Jacques Lacan's Return to Freud: The Real, the Symbolic, and the Imaginary 9780814743232

Citation preview

Jacques Lacan's Return to Freud

PSYCHOANALYTIC CROSSCURRENT S General Editor: Leo Goldberger THE DEATH OF DESIRE: A STUDY IN PSYCHOPATHOLOGY by M. Guy Thompson THE TALKING CURE: LITERARY REPRESENTATIONS OF PSYCHOANALYSIS by Jeffrey Berman NARCISSISM AND THE TEXT: STUDIES IN LITERATURE AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE SELF Edited by Lynne Layton and Barbara Ann Schapiro THE LANGUAGE OF PSYCHOSIS by Bent Rosenbaum and Harly Sonne SEXUALITY AND MIND: THE ROLE OF THE FATHER AND THE MOTHER IN THE PSYCHE by Janine Chasseguet-Smirgel ART AND LIFE: ASPECTS OF MICHELANGELO by Nathan Leites PATHOLOGIES OF THE MODERN SELF: POSTMODERN STUDIES ON NARCISSISM, SCHIZOPHRENIA, AND DEPRESSION Edited by David Michael Levin FREUD'S THEORY OF PSYCHOANALYSIS by Ole Andkjaer Olsen and Simo Koppe THE UNCONSCIOUS AND THE THEORY OF PSYCHONEUROSES by Zvi Giora CHANGING MIND-SETS: THE POTENTIAL UNCONSCIOUS by Maria Carmen Gear, Ernesto Cesar Liendo, and Lila Lee Scott LANGUAGE AND THE DISTORTION OF MEANING by Patrick de Gramont THE NEUROTIC FOUNDATIONS OF SOCIAL ORDER: PSYCHOANALYTIC ROOTS OF PATRIARCHY by], C.Smith

IV

Psychoanalytic Crosscurrents

SELF AND OTHER: OBJECT RELATIONS IN PSYCHOANALYSI S AND LITERATURE by Robert Rogers THE IDEA OF THE PAST: HISTORY, SCIENCE, AND PRACTICE IN AMERICAN PSYCHOANALYSI S by Leonard Jonathan Lamm SUBJECT AND AGENCY IN PSYCHOANALYSIS: WHICH IS TO BE MASTER? by Frances M. Moran JACQUES LACAN'S RETURN TO FREUD: THE REAL, THE SYMBOLIC, AND THE IMAGINAR Y by Philippe Julien

JACQUES LACAN'S RETURN TO FREUD The real, the symbolic, and the imaginary Philippe Julien Translated by Devra Beck Simiu

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY PRESS New York and London

New Yor k University Pres s New Yor k and London Copyright © 199 4 b y New Yor k University All rights reserved Translation of this book from the original French was supported by the French Ministry of Culture. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Dat a Julien, Philippe . [Retour a Freud de Jacques Lacan. English ] Jacques Lacan's return to Freud : th e real, the symbolic, and the imaginary / Philipp e Julien ; translate d by Devra Beck Simiu. p. cm . — (Psychoanalyti c crosscurrents ) Includes bibliographica l reference s an d index. ISBN 0-8147-4198- 3 (alk . paper) 1. Lacan , Jacques, 1 9 0 1 - 2 . . Psychoanalysis—France—History . 3. Freud , Sigmund, 1856-1939 . I . Title . II . Series . BF109.L28J85 199 4 150.19'5'092— "Ten years ago, in my Rome report , I sought t o achieve a new covenant with th e meanin g o f th e Freudia n discovery." 10 Thi s wa s n o triflin g statement. H e wa s describin g hi s retur n t o Freu d a s a ne w covenant ,

Introduction

7

something that , i n ecclesiastical parlance , would b e termed a New Testa ment, followin g upo n a n Old Testament. Th e Rom e Repor t ("Functio n and field o f speech an d language") therefor e establishe d a new covenant . Now, mor e tha n te n year s later , h e wa s proposin g a renewa l o f th e covenant with Freud' s discovery, a renewal because the previous encounter ha d failed* the appointmen t ha d bee n missed. I n brief , th e origina l covenant ha d no t forge d a link, i n Latin , a re-ligio; it ha d no t produce d a religion. The covenant had failed, not by reason of accident, which could always be overcome ; no r o n accoun t o f th e analyst' s persona l weakness , judge d in relatio n t o a potential capability . I t faile d becaus e th e field opened u p by Freud is that of the unconscious, i n other words, a field that by nature disappears, tha t close s itsel f u p a s soo n a s i t i s opened . Indeed , i t i s precisely becaus e o f th e unconsciou s tha t ther e arise s a n irreducibl e dis cordance betwee n th e repor t o f analyti c experienc e an d th e experienc e itself. This is why Lacan's new covenant with Freud was really a noncovenant and why, fo r u s today , Lacan' s retur n to Freu d will hav e bee n Freudian, totally Freudian , t o b e describe d b y thi s ter m an d non e other , certainl y not by the term "Lacanian." It wil l hav e bee n Freudia n fo r us—futur e perfect—i n th e sens e tha t this failure was not just any failure, bu t a specific sor t of failure, supported and identified as such. Ho w wa s i t supporte d an d identified? B y Lacan' s presence, bearin g witness t o th e failur e throug h his word, makin g manifest the loss and its articulation. It was in this sense, then, that Lacan said on April 15 , "the presence o f the psychoanalyst , appearin g i n th e sam e perspectiv e a s th e vanit y o f his discourse , mus t b e included in th e concep t o f th e unconscious." 11 "Included": with this word, Lacan identified himself with the social symptom that the psychoanalyst is today. Isn't this the goal of didactic analysis? One rids oneself of one's own sympto m by turning it into a metaphor for the symptom that is the psychoanalyst! Lacan identified himsel f with the symptom that is the Freudian analyst in two ways : he intervene d publicl y i n the conflic t throug h hi s teaching ; and h e assume d responsibilit y fo r th e disparit y betwee n an y accoun t o f analytic experienc e an d th e analyti c experienc e pe r se . Thu s h e demon strated that th e caus e of th e unconsciou s i s fundamentally a lost cause — and afforded it , thereby, its sole chance to prevail.

8

Introduction

The onl y wa y t o reope n th e unconsciou s i s b y specifyin g th e manne r in whic h i t close s itsel f up. Lacan' s retur n t o Freu d will itsel f hav e bee n Freudian i f this i s what i t accomplished. Keepin g thi s poin t i n mind, i t is up t o us—no w tha t Laca n i s silent—t o sho w b y ou r presenc e whethe r this return ha s been Freudian or not . In effect, a s long a s Lacan was alive, this return wa s taking place. Not e that w e hav e use d th e imperfect here. Laca n insiste d o n thi s strang e imperfect: on e momen t later , th e bom b wa s exploding . W e ca n under stand i t both a s a temporal and as an objective description . Firs t this, then an instan t later , th e explosio n o f th e bomb . Or , o n th e contrary , a s a n imminent possibility : i f I ha d no t release d th e detonator , the n . . . a little while later . . . the bom b hasn't exploded! In th e second case, one situate s oneself subjectively insid e a lived temporality . The retur n t o Freu d wa s takin g place : wha t sor t o f imperfec t i s in volved here? Onl y today ha s it becom e possibl e to remov e the indetermi nation b y transforming i t into a future perfec t throug h discourse, discours e about what it will have been for us. It is no longer a question o f accomplishing the return da y by day, littl e by little, with Lacan . Ther e i s no mor e "with 55 Lacan. Fro m no w on , i t i s a matter o f defining fo r ourselve s a return t o Freud , no t wit h Lacan , bu t of Lacan. Thi s retur n depend s o n ou r discourse . I t therefor e follow s tha t it itsel f must b e Freudian , tha t i s to say , a failed covenant , faile d becaus e the caus e o f th e Freudia n unconsciou s "i s a functio n o f th e impossibl e upon whic h a certainty i s founded." u12 In clearin g a path , w e wil l begi n b y utterin g th e impossibl e an d b y upholding the interdiction agains t constituting Lacan' s return to Freud as a certainty. Indeed , i f this interdictio n i s not articulated , ther e wil l ensu e an actua l forgettin g o f Lacan' s faile d covenan t wit h Freud , togethe r wit h the subjective uncertaint y tha t flows from thi s forgetting . A Double Turn For th e publicatio n o f his Ecrits in 1966 , Lacan wrote fiv e forewords tha t were reall y afterwords . I n on e o f them , entide d "D'u n dessein, " h e de fined th e meaning of his return t o Freu d "as belonging to the topology o f the subject , whic h i s elucidated onl y b y a second tur n upo n itself . Every -

Introduction

9

thing mus t b e sai d agai n o n anothe r fac e s o tha t wha t i t embrace s i s enclosed. This is certainly not a n absolute knowledge (savoir) 13 bu t tha t position from whic h knowledge (savoir) ca n overturn the effects o f truth. Without a doubt, it has to do with a moment in which there is a suture in a finished joint, s o tha t whateve r scienc e w e hav e achieve d absolutel y is assured."14

The re-tur n i s a double turn . Thu s i t excludes , first, the spher e tha t turns onl y once ; and , second , th e spira l tha t doe s no t close , tha t i s without suture. A double negation. l.A Progression In its first form, the forgetting reduces Lacan's return to Freud to a simple turn, a successful covenant . Freud left us certain aporias, for example, on the termination of analysis, on the ego and the subject of knowledge, on the relationship between moral conscience and the superego as heir to the Oedipus complex , o n feminin e sexuality , etc . I n answerin g thes e unre solved questions, Lacan continued wha t Freud merely began, brought it to completion and went beyond it. In brief, Lacan is seen as the return of Freud; he rendered useless the Freudian text, with its lacunae, and replaced it with a lacunae-free text . This is the position of those for whom psychoanalysis toda y i s eithe r Laca n o r nothing . The y hol d tha t wit h Lacan , psychoanalysis for the first time became theory in the ancient sense of the term, that is to say, a sphere, a sphere that illuminates practice by enclos-

IO

Introduction

ing i t within itself . Therefore, i t remain s fo r u s to rea d only th e Lacania n text an d t o pu t asid e th e Freudia n text , give n tha t th e latte r ha s bee n integrated int o the former . 2. A Regression Opposed t o th e first (progressive ) for m o f forgetting i s a second (regres sive) form , whic h turn s Lacan' s retur n int o a secon d turn , th e pat h o f which remain s suspended, without possibilit y of suture. According t o thi s secon d view , th e Freudia n tex t constitute s a close d circle withi n Freudianism , a full y realize d bod y o f knowledg e (savoir). Lacan opene d i t u p wit h hi s question s an d lef t i t gapin g o n purpose . His wa s a seductiv e return , whic h delighte d i n prolongin g th e researc h indefinitely, lendin g a n aur a o f mystery. Therefore al l dogmatism i s to b e countered b y returning to Freu d afte r Lacan , by putting everything on th e table again . In religion , thi s i s called a return t o th e sources : "fons et origo." At th e foundation o f psychoanalysi s i s th e origina l experienc e o f on e Sigmun d Freud: everything is containe d therein . Bu t i n translatin g hi s experienc e into a writte n text , Freu d thereb y betraye d it . Thi s i s why h e wa s com pelled t o continu e writin g unti l th e ver y end . Laca n i n tur n too k u p th e game, turnin g roun d an d roun d thi s first experienc e withou t eve r at taining it, a spiral without end. Hence, if Lacan's return t o Freud i s a failed covenant, i t i s no t becaus e o f th e objec t Freu d discovered , namel y th e unconscious, bu t becaus e Freud' s find remain s hidde n i n hi s thoughts — more precisely, in that par t of Freud's thoughts tha t belon g to the past. I f Lacan failed i n his return, i t is because he said: I do not seek, I find—and because h e wishe d t o sutur e th e doubl e loop . I f w e ar e t o reinvigorat e psychoanalysis afte r Lacan , w e mus t d o s o b y reopening researc h int o it s origin: Freud' s lov e fo r Fliess . Thi s lov e wrough t eithe r a miracle , b y engendering th e thoughts of the founder o f psychoanalysis, or, inversely, a serious handicap , sinc e i t arose i n one who neve r addresse d himsel f to a n analyst an d therefor e wa s neve r abl e t o analyz e hi s ow n transference . I n this latter case, psychoanalysis would have been born fro m a n acting-out. In eithe r case , it would b e our destin y today , i n the after-Lacan , t o g o back t o th e sourc e o f th e Freudia n text—Freud' s experience—i n th e hope o f being able to asses s at last the extent t o which Laca n faile d i n hi s covenant an d reached a n impasse .

Introduction

II

This secon d (regressive ) vie w o f th e retur n rest s o n th e followin g presupposition: already existing out there in the past is knowledge (savoir) discovered b y Freud. Its loss condemns us to renew its meaning endlessly through open-ended research , that is to say, through hermeneutics. Today, then , Lacan' s retur n t o Freu d present s itsel f either a s a sphere or a s a spiral, an d it does s o to th e extent tha t Lacan is seen a s not trul y Freudian. Bu t i f we , i n oppositio n t o this , brin g i t abou t tha t Lacan' s return will have been Freudian, then by our speaking, a closed double turn will b e engendered , th e interio r o f a figure eigh t that , whe n interprete d three dimensionally , establishe s a n empt y space , a specific ga p betwee n the firs t an d secon d turns . The desire-of-the-analyst—i f ther e i s a n analyst—at onc e establishe s thi s specifi c ga p an d inscribe s itsel f i n it , a manifestation tha t Lacan's return is itself Freudian. This i s ou r tas k now , i n a situation wher e passag e t o th e after-Laca n needs t o b e effecte d i n suc h a wa y tha t th e impossible—tha t is , th e double exclusio n o f th e spher e an d th e spiral—determine s a certitud e for us.

The Complete Writings Today w e fac e ou r task a t a moment tha t is altogethe r ne w wit h respec t to Lacan' s teaching . S o lon g a s i t wa s sustaine d b y hi s voice, Lacan's teaching affected his listeners at different times during the extensive period it took t o prepar e the way. Thi s was how severa l generations o f student s were created, each generation different , eac h fixated on what appeared to be the true Lacan. Now, for the first time, with the silence of this voice, it has becom e possibl e t o rea d and to deciphe r Lacan' s teaching i n contex t and t o approac h i t i n it s entirety , fro m 193 2 (th e dat e o f th e doctora l thesis) t o 1980 . The listene r turne d reade r is now abl e t o realiz e tha t each transcribe d word, each published writing must necessarily be dated if it is to b e read. Lacan's teachin g is , i n fact , divide d int o divers e period s tha t nee d t o b e clearly distinguished. T o refus e thi s historization i s to sentenc e ourselve s either t o denouncin g contradiction s wher e ther e ar e non e o r t o at tempting to justify them as fruitful antinomies. For us, i t i s especially critica l t o b e abl e to approac h Lacan' s teachin g in it s entiret y an d fro m a n historica l poin t o f view , fo r thi s wil l finall y

12

Introduction

permit us to show just where Laca n met with obstacles on his path back to Freud. This occurred not on his way up, as has often bee n claimed, but on his way down. In dealing with Lacan's return to Freud, our aim in this book wil l b e t o revea l on e o f th e stumblin g block s tha t Laca n neve r ceased running up against. We begin with Lacan's first encounter with the Freudian text in 1932, with what he will later call the imaginary. Fro m this original imprint was later generated—by mean s of an application t o the mirror—an elabora tion tha t repeat s i t i n differen t forms , th e las t o f which , becaus e o f it s topological nature , bot h reveal s and characterize s th e consistency of the Freudian text. Our purpos e her e is not t o draw up a balance sheet but t o revea l the scope of another imaginary, differen t fro m th e one describe d i n Freud' s second topography . Fo r throug h thi s ne w imaginar y i s establishe d th e specific gap between the first and second turns of the return's loop. More importandy, we shall see how this other imaginary in the analysand will, at th e en d o f th e journey , determin e i n hi m a birt h o f th e desire-of the-analyst.

1

The Pai n of Being Two

What was the nature of Lacan's first encounter with the Freudian text? It began i n 1932 , wit h hi s doctora l thesi s i n medicine , Paranoid Psychosis and Its Relation to Personality.1 Th e thesis inaugurated a period tha t was to en d o n Jul y 8 , 1953 , wit h Lacan' s inventio n o f thre e terms : th e symbolic, the imaginary, and the real. On that day, Lacan finallyused the term "imaginary 55 t o designat e wha t h e ha d bee n readin g i n Freu d fo r twenty years. In this first encounter with Freud (1932-1953) , Lacan was not yet a Freudian bu t a Lacanian. Lik e his contemporaries who sough t t o introduce Freud, he made choices among the Freudian texts. He did not draw on a whole text in order to interpret each element by means of the others. Rather, h e selecte d fro m Freu d whateve r h e foun d useful , t o wit : th e second topography (id, ego, superego), but nothing from th e first topography o r fro m th e first fundamenta l work s o n unconsciou s formation s (dreams, symptoms, parapraxes, jokes). The twenty-year period may be divided into three stages: 1. In his 193 2 thesis, and in the very dense pages written i n 193 3 on what motivated th e Papi n sisters 5 crime, 2 Laca n studied paranoi a i n th e psychiatric sense, with the purpose of demonstrating that it was a form of narcissism and one of its avatars. His most important step was to link the ego in the Freudian text to narcissism. Thi s h e di d b y interpretin g th e Freudian ego as the foundation o f narcissism, not as a principle of objective knowledge , no r a s "th e syste m perception-consciousness, 55 tha t is , "the apparatus by which the organism is adapted to the reality principle.553 2. In 1936 , Lacan invented the mirror stage. In this theory, presented on August 3 at the Marienbad Congress, he tied the ego to the imago. Fo r 15

16

The Pain of BeingTwo

every human being , th e tempora l origi n o f the eg o i s in th e mirro r stage , as a constitution o f the imag e of his or her own body . 3. I n 1946 , afte r man y year s o f silence , Laca n embarke d upo n a rereading o f hi s thesi s o n madness . H e arrive d a t a generalizatio n tha t linked th e first two stage s through th e following decisiv e advance: the ego (taken i n th e Freudia n sense ) is paranoid in structured Thus , disengagin g paranoia fro m psychosis , he linked the eg o to paranoi c knowledge, goin g so fa r a s t o defin e psychoanalysi s a s "a n inductio n i n th e subjec t o f a controlled paranoia." 5 Correlatively, th e year s 1932-195 3 belonge d t o a perio d o f politica l torment, whic h Laca n di d no t exclud e fro m hi s analysis . Quit e th e con trary. Eve r sinc e th e tim e o f hi s famou s 193 8 tex t o n "Th e Family," 6 Lacan ha d found—i n Freud' s secon d topography—a n adequat e mean s of approac h t o th e crisi s o f identificatio n precipitate d i n th e twentiet h century b y the disintegration o f Western societie s and th e ever-increasin g impact of science and technology .

The Case ofAimee Nineteen thirty-two : Laca n wa s thirty-one . A young psychiatrist , h e be gan hi s analysi s wit h Rudolp h Loewenstei n an d complete d th e prepara tion of his doctoral thesis . His encounte r wit h psychoanalysi s came abou t through hi s interes t i n psychosis . I n contras t t o Freud , wh o ha d discov ered th e unconsciou s vi a neurosis , Laca n wa s graduall y compelle d t o come t o term s wit h Freudia n psychoanalysi s b y wa y o f psychosis , mor e precisely, by way of paranoia. Ho w di d h e do this? Let us look at his thesis. What doe s psychosis reveal? Laca n was struc k by th e following : whethe r o r no t ther e i s an intellectua l defici t i s of litd e importance. Psychosi s reveal s itsel f essentiall y a s a menta l proble m o f psychic synthesis . Laca n calle d thi s synthesi s "personality. " Whenc e th e title o f hi s thesis : paranoi d psychosi s i s a crisis of personality, define d a s the effec t an d manifestatio n o f a proces s o f synthesi s an d unification . Paranoid psychosi s introduces th e reverse: discordance. A secon d point : Laca n wa s no t satisfie d wit h definition s o f th e phe nomenon o f personality . Concerne d wit h clinica l facts , h e selecte d on e case for th e purpos e o f exploring i t exhaustively, s o as to extrac t fro m i t a clinical typ e heretofor e poorl y recognized . An d becaus e soli d synthesi s i s

The Pain of BeingTwo

17

impossible withou t rigorous , in-dept h observation—observatio n limite d to a few concret e cases—fro m amon g fort y cases , twenty of whom wer e psychotics, h e focuse d o n a singl e one . H e calle d he r Aimee , afte r th e heroine of one of the novels she herself had written. By givin g th e cas e a nam e o f hi s ow n invention , "self-punishmen t paranoia," Lacan raised it to the level of a prototype. The "Aimee case," far from addin g a ne w clinica l entity , instea d mad e a case fo r a method of research aime d a t personalized intervention . I t was a method that , b y its refusal o f generalitie s an d it s respec t fo r th e specifi c feature s o f th e subject's history, would take into account personality. And s o w e hav e returne d t o th e point ! Laca n wa s committe d t o th e following premise: personality exists, and it is a principle for comprehending wha t a t first appear s t o b e incomprehensibl e i n paranoi d psychosis . Moreover, i t is that which bring s abou t ow-cordanc e wher e th e psychia trist sees onl y dis-cordmce. Bu t o f course , i t i s a concordanc e tha t i s different fro m tha t o f th e psychiatrist's . An d s o anothe r discordanc e emerges, thi s tim e betwee n tw o personalities , tha t o f th e "sic k person " and tha t o f hi s o r he r psychiatrist. 7 Coul d thi s discordanc e b e sur mounted? This was precisely what Laca n was wagering in his thesis: that it could b e surmounted, an d that a new understandin g o f paranoi d psychosis could thus come about. The wager was an ambitious one. Laca n backed it up by actually using the metho d embodie d i n hi s study , a study h e described , th e followin g year, as "the first, at least in France," to have been attempted. 8 On Apri l 10 , 1930 , a t the very moment whe n Madame Z , on e o f th e best-loved actresse s in Paris, arrived at the theater to perform, a 38-yearold woman inflicted a knife wound to her hand. Interned at St. Anne, the woman wa s "observed " fo r a yea r an d a hal f b y Lacan . H e calle d he r Aimee an d mad e not e o f tw o delusions : on e of persecution, the othe r oigrandeur. The first had to do with her child. Sometime after her marriage, Aimee separated fro m he r husband . I t wa s t o hi m tha t th e child , a boy , wa s entrusted. Accordin g t o Aimee , someon e wante d t o kil l him ! Sh e sai d her persecutor s ha d inquire d int o he r pas t "a s i P searchin g fo r som e indiscretion: Sh e claime d tha t the y suspecte d her , bu t wrongly! Wa s she not describing herself when she wrote i n her novel: "Truly evil is around her but not in her">9 Thus, fro m th e beginning , Aime e pose d th e problem i n ethical terms.

18

The Pain of BeingTwo

There i s disorder i n th e worl d (Schrebe r ha d spoke n o f a n "assassinatio n of souls") , an d he r missio n wa s t o denounc e an d remed y it . Therei n la y the reaso n fo r he r persecutors 5 hostility: the y were attemptin g t o preven t her from fulfillin g he r vocation . Indeed, i t wa s alon g thes e line s tha t a second deliriou s theme , tha t o f grandeur, becam e intertwined wit h the first. This second theme had to d o with th e difference betwee n socia l classes, which Laca n prudentl y calle d a difference o f "milieu." I n effect , th e persecutio n wa s th e wor k o f wome n who, because of their elevated social role, were in the public eye: actresses, such a s Madame Z an d Sara h Bernhardt ; o r writers , such a s Madame C . What characterize d thes e wome n wer e th e idea l trait s tha t Aime e wa s attempting t o appropriat e fo r herself . Sh e wrot e tw o novels , "whos e literary valu e impresse d man y writers , fro m Fargu e an d th e dea r Crevel , who rea d the m befor e everyon e else , to Jo e Bousquet , wh o immediatel y made favorable comment s upon them , to Eluard, who most recendy drew from the m involuntary poetry." 10 Self-educated, Aime e trie d thre e time s t o obtai n th e baccalaureat 11 i n spite of the burden of her professional work . But while she identified wit h the wome n mentione d above , sh e fel t he r purpos e wa s opposed to theirs . Their influenc e o n societ y wa s evil ; he r missio n wa s t o creat e a bette r world throug h ideal s of purity an d devotion . The circle began t o close as the reaso n fo r he r persecutio n wa s found . Th e sign s pointin g t o i t wer e clear: he r editors ' refusa l t o publis h he r writings ; he r failur e t o wi n th e baccalaureat; th e abductio n o f her son in order to kill him.

The Psychiatric Explanations Observing Aimee , Lacan wondere d ho w t o accoun t fo r thi s double delu sion. Was the "causal topography" inherited fro m hi s masters sufficient t o explain it ? The first interpretation, base d on the organic theory, explaine d the triggerin g o f th e delusio n b y mean s o f a n occasiona l cause . Th e cause coul d b e either organi c ( a morbi d constitutio n stemmin g fro m a congenita l defec t o f character ) or organo-psychic . Accordin g t o thi s interpretation, i t i s the basi c phenomena o f psychosi s (drea m states , per ceptual difficulties , illusion s o f memory) tha t creat e a problem, t o whic h

The Pain of BeingTwo

19

the delusio n i s an attempte d response . Whethe r th e caus e is organic o r organo-psychic, psychosis is seen as a deficit. Lacan was not convince d b y this explanation. I n effect, th e very content o f th e delusion—it s fixatio n an d organization—remaine d unac counted for. Moreover, whatever the delusion produces that is novel and therefore discordan t within the personality must exceed the scope of the occasional cause. The secon d interpretatio n explaine d th e conten t o f th e delusio n b y means o f unusual , traumati c events i n th e histor y o f th e subject . Thes e encounters, bein g conflictua l i n nature , ar e see n a s th e sourc e o f th e delusion. Suc h wa s Aimee' s first, failed lov e affai r wit h a man , a local poetaster. Such was her encounter with Mademoiselle C, an impoverished aristocrat who was the supervisor in her office. Whe n Lacan interviewed this woman, he found she exerted a strong intellectual and moral influence over Aimee. Informing Aimee of the successes of Sarah Bernhardt and of Madame Z (th e futur e victim) , she intimate d tha t sh e an d Aime e were also women of a different sort, different fro m th e modest milieu in which they wer e living . Thi s wa s exacd y wha t Aimee' s famil y ha d sai d abou t her: she was not like the others! Finally, and most importandy, there was Aimee's relationship to her older sister. Lacan' s lengthy interview with her was a decisive event, one that would be determinative for the whole of his work. For on that day, he had an intuition that would occur again later as he read of the enigmatic bond uniting Christine and Lea Papin. Who, then, was Aimee's older sister? The widow of an uncle who had made her his wife, she had never borne children. Eight months after he r younger sister' s marriage, she came to liv e with th e newlyweds in order to offe r the m he r advic e an d her devotion . Aimee's first child wa s born dead. Th e secon d wa s a boy , fo r who m he r siste r playe d th e rol e o f mother. In this communal life a trois, Aimee felt she was being excluded by her sister, especially in comparison to her husband. Lacan noted: "The intrusion o f Aimee's siste r wa s followe d b y her seizur e o f th e practica l management of the household." 12 Now, what astonished Laca n was the fact that Aimee had not reacted to this. Even later, when he questioned her about her sister's attitude, she never direcd y admitte d he r grievances , which—i n Lacan' s eyes—wer e well justified. There was a discordance between what he expected and what she said, betwee n wha t h e would hav e done i n he r plac e an d wha t sh e

The Pain of BeingTwo

20

did. Hi s imaginar y identificatio n wit h he r failed , revealin g a weak point . And th e more he insisted, the more she denied : We mus t recogniz e her e a confessio n o f wha t i s s o rigorousl y denied , namely, in the present case, the grievance with which Aimee reproaches her sister for having stolen away her child, a grievance in which it is striking to recognize the theme that will organize the delusion. Now this is the point we have to make : i n th e delusion , th e grievanc e ha s been distanced fro m her sister with a constancy whose true importance analysis will show us.13 Lacan concluded : Aimee's personalit y doe s no t permi t he r t o reac t wit h a straightforward , combative attitude, which would be the true paranoid reaction, understood in the sense of this term since its establishment a s a description. Indeed, it is not fro m th e prais e o r authorit y conferre d upo n he r b y her entourag e that the sister draws her principal strength against Aimee. It is from Aimee's own consciousness. Aimee recognizes a s valuable her sister's qualities, virtues, and efforts. Sh e is dominated b y her, who represents for her , from a certain perspective , th e very image of the being tha t sh e i s powerles s t o become. . . . Her silen t battl e wit h th e on e who humiliate s he r an d takes her place expresses itself only in the peculiar ambivalence of the remarks she makes about her. 14 Thus Aime e makes her complain t agains t women othe r tha n he r sister , substituting other , mor e distan t object s o f hatred . "Fo r years , therefore , the delusion appear s to b e a reaction of flight before th e aggressive act. 5'15 But the n th e questio n arises : wh y thi s resistance t o a direct battl e agains t her sister ? Wh y thi s renunciatio n befor e he r o f an y mora l clai m t o he r rights? Moreover , why , i n th e delusion , wher e sh e doe s no t hesitat e t o accuse Mademoisell e C d e l a N o f bein g he r persecutor , doe s sh e b y contrast sto p short o f her sister? This transpositio n astonishe d Lacan . Bu t th e secon d explanatio n fo r the caus e o f th e delusion , tha t i t cam e abou t b y mean s o f traumati c events, provide d n o reaso n fo r it . No r coul d th e secon d explanatio n account for th e "choice" of paranoid psychosi s over neurosis.

Recourse to Freud It wa s simpl y no t enoug h t o searc h ou t th e caus e o f th e delusion . Fo r Lacan, th e importan t thin g wa s t o la y bar e th e ver y foundatio n o f para -

The Pain of BeingTwo

21

noid psychosis. In order to do this, he put forth the notion of personality, conceived a s the totality o f th e specialized , functiona l relationship s tha t adapt th e animal-huma n t o society . These relationship s ar e dynamicall y constituted from socia l tensions; and what defines personality is precisely the state , eithe r o f equilibriu m o r o f rupture , o f thes e relations . Thu s personality is "the unity of a regular and comprehensible development," 16 comprehensible, that is, by the psychiatrist. Now paranoid psychosi s does not escape this unitary law. A mode of reaction to life situations of great significance, "most often of the order of a conflic t o f mora l consciousness," 17 i t i s on e reactiona l mod e amon g others ^personality. Therefore, i n spite of its apparent discordance, it too depends o n "th e unit y o f a regular an d comprehensibl e development, " insofar as it is a "phenomenon of personality." But how could Lacan back up this claim? The prototypical case of Aimee, together with that of the Papin sisters, showed the following: a t the foundation o f psychosis is the unconscious aggressive instinct, camouflage d i n the compromise tha t i s the delusion . However, it is not sufficient t o say this; it must be demonstrated. To do so, Lacan began from a final,clinical observation: "The delusion vanished with th e realizatio n o f th e aims of th e act" 18—the aim s o f th e ac t o f murder. Does the nature of the cure not reveal the nature of the disease? Yes, indeed, this is the right track: not th e act, but it s aims, are to be studied. Wit h Aimee , th e ai m woul d b e self-punishment , th e crim e a n appeal to be punished by the judicial arm of society. Her crime gave her a right to sanction, for the sake