{"id":7527,"date":"2011-04-16T18:45:15","date_gmt":"2011-04-16T23:45:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/?p=7527"},"modified":"2012-02-03T09:58:47","modified_gmt":"2012-02-03T14:58:47","slug":"7527","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2011\/04\/16\/7527\/","title":{"rendered":"analyst’s discourse"},"content":{"rendered":"

Schroeder, Jeanne L. The Four Lacanian Discourses or Turning Law Inside-Out. New York: Routledge-Cavendish, 2008.<\/p>\n

Discourse of the Analyst<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The analyst, … takes on the role of the objet petite a<\/span> itself. \u201c[T]he agent (analyst) reduces himself to the void that provokes the subject into confronting the truth of his desire.\u201d [\u017di\u017eek Lacan’s Four Discourses]<\/p>\n

This is significantly different from the two discourses of power. Both the master and university address the other with the voice of positivity<\/strong>. The master speaks from the position of authority telling you what to do. The university speaks from the position of expertise lecturing you why you should do it.<\/p>\n

The analyst and the hysteric, in contrast, speak from radical negativity. In the analyst\u2019s discourse \u201cthe analyst plays the part of pure desirousness.\u201d The analyst asks, \u201cWhat do you want to do?\u201d … Similarly the attorney in her role as counsellor must empty herself of her positive content to identify with her client\u2019s needs. 108<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

By addressing the analysand from the position of the cause of the analysand\u2019s own desire, she stands in for that which is missing. … Consequently, the analyst\u2019s address consists largely of silence \u2013 through an absence of speech. The analysand speaks to fill in the gap represented by the analyst. \ud83d\ude42 This is the most straight forward of explanations of the Analyst Discourse<\/p>\n

When the analyst does speak, it is not in her own voice as master or teacher. She tries to articulate the analysand\u2019s voice, helping him to articulate his desire \u2013 to dissolve the traumatic symptom lost in the real by integrating it into the symbolic.<\/strong> The other addressed by the object of desire is the barred subject himself. The analyst \u201c\u201dinterrogates the subject in his or her division, precisely at those points where the split between consciousness and unconscious shows through.\u201d<\/p>\n

The truth hidden beneath the analyst is knowledge. Lacan calls the analyst \u201cthe subject supposed to know.\u201d\u00a0 The analysand goes to the analyst because the analysand is a barred subject \u2013 he is traumatized, unhappy, and alienated. The analyst is the expert who is supposed to know what is wrong. The knowledge that is the truth underlying the objet petite a<\/span> is neither savoir faire<\/em> nor expertise.\u00a0 Rather, this hidden knowledge is the analysand\u2019s own unconscious knowledge.<\/strong> The truth of the analysand\u2019s desire is within himself. This is not to deny that the person who is a psychoanalyst also has savoir faire<\/em> \u2013 she knows how to treat patients \u2013 and expertise\u2014she is a highly educated professional. Nevertheless, these forms of knowledge are not the truth of analysis.<\/p>\n

The result of analysis is the master signifier. But this time, it is not the master signifier imposed upon her by the Big Other (as in the master\u2019s discourse) but his own \u201cnew master signifiers (S1), ultimate values, formulations of their identity or being.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Schroeder, Jeanne L. The Four Lacanian Discourses or Turning Law Inside-Out. New York: Routledge-Cavendish, 2008. Discourse of the Analyst The analyst, … takes on the role of the objet petite a itself. \u201c[T]he agent (analyst) reduces himself to the void that provokes the subject into confronting the truth of his desire.\u201d [\u017di\u017eek Lacan’s Four Discourses] … Continue reading “analyst’s discourse”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7527","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-4-discourses","category-lacan"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7527","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7527"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7527\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7529,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7527\/revisions\/7529"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}