes gesture of the fact that it analyst is taken by the analysand as a particular relationship to [[knowledgesign]] of some secret [[intention]] that constitutes , some hidden knowledge. At this point the unique position of analyst has come to embody the [[analystsubject supposed to know]]; the transference is established. The [[analystend of analysis]] is aware comes when the analysand de-supposes the analyst of knowledge, so that there is a the analyst falls from the [[splitposition]] between him and of the [[knowledgesubject supposed to know]] attributed to him.

===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 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 [[knowledgenothing]].<ref>{{L}} "[[Works of Jacques Lacan|Proposition du 9 octobre 1967 sur le psychanalyste de l'École]]," 1967, ''[[Scilicet]]'', no. 1 ([[1968]] attributed to him) p. 20</ref>

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 [[analystanalysts]]s should emulate [[Freud]] in becoming experts in [[cultural]], [[literary]] and [[linguistic]] matters.

[[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>{{Sl7S17}} 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]].-->==See Also=={{See}}* [[Analysand]]* [[Analyst]]||* [[Consciousness]]* [[End of analysis]]||* [[Intersubjective]]* [[Knowledge]]||* [[Signification]]* [[Subject]]||* [[Transference]]* [[Treatment]]{{Also}}

<div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small"><references/></div>