The names-of-Father, the structure and today’s subjectivities.
Transl: Deniz Gezer& Arda Kaplan
At 1975 Lacan asks in the RSI (Real, Imaginary, Symbolic) seminar, whether it is necessary to hold the knot and structure by the names-of-Father. And that doesn’t mean it is still like this even it was like this before. This means, inevitably the “supply” (suppléance) becomes contingent.
So, as Lacan has predicted before, if the name-of-father is still required in analysis today, that doesn’t mean that we are not able to give up that at all. Lacan says that, we are hanging the names-of-father exactly because we are such vulnerable.
Nearly 50 years after the fantastic opening of the question of knotting psychic structure to the “names of the father”, we should ask ourselves: What is our post-modern inconsistency?
Nowadays, in short, a working program is opened in the post-modern world for the analysts to “join the era’s subjectivity” as Lacan suggested. Why? :“Because how is he supposed to make his existence; for how could, he who knows nothing of the dialectic that engages him in a symbolic movement with so many lives possibly make his being the axis of those lives? Let him be well acquainted with the whorl into which his era draws him in the ongoing enterprise of Babel, and let him be aware of his function as an interpreter in the strife of languages.” However, this program ought to be updated with the addition of the transformation of the reality. Because the universality of Oedipus is transformed into the specifity of symptoms indicating the subject’s stumbling in his own reality. Without forgetting the new truth of political science.
This assumes that we examine the post-modern subjective constructions in a transforming society. These subjective constructions differ in various and variable norms, as if no symbolic structure can bring them together in any individual and collective identity. Just as in the last teachings of Lacan and Foucault, they are on the same page, that is, about this topic of contingency.
We had known for a long time that the psychoanalytic experience is not like it’s been before. It must be known that, now we are not analyzing in the same way. At this point, we must remember Moustapha Safouan’s book “La civilisation post-oedipienne“ (Post-Oedipal Civilization). In his work, Safouan discusses the effects the neo-liberal society on the new ways of being subjective, while emphasizing that neo-liberal society force the individual who conceptualized as autonomous and responsible of his own to take precedence over the divided subject who –as psychoanalysis describes his state- bears the stamps of his relationship he constructed by his word. However in fact the divided subject means that the subject who seeks for the recognition of his existence being torn between enunciated (énoncé) and enunciation (énonciation). In his L’herméneutique du sujet lecture, Foucault states that we cannot comprehend subjectivity without referencing Lacan’s contribution about the subject of psychoanalysis. Today, after Lacan’s last seminars we understand what he said about psychoanalysis and he helped us to take essential measure of the talking being.
In this seminar, Lacan will make a distinction between social symptom and individual symptom which is pertinent if the best potential possibilities are considered.
The question we will ask is this: Would this distinction obstruct the symptom as the most particular type of enjoyment (jouissance) from the unconscious, defined by Lacan?