Reproducing Innocently
Produced Traumatism

Luc Vander Vennet
 

I found it interesting for the Congress theme to line up three texts by Lacan, all of which are from 1975.  

In “L’ombilic du rêve est un trou” [“The Navel of the Dream is a Hole”][1], Lacan responds that the parlêtre – a new designation of the unconscious – retains a trace at the very level of symbolization of the fact of being born of a particular womb. The world of language of two particular beings into which the subject arrives has the consequence of situating him in a singular way in language. The parlêtre will be excluded from this origin. The scarring that bears the mark – a scar on a part of the body – is a hole, an Unerkannt, which is impossible to “recognize.” This troumatism is at the limit of analysis. 

In his “Geneva Lecture on the Symptom”[2], Lacan calls the form in which this particular language of these two beings intervenes lalation. This lalangue models the child in the function of symbolism. He will always bear the mark of this mode of speaking that has been instilled in him. Two new definitions come out of this. First, the grip of the unconscious lies in this motérialisme. In dreams, in mistakes, and in all sorts of ways of saying, the way this language was spoken and also heard will emerge [ressortira]. The unconscious is therefore no longer concerned with meaning but with resonance. And finally, the parlêtre can sustain himself by this first imprint of the encounter of words with his body only through the symptom which then becomes a body-event. 

Let’s move on to Lacan’s Seminar XIX …or worse.[3] New definitions of the unconscious and of the symptom require a new mode of operation, a new apprehension of interpretation. The analyst’s operation must be articulated with the traumatic lalangue of the parents who innocently produced the neurosis. The analyst must reproduce this neurosis and converge, starting from its “efflorescence” (S1– S2), towards that signifier which has marked the body in order to extricate a dose of jouissance! Because that which speaks is that which enjoys the body. 
 

Translated by Arunava Banerjee
 

An Interpretation of the Analyst. Interpretation-Event

Citations from
Jacques-Alain Miller
 

Jacques-Alain Miller gives a precise idea of what a cure oriented towards the sinthome is:

“In his Seminar, The Sinthome [Lacan] formulates: The analyst is a sinthome. He is supported by the non-sense, so we allow him his reasons; he will not explain himself. Rather will he play at the body event, at the semblance of trauma. And he will have to sacrifice much to merit being, or to be taken for, a bit of real.” [1]

“It is in correlation with the notion of interpretation as disruption that we have to introduce something like the parlêtre, that is to say a function, a notion that […] goes further than the unconscious.

Lacan aimed for something which would go beyond the notion of the unconscious and what is inscribed in that place; what he called the parlêtre is where the function of the unconscious is completed by the body. […] Not by the symbolized body, not by the imaginary body, but by what is real about the body.

So this already indicates, at least, that interpretation as disruption mobilizes something of the body. It is a mode of interpretation that requires that it be invested by the analyst and, for example, that it brings in […] tone, voice, accent, even gesture and gaze. Thinking of this interpretation as disruption brings to mind the notes taken by a passer who reported, as an AS [2], her cure and, in the story that she told, what had been the turning point for her. It was not a whole discourse; this interpretation, as she said, was in a long dark corridor, after the session, while she was leaving, and just like that she was led to turn around because the analyst was sending her a message which, as she described it, was made of a kind of pantomime, a pantomime of devouring, accompanied by a vague growl, something which could be: “Grr…! !” and, at just the right time, of bringing in the body, of bringing in the figure. [It] took place in the hallway of the exit, which is in and of itself a certain way of bringing in the body […]. We cannot bring in the oral drive or the anal drive, but we can, on the other hand, bring in the specifically Lacanian drives, which are the scopic drive and the invoking drive.

It seems to me that interpretation as disruption is based especially on this input. One day we will have to understand that what the notion of deciphering still leaves in default is that in analysis, both one and the other must bring their bodies.”[3]