the side of Antigone 'unconscious The unconscious today 
Vorrei cominciare considerando la posta in gioco politica di questo Convegno, che nel titolo chiede esplicitamente una presa di partito per l’inconscio, invita a schierarsi, sollecita ciascuno di noi a pronunciarsi per dire se è dalla parte dell’inconscio oppure no.
Potrebbe sembrare una domanda retorica, con una risposta scontata. Se siamo qui come psicoanalisti, in fondo, è proprio perché riteniamo that the experience of the unconscious can not be set aside, it is because we consider that all those who pursue psychoanalysis have had this experience and strive to make it possible for their patients.
The problem is: it is an experience we did, and ended, or is this something that still cross, which continues to question that remains open?
Lacan has formed the idea that the unconscious has the time of opening and closing moments in which it occurs, and others where there is covert, and that never turns out once and for all. Freud liked to joke on the idea that a headstone to remind posterity as the night of July 24 1895 the truth of the unconscious had been manifested in a dream. But no one better than he knew what it costs to chase the fleeting flash of the unconscious, such as opposing forces must be overcome: he taught and wrote it, because we too should take this into account, the game is never won permanently.
The unconscious is not a lot of forgotten things, the floor where they set aside the playthings of childhood, is retrieved and dusted off to pour the nectar of bittersweet nostalgia. It is rather a temporal pulse, a pulse that pay attention to subtle, brief moments that punctuate and interrupt the flow of everyday life, things to do, the costanti occupazioni che ci distolgono da noi stessi.
Freud aveva il gusto delle metafore archeologiche, che fanno pensare a un lavoro di scavo, di disseppellimento dei resti. Ma i reperti che ne vengono fuori non sono reliquie del passato, sono resti attivi, fecondi, che non sono destinati a finire nella bacheca di un museo.
Tutta la nostra battaglia degli ultimi anni è andata nella direzione di contrastare una concezione museale della psicoanalisi. Se è stato così, se abbiamo avuto bisogno di questa battaglia, è perché questa concezione esiste.
Prendiamo l’immagine dello psicoterapeuta che ha fatto la propria esperienza di analisi e magari, nel corso di questa, con diligenza, ha scritto i sogni annotandoli su a notebook. Consider then finished his training and his dreams are still there, as ordained in a herbarium, where the pages checked them transcribed.
Where does the authority for this clinical psychotherapist? From the small museum that is his notebook. The draws from the past, a past perfect, which ended a specialist in producing dreams and slips of the tongue, a special awareness that certainly will be updated by going to Congress and reading industry publications, and which may be convinced to live, if not the end of the story, at least in the conclusion of the dialectic of the unconscious conflict.
not toil certainly recognize that this model of education does not coincide with promoted by us, which is rather a model of lifelong learning, confrontation with the unconscious, in which the psychoanalyst and psicoanalizzante - this was the theme of the days in Paris last fall - are on the same side with respect to the unconscious: nobody has closed its game with the unconscious, and no one has put in a museum.
The first policy is discriminatory as it does for training, and the School of Lacan is not a course which train specialists unconscious. If a school is measured by knowledge, our school does not put the knowledge in the place of appearance, occupied by the object for us to leave room for S crossed out, and produces an unconscious is not simply a place of memory.
I want to emphasize that the issue of education has in itself a highly political character, is indeed the theme of the first great text of political philosophy of Western thought: the Apology of Socrates. The commitment of Socrates in his defense arguments, and takes Anito Meleto, his accusers for what they are: the spokesman for a popular mood, the Athenian ambassadors of an intellectual class who feels threatened their position. The most prominent representative of this social group is Aristophanes, the poet, who paints Socrates attempt to deal with things that are going to air shows and to make strong arguments weak.
The political stake the trial of Socrates in fact is who has the legitimate right to be citizens of Athens: the poets or philosophers? The youth of Athens must go to the paideia hallowed by tradition, where the source of authority is the inspiration of a god, to whose words the poet draws without knowing the lines "The quick brown fox ...", or must enter argumentation of the philosopher in the gym, where the only authority is that of the demonstration?
The figure of the philosopher-king, in the Republic, is the answer to the question posed nell'Apologia, and with the coronation of the philosopher-king is expelled from the city of poets, musicians, storytellers, shapers of myths, and to bring us back to our time, we can add directors, filmmakers, television producers, filmmakers serial, news director, Gascon, vendors of cheap optimism, narratology, actors, talk show hosts and magicians in general. Socrates from the city hunting society of the spectacle in his glowing together - the one that governs society with its procession of jugglers, midgets, dancers and doll - to make way for the intransigence of the logos.
course, the Platonic city is an illusion, with its Spartan severity, with the pooling of their children, the noble lie with the functional locus of power, and are all the appearances the powers that be that the psychoanalytic experience, experience unprecedented in history, frustrates unreservedly.
Behind the concern to safeguard the health of citizens, European governments have expressed when they are devoted to studying the various rules of psychotherapy - a topic with which we have faced in recent years - in fact returns to the issue of training as stakes of social control. It is not over who should form the youth, the question of how to use pedagogical tool, this is how we are to train psychotherapists, and the problem is a further step in the way of medicalization, which extends from the government of the body the Government of the interior più intima. La minaccia, quindi, è ancora più seria, è di natura orwelliana.
Le analisi di Foucault mostrano infatti come i medici, con la normalizzazione dell’insegnamento della medicina iniziato in Germania, siano stati trasformati nell’avamposto di un progetto di amministrazione della salute, inglobando il corpo in un piano di controllo attraverso progressive estensioni dei domini di competenza medica.
È il momento ora degli psicoterapeuti. Negli anni Quaranta il piano Beveridge, in Gran Bretagna, ha inventato il diritto alla salute, diritto che si è trasformato man mano in un dovere, prendendo possesso delle coscienze e della vita dei cittadini, dall’igienismo, all’ossessione del fitness, to the current repressive restrictions against the obese. Today
plan for depression, animated by the economist Richard Layard psychologizing, based on the classical utilitarian basis, aims to provide happiness to as many citizens as possible, and enlists the psychotherapies such as cognitive-behavioral tools tested, evidence- based, to form a squad of ten thousand psychotherapists to be allocated to a titanic battle against those that have been identified as the major causes of unhappiness, depression and anxiety disorders, and launching a struggle similar to the one that perhaps only he could make Christian Jensen against smallpox.
Clearly the risk that psychoanalysis runs today if tailor-made approaches to tune it just on the research of therapeutic effect: to be enlisted in the army who is campaigning for the right and duty to health, to be part of the battalion assault that has made the fight against the malaise of civilization, to join the great project of creating a health science or a health-fits-all. If the theme of health
s'ingrana universalism of science and law, if happiness becomes the watchword of a government plan, if positive thinking becomes the mantra incantatory criticizes the moral pessimist, the last resort for non-doped by the optimism of the market seems then be art as Adorno understood it, an art that is not made to satisfy, but rather to feel the sting of unhappiness, the Alban Berg's Wozzeck, for example, an art intended to embarrass, to wake up , to bring out the discords as a lever to undermine the forces of conformity. Faced with the uncritical optimism totalizing imperative to choose a moderate discontent, or a temperate mood, may appear even preferable, if not healthier, than a pursuit of health standards at all costs.
Psychoanalysis will not cure at all costs, Freud warned against therapeutic fanaticism. At the bottom of our clinic is a choice: psychoanalysis is an experience that sets us free. To break away from the subject meaningful identifiers that have influenced his life is a way to break free from unconscious determinations which have for a track he obliged. This detachment from the unconscious as discourse of the master is indicated by the word separation in our lexicon, signal when the desire comes into play on alienation prevailing meaning.
In a way, the scanning of the separation is a time of disengagement from the unconscious and its linguistic structure. This is not in the sense of time set aside by the unconscious as that which has freed us mazes conditioning? Lo sarebbe se l’inconscio fosse solo fatto di significanti. E ancora lo sarebbe se l’analisi fosse un’operazione che termina quando sono fatte vacillare le parvenze, nel momento tragico, durante il banchetto di Baldassarre, siglato dall’apparizione del dito che indica le lettere sul muro con la condanna dei giorni contati per il re sacrilego.
Sappiamo però che smascherare le parvenze nell’esperienza psicoanalitica non significa prendere la via cinica di staccarsene, né quella sediziosa di denunciarle e di abbatterle. Si possono assumere senza bisogno dell’aura che faceva credere a una trascendenza, a qualcosa al di là. Il contraltare dell’episodio di Baldassarre è la fiaba di Andersen: il re è nudo, si può ridere, ma questo non vuol dire dar corso all’anarchia.
Che la psicoanalisi faccia cadere i baldacchini del potere costituito non vuol dire che prenda la china nichilista del rifiuto di ogni forma di potere. La decostruzione del potere costituito sprigiona l’energia di quel monstrum che mette in imbarazzo la teoria del diritto – abituata a ragionare in termini di legittimante-legittimato – quel monstrum che è il potere costituente. Lo stesso enunciato provocatorio di Lacan, che l’analista si autorizza soltanto da sé, è un modo di far appello a questa fonte non formalizzabile di ogni Costituzione.
La destabilizzazione delle parvenze condotta dalla psicoanalisi non è semplicemente un’operazione iconoclast. But it does not demolish the appearance - Lacan suggests - makes such a blatant attempt to intimidate each to narrow in some form.
When Lacan says that the act does not bear the appearance is because it goes to the root of the operation of psychoanalysis, which does not pass through the legitimacy of the banner, the emblem of power crystallized, but through what the hole, using the liquid source of power care, when genetic or regeneration, which shapes the language, the signifiers, images, appearances, laying the way in which they are imposed, for her bold and brash to enter the game of creation.
I think in this sense it is interesting riprendere un’opposizione concettuale che Lacan formula negli anni Cinquanta, ma che alla luce di quanto detto si rivela essere di una sgargiante attualità.
Mi riferisco al binario tra soggetto costituente e soggetto costituito, che Lacan articola in Varianti della cura tipo.
Questo binario, a suo tempo, serviva a Lacan per criticare la tendenza a oggettivare l’io presente nell’ego-psychology, tendenza che induce a pensare che l’io è un oggetto osservabile, al pari di tutti gli altri oggetti di cui si occupa la scienza. La psicoanalisi dunque, in questa prospettiva, sarebbe una scienza come tutte le altre, con il proprio specifico oggetto d’osservazione e d’intervento.
Il correlato di questa location is the definition of the analyst as an observer, similar to that of the scientist, collecting empirical data to formulate an explanation, a law and this law is then applied in practice to transform nature.
The interpretation becomes so ego-psychology explanation, the expected effect is that of an insight by which to say it with the ironic title of Jonathan Safran Foer, "Everything Is Illuminated." I
The ego-psychology is par excellence the entity created, stiffened in its objective, related to a neutral observer, external to him, disempatizzato who searches, such as a microscope, in its icy coat white, the colorful alchemy between the ego and the id, the superego.
It may seem that this type of practice belongs to the past, and clinical effects of the stalemate that had fallen the ego-psychology, has given rise to other guidelines, new avenues to explore than the impasses in which it was hunting, ' empathy Kohut intersubjectivity Democratic California. In fact this position
objectifying is still present in all the most current guidelines psychotherapeutic, cognitive-behavioral, mimicking the scientific process in their approach and then get the highest score in that ocean of false science that studies the effectiveness. The objectification
the patient is related to a therapist who can be defined as an entity created, master of himself and of his technique, aware of his identity and of the objectives to be achieved, determined to succeed. The therapist
entity created by focusing on the signs of identity, we contrapporremo the psychoanalyst who proceeds from what Lacan calls, in The direction of the treatment, the constituent structure of desire, which starts from the signs of identity, nor give rise an evidence-based practice guaranteed by scientific formulas.
What are we to understand then to constituent structure of desire? Where are our formulas if they are not those of science?
Questa struttura si è rivelata originariamente per noi nel sogno, il cui desiderio non è assunto dal soggetto che parlando dice “io”. Il primo sogno in cui questa struttura si è fatta luce è quello famoso dell’iniezione di Irma, ed è un sogno di Freud, il primo psicoanalista-psicoanalizzante, il primo, non tanto ad avere scoperto l’inconscio, ma a essersi messo dalla parte dell’inconscio.
Lacan nel secondo seminario fa un’analisi memorabile di questo sogno, che ne traversa le opacità immaginarie – il trio di clown dei colleghi di Freud: Otto, Leopold e il misterioso dott. M; il trio mistico delle donne: Irma, la sua amica e la moglie di Freud – per andare al heart symbol in a formula that ultimately the unconscious desire in the famous formula of trimethylamine, which shows Freud and Lacan transcribed.
This formula, which lies beyond the din of words, exchanges of accusations and gossip in the theater of dream imagery, this formula makes no sense, it is not a metaphor for anything, it is pure point, it is a pure boundary hole, is the final limit beyond which there is nothing. It is a formula, the letter, the sign that appears when the fall appearances.
The constituent structure of desire is meaningless formula, clear coastline that rises to the withdrawal of the storm of words, explanations, identifications, di inganni, di lusinghe, di fughe e di ritorni.
Noi dobbiamo essere in grado di portarci su questo litorale, saper trovare in esso la risorsa della nostra pratica, nel punto di assoluta singolarità che segna e che fa si che un analista non sia uguale a un altro, il che vuol dire anche che fare un’esperienza d’analisi con un analista è diverso da farla con un altro. Non è né meglio né peggio, non è una graduatoria, è solo diverso, perché tenersi al momento costituente del desiderio rende inutili le scale della quantificazione, perché reintroduce l’impalpabile ricchezza del fattore qualitativo, quell’ésprit de finesse su cui Miller ha incentrato il suo seminario l’anno scorso, e che costituisce il nostro inestimabile antidoto alla macina tecnologica del mondo contemporaneo.
Marco Focchi
Relazione d'apertura al Convegno Dalla parte dell'inconscio, Torino 5, 6 giufno 2010
