Changes

The [[Freudian ]] [[thing ]] (1955) 'The [[Freudian thing]]' was a commemorative oration delivered at the Viennese neuro-[[psychiatric ]] [[clinic ]] in 1955, and in it [[Lacan ]] repeatedly taunts his [[clinical ]] audience with a contrast between [[Freud]]'s [[intellectual ]] heroism and the alleged pusillanimity of most clinicians. The lecture could have been entitled: the [[unconscious]], [[language ]] and the tasks of the [[analyst]]. Many of the themes discussed so far in the book are to be found in this lecture. Lacan begins by referring to Freud's [[revolution ]] in [[knowledge]]: the discovery t!hat the centre of the [[human ]] [[being ]] was no longer at the [[place ]] assigned to it by the [[humanist ]] [[tradition]]. He states that the [[meaning ]] of a [[return ]] to Freud is a return to the meaning of Freud. [[Truth]], he says, belongs to the unconscious - it is found in [[dreams]], [[jokes]], nonsense, [[word ]] play. In what could the unconscious be better recognised, in fact, than in the defences that are set up in the [[subject ]] against it? The most innocent [[intention ]] is disconcerted at being unable to conceal the fact that one's unsuccessful [[acts ]] are the most successful and that one's failure fulfils one's most [[secret ]] [[wish]]. Lacan then [[links ]] the topic of the unconscious with language. It is language that distinguishes human [[society ]] from [[animal ]] society; language is constituted by laws. If you [[want ]] to [[know ]] more, he says, read [[Saussure]], the founder of modern [[linguistics]]. Lacan launches an attack dn ego-[[psychology ]] and its connections with 'the American way of [[life]]'. He is antagonistic to [[ego-psychology ]] with its reference to 'the healthy part of the subject's ego', its stress on '[[adaptation ]] to [[reality]]', and its [[belief ]] that the [[purpose ]] of [[analysis ]] is achieved through '[[identification ]] with the analyst's ego'. In his view it is the ego-psychologists who support the [[translation ]] of Freud's phrase' Wo Es war, soli Ich werden' as 'Where the id was, there the ego shall be.' Lacan argues that this is [[false]], a mistranslation. He believes that there is a fundamental [[distinction ]] between the [[true ]] [[subject of the unconscious ]] and the ego as constituted in its nucleus by a series of [[alienating ]] identifications. The

correct translation of the [[German ]] emphasises not the ego but the unconscious: 'Where the subject was, there ought I to become.' Or, alternatively, 'There where it was, it is my [[duty ]] that I should come into being.' The [[third ]] theme of the lecture is the task of the analyst. It is important, Lacan says, that the analyst should know why s/he intervenes, at what [[moment ]] the opportunity presents itself and how to seize it. For this to occur the analyst must fully [[understand ]] the [[difference ]] between the [[Other ]] to which his or her [[speech ]] must be addressed, and that second other who is the [[individual ]] he sees before him or her. The Other ([[capital ]] 0) is the locus in which is constituted the I who speaks to him/her who hears .. " Lacan believes that in the analytical [[situation ]] there are not only two [[subjects ]] [[present ]] but two subjects each provided with.two [[objects]], the ego and the other ([[autre]]), the unconscious. This then is a [[game ]] for four players. It is in this paper that Lacan discusses two important phenomena in [[psychoanalysis ]] - the return of the [[repressed ]] and [[transference ]] - in the context of [[recognition]]. Both these phenomena are forms of [[repetition]], types of return. We know, for example, that the victims of traumas return to the [[traumatic ]] [[scene ]] in their dreams, and the [[infant ]] repeats the painful scene of its [[mother]]'s departure. Lacan believes that a [[desire ]] must insistently [[repeat ]] itself until it be recognised. Repetition is the effect not so much of the [[frustration ]] of a desire but of the [[lack ]] of recognition of a desire. Indeed, Lacan sees the [[psychoanalytic ]] situation as a context conducive to the subject's recognition of his or her desires. But how do subjects come to recognise their desires? What the analyst must do is to reply to what s/he hears. That reply sends back to the subject in inverted [[form ]] what s/he was saying that s/he could never hear if s/he did not hear it returning from the analyst. Thus is accomplished the recognition that is the [[goal ]] of analysis, the recognition by the subject. The subject must come to recognise his or her own [[drives]], which a~ insisting, unbeknownst to him or her, in his or her [[discourse ]] and actions. That recognition is reached through the mediation of the analyst. The analyst returns to the subject what the subject was saying so that the subject can recognise it and stop saying it. Although the analyst is the one who is 'supposed to know' the truth, s/he really has to give up the [[power ]] associated with his or

Laean's [[Ecrits]]: A review 89 her [[position ]] in [[order ]] to encourage the [[encounter ]] with the Other. The analyst, according to Lacan, should not [[identify ]] with the Other, but only encourage the [[analysand ]] to encounter his or her own Other. Lacan mentions the fact that Freud regarded the study of [[literature]], art, [[languages ]] and institutions as necessary to an [[understanding ]] of (the [[text ]] of) our [[experience]]. In Lacan's view there should be an initiation into the methods of the [[linguist]], the historian and the mathematician. Psychoanalysis can be sustained only by constant [[communication ]] with other disciplines that form the '[[sciences ]] of inter-[[subjectivity]]' or the 'conjectural sciences'. In the concluding section of 'The Freudian thing' there is a moving reference to the Actaeon [[myth]]: 'Actaeon, too [[guilty ]] to hunt the goddess, the prey in which is caught, a huntsman, the shadow that you become, let the pack [[pass ]] by without hastening your step, Dian~ will recognise the hounds for what they are ... ' (Eerits, p. 145). Actaeon was guilty of having surprised the chaste goddess Diana in her bath. Taken aback, the goddess transformed him into a stag, and then his own dogs hunted and devoured him. This Ovidian parable can be [[interpreted ]] in many ways. We know that Lacan stressed the insistent power of [[repression ]] and that the discovery of the unconscious isitself subject to repression. Freud's discovery was a terrifying one, even to Freud himself. We also know that Freud's [[thoughts ]] have become codified; egopsychologists and [[others ]] have domesticated and/or repressed the unconscious. Is Freud a new Actaeon turned upon and savaged by his own thoughts for having unveiled the goddess of the unconscious? Or is, perhaps, Actaeon Lacan himself?