Changes

However, Schneiderman suggests The term '[[sujet supposé savoir]]' can be translated as the alternative translation '[[subject supposed subject of knowledgeto know]]', on the grounds that it is or as the 'supposed subject, not just the of knowledge, which is supposed.<ref>Schneiderman, 1980: vii</ref>'

The phrase is introduced by In 1964, [[Lacan in 1961 in order to designate ]] defines [[transference]] as the illusion attribution of [[knowledge]] to a self-consciousness (Ger. ''Selbstbewufltsein'') which is transparent to itself in its act of knowing (see [[consciousnesssubject]]). "As soon as the subject who is supposed to know exists somewhere there is transference."<ref>Sll, 232</ref>

This illusion, which It is born in the [[mirror stage[[analysand]]]]'s supposition of a [[subject]] who [[knows]] that initiates the [[analytic]][[process], is put into question ] rather than the [[knowledge]] actually possessed by psychoanalysisthe [[[[analyst]]]].

Psychoanalysis demonstrates that The term '[[knowledgesubject supposed to know]]' does not designate the [[[[analyst]]]] (savoir) cannot be located in any particular subject , but is, rather a function which the [[[[analyst]]]] may come to embody in fact, intersubjectivethe [[treatment]].<ref>Lacan, 1961-2: seminar of 15 November 1961</ref>

In 1964"He is supposed to know that from which no one can escape, Lacan takes up the phrase in his definition of [[transference]] as the attribution of knowledge to asubject; 'As soon as the subject who is supposed to know exists somewhere there is transference'he formulates it - quite simply, signification."<ref>{{Sll, 232}} p.253</ref>

This definition emphasises that it In other words, the [[analyst]] is often thought to know the [[secret]] [[meaning]] of the [[analysand]]'s supposition words, the [[signification]]s of a subject who knows that initiates [[speech]] of which even the analytic process.rather than the knowledge actually possessed by the analystspeaker is unaware.

The term 'subject supposed to know' does not designate This supposition alone (the supposition that the [[analyst himself]] is one who knows) causes otherwise insignificant details (chance gestures, but ambiguous remarks) to acquire retroactively a function which special [[meaning]] for the analyst may come to embody in the treatment[[patient]] who 'supposes'.

It is only when may happen that the [[patient]] supposes the [[analyst is perceived by ]] to be a subject who knows from the analysand to embody this function that very first [[treatment]], or even before, but it often takes some time for the [[transference can besaid ]] to be become established.<ref>Sll, 233</ref>

When this occursIn the latter case, "when the subject enters the [[analysis]], what kind of knowledge he is it that far from giving the [[analyst is presumed ]] this place of the [[subject supposed to possess? know]]."<ref>{{Sll}} p.233</ref>

'He is supposed to know that from which no one can escape, as soon The [[analysand]] may initially regard the [[analyst]] as he formulates it - quite simplya buffoon, significationor may withold information from him in order to maintain his ignorance.'<ref>Sll, 253{{S11}} p.137</ref>

In other wordsHowever, the analyst is often thought to know the secret meaning of the analysand's words, the significations of speech of which "even the speaker [[psychoanalyst]] put in question is unawarecredited at some point with a certain infallibility."<ref>{{S11}} p. 234</ref>

This supposition alone (the supposition that Sooner or later some chance gesture of the [[analyst ]] is one who knows) causes otherwise insignificant details (chance gesturestaken by the [[analysand]] as a [[sign]] of some secret intention, ambiguous remarks) to acquire retroactively a special meaning for the patient who 'supposes'some hidden [[knowledge]].

It may happen that the patient supposes At this point the [[analyst ]] has come to be a embody the [[subject who knows from the very first meinent of the treatment, or even before, but it often takes some time for supposed to know]]; the [[transference to become ]] is established.

In The [[end of analysis]] comes when the [[analysand]] de-supposes the latter case[[analyst]] of [[knowledge]], 'when so that the subject enters tlie analsysis, he is far [[analyst]] falls from giving the analyst this place [position of the [[subject supposed to know]';<ref>Sll, 233</ref> the analysand may initially regard the analyst as a buffoon, or may withold information from him in order to maintain his ignorance].<ref>S11, 137</ref>

However, The term 'even [[subject supposed to know]]' also emphasises the psychoanalyst put in question fact that it is credited at some point with a certain infallibility'particular relationship to [[knowledge]] that constitutes the unique position of the [[analyst]];<ref>Sl 1, 234</ref> sooner orlater some chance gestiire of the [[analyst's ]] is aware that there is taken by a [[split]] between him and the analysand as a sign of some secret intention, some hidden [[knowledge]] attributed to him.

At this point In other words, the [[analyst has come to embody ]] must realise that he only occupies the position of one who is presumed (by the subject supposed [[analysand]]) to know; , without fooling himself that he really does possess the transference is established[[knowledge]] attributed to him.

The end of analysis comes when the analysand de-supposes the [[analyst of knowledge]] must realise that, so that the analyst falls from the position of the subject supposed [[knowledge]] attributed to knowhim by the [[analysand]], he knows nothing.<ref>Lacan, 1967: 20</ref>

The term 'subject supposed to know' also emphasises However, the fact that it is a particular relationship to supposed [[knowledge ]] that constitutes is the unique position mainstay of the analytic process, rather than the [[knowledge]] actually possessed by the [[analyst]], does not mean that the [[analyst]] can therefore be content with knowing nothing; on the contrary, [[Lacan]] argues that [[analyst is aware that there is a split between him ]]s should emulate [[Freud]] in becoming experts in [[cultural]], [[literary]] and the knowledge attributed to him[[linguistic]] matters.

In ´her words. [[Lacan]] also remarks that, for the [[analyst must realise that he only occupies ]], the position of ome who [[analysand]] is presumed (by the analysand) a [[subject supposed to know, without fooling himself that he really does possess the knowledge attributed to him]].

The When the [[analyst must realise that, ]] explains the [[fundamental rule]] of the knowledge attributed [[free association]] to him by the [[analysand]], he knows nothingis effectively saying; "Come on, say anything, it will all be marvellous."<ref>Lacan, 1967: 20{{Sl7}} p.59</ref>

However, the fact that it is a supposed knowledge that is the mainstay of the analytic process, rather than the knowledge actually possessed by the analyst, does not mean that the analyst can therefore be content with knowing nothing; on the contrary, Lacan argues that analysts should emulate Freud in becoming experts in cultural, literary and linguistic matters.   Lacan also remarks that, for the analyst, the analysand is a subject supposed to know.  When the analyst explains the fundamental rule of free association to the analysand, he is effectively saying; 'Come on, say anything, it will all be marvellous'.<ref>Sl7, 59</ref>  In other words, the [[analyst ]] tells the [[analysand ]] to behave as if he knew what it was all about, thereby instituting him as a [[subject supposed to know]].

[[Category:Jacques Lacan]]