From this bath of obscene language, the subject is consequently marked, at the level of his unconscious, by these signs of out-of-sense jouissance ordered by parental discourse. From the origin, a link is established between the generations at an unconscious level and, in reading it, Lacan makes it the elementary structure of kinship. 2
This is also a way of questioning the Lévi-straussian approach to the elementary structures of kinship. Something that others, such as the anthropologist Rodney Needham to whom Lacan refers, were already committed to doing. 3
We can then wonder to what extent the manifestations of the different modes of the speech of the unconscious, dreams, lapsus passing through fantasy and symptom, have their roots in this transmitted language.
This raises the question of the interest the analyser might find in realising the effects of the private discourse from which he is constituted.
1 This is a continuation of the previous Disputatio 1.
2 Ibid, The parenthood in question highlights the primordial fact that it is lalangue that is involved.
3 Rodney Needham in Rethinking kinship and marriage, 1971 he ended his introduction with these words: The term « kinship » is therefore undoubtedly misleading and an erroneous criterion for the comparison of social facts. It does not designate any distinct class of phenomena and no distinct kind of theory. It does not respond to any canon of competence and authority. [Le terme « parenté » est donc sans aucun doute fallacieux et un critère erroné pour la comparaison des faits sociaux. Il ne désigne aucune classe distincte de phénomènes et aucun type distinct de théorie. Il ne répond à aucun canon de compétence et d’autorité – La parenté en question, Seuil, 1977].
Reply to the Disputatio 2
Between the trauma described by Freud in his third chapter of “Beyond the Pleasure Principle”, which is for everyone and forever, and the effects of lalangue called traumatic by Lacan, should we choose?
I believe that it is the same thing. The “traumatic parent” that Freud describes without naming him as such, is only traumatic because he speaks and thus uses lalangue. But he only uses lalangue in the discourse with which he feeds his offspring. We have never seen a traumatic parent stick to the borborygms of lallation after the brief period of what is sometimes referred to as bêtification,1 or rather bébêtification. Now, its discourse has an end that never fails: to bring the child up to the norms of what is called education. Useful, in fact, for society, but the question remains as to the respective part of what belongs to lalangue and to discourse in the traumatic effect.
1from bêtifier, French for ‘playing the fool’.
Reply to the Disputatio 2, on Kinship:
Concerning the interest that the analysand might find in noticing the effects of the private discourse from which he has constituted himself, It is clear that the subject attributes to the Other, not to his unconscious, but to his kinship, the trauma, the lack of enjoyment of which he suffers. «If we realise that we are only talking about kinship or relatedness, it occurs to us to talk about something else, and this is where analysis, on occasion, would fail. But it is a fact that everyone speaks only about this.»1
The subjects who come to “say themselves”, speak of the original nucleus of suffering inherited from those who engendered us, and this marks all the relations of the subject to the Other with the sign of re-petitio. Something is inaugurated through what happens [ce qui se passe] between generations2, and psychoanalysis reproduces this production.3 It is insofar as it converges towards a signifier that emerges to fill the hole in the Real – this makes troumatisme4 – that neurosis orders itself according to the discourse whose effects have produced the subject.5
1 « Si nous nous apercevons que nous ne parlons que d’apparentement ou de parenté, il nous vient à l’idée de parler d’autre chose et c’est bien en quoi l’analyse, à l’occasion, échouerait. Mais c’est un fait que chacun ne parle que de ça.» Jacques Lacan, Seminar XXV, Le moment de conclure, Lesson of 15 november 1977, unpublished.
2 Cf. Colette Soler, Presentation of the Theme: What passes between generations [Ce qui passe entre les générations], Meetings of the IF, 2nd European Convention, Rome 2021.
3 « Cette névrose, que l’on attribue non sans raison à l’action des parents, n’est atteignable que dans toute la mesure où l’action des parents s’articule justement de la position du psychanalyste. » Jacques Lacan, Le savoir du psychanalyste, Leçon du 4 mai 1972, dans Le séminaire, Livre XIX, …ou pire [1971-1972], Éditions du Seuil, Paris 2011,p. 151.
[«This neurosis, which is not without reason attributed to the action of the parents, is only attainable insofar as the action of the parents is articulated precisely from the position of the psychoanalyst.»]
4 Neologism composed of trou (hole) and traumatisme (trauma).
5 «Tout parent traumatique est en somme dans la même position que le psychanalyste. La différence, c’est que le psychanalyste, de sa position, reproduit la névrose, et que le parent traumatique, lui, la produit innocemment. » [All traumatic parents are in the same position as the psychoanalyst. The difference is that the psychoanalyst, from his position, reproduces the neurosis, while the traumatic parent produces it innocently.] Ibidem.
It is possible to participate in the debate by filling out the form found in the Debate Space, your comment will then be sent to the Scientific Commission, the sender will receive an email reply before publication.