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]
 

Towards Ghent

Bernard Seynhaeve

The theme of our next Congress, Interpretation: From Truth to Event will once again deal with a clinical question.

Interpretation was already the subject of one of our Congresses ten years ago. The theme is back again, this time clarified by Jacques-Alain Miller’s reading of the latest Lacan, which is one of the reasons why it will be inscribed as the logical follow-up to the previous Congresses. 

But for our School – for the NLS – there is another reason, one more difficult to perceive, that I situate outside of this logic. Indeed, it seems to me that this theme has an eminently political dimension to it, as the title and the argument written by Éric Laurent imply. Let us see.

I’ve been trying to move ahead with the questions that torment me. What are they?

Since our last Congress in Tel Aviv, my first unrelinquishing question has been the following: Do we need the presence of bodies, those of the analyst and the analysand in order to undertake analytic treatment according to Lacan’s teaching? The answer may seem obvious at first, and yet it is not. This question arose – it came up when I was not expecting it – when I met with the colleagues of a Group. Someone said to me, “You will see, sir, that one day there will be AS’s that will have done their analysis by Skype.” It’s a political question, now come up in our School in concrete terms. For those who were there, let them remember the debate that we had in Tel Aviv during our Annual General Meeting about the use of Internet (Skype) in treatment.

Is the physical presence of the psychoanalyst and the analysand necessary in the transference?

Another question arises in view of Ghent. It is tied to the previous one. Interpretation in the era of the parlêtre – no longer in era of the subject – that is to say, interpretation that takes into account the very last Lacan, aims to disrupt the defense. The defense is precisely that which joins lalangue and the body, namely the sinthome. Hence this other question: What is a body?

These two questions are knotted: do we necessarily need the presence of bodies to do an analytic treatment?

These questions in particular will need to be addressed during our Congress in Ghent.
 

CUTS:

Write a commentary on a powerful reference relating to interpretation in Freud’s work, in Lacan’s teachings, in texts by Jacques-Alain Miller and Éric Laurent… 

You will find your inspiration by clicking here.

Keep your papers short: 2000 characters maximum, spaces included.

Please send your texts to Alexandre Stevens :
alexandre.stevens1@gmail.com