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 L'identification, 1961-62]]'', unpublished.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

===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 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 [[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]].

At this point ===Position of the Analyst===The term "[[analystsubject supposed to know]]" also emphasizes the fact that it is a particular [[relationship]] has come to embody knowledge that constitutes the unique position of the analyst; the analyst is aware that there is a [[subject supposed 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]; the ]," 1967, ''[[Scilicet]]'', no. 1 ([[transference1968]] is established) p.20</ref>

==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=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>{{S17}} 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]].-->

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