Seminar I
| Freud’s Papers on Technique | |
|---|---|
| Seminar I | |
Cover of the English edition (1988) | |
| French Title | Les écrits techniques de Freud |
| English Title | Freud’s Papers on Technique |
| Seminar Information | |
| Seminar Date(s) | November 1953 – July 1954 |
| Session Count | 27 sessions |
| Location | Hôpital Sainte-Anne |
| Psychoanalytic Content | |
| Key Concepts | Transference • Resistance • Interpretation • Speech • Unconscious |
| Notable Themes | Freud’s technical papers; analytic technique; speech and language; critique of ego psychology; ethics of analytic practice |
| Freud Texts | The Dynamics of Transference • Recommendations to Physicians Practising Psychoanalysis • Observations on Transference-Love |
| Theoretical Context | |
| Period | Early period |
| Register | Symbolic (emergent) |
| Chronology | |
| Preceded by | Seminar — |
| Followed by | Seminar II |
The Seminar, Book I: Freud’s Papers on Technique (1953–1954) is the first year of Jacques Lacan’s public seminar and marks a foundational moment in the development of Lacanian psychoanalysis. Delivered between November 1953 and July 1954, the seminar consists of a close, critical rereading of Sigmund Freud’s early technical writings, particularly those addressing analytic method, transference, resistance, interpretation, and the role of the analyst.
Rather than treating Freud’s technical papers as a set of practical instructions, Lacan approaches them as theoretically decisive texts that reveal the structural conditions of psychoanalytic practice. Seminar I articulates the core claim that psychoanalysis is grounded not in ego adaptation or psychological normalization, but in the effects of speech, language, and symbolic structure on the subject of the unconscious.[1]
The seminar inaugurates Lacan’s sustained critique of postwar ego psychology and introduces conceptual distinctions—most notably between the imaginary and the symbolic—that would become central to his teaching. It also establishes the seminar itself as Lacan’s primary pedagogical and theoretical medium for the next three decades.
Historical and Intellectual Context
Seminar I was delivered at a moment of significant institutional and theoretical tension within psychoanalysis. In the postwar period, the dominant orientation within the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA), particularly in the United States, was ego psychology, which emphasized adaptation to reality, strengthening of the ego, and therapeutic normalization. Lacan regarded this orientation as a fundamental departure from Freud’s discovery of the unconscious and a reduction of psychoanalysis to a form of psychological pedagogy.[2]
Lacan’s return to Freud, formally announced in 1953, did not consist in a nostalgic reaffirmation of Freudian doctrine but in a methodological rereading of Freud’s texts. He argued that Freud’s technical papers—often treated as pragmatic or secondary—contained decisive theoretical insights into the nature of analytic action, transference, and interpretation when read with sufficient rigor.[3]
The seminar also coincided with Lacan’s growing conflict with the Société Psychanalytique de Paris (SPP) over his use of variable-length analytic sessions. These disputes would soon lead to Lacan’s resignation from the SPP and his association with the Société Française de Psychanalyse. Seminar I thus emerges from a context in which questions of technique were inseparable from institutional authority, training, and the legitimacy of analytic practice.[4]
Composition and Setting of the Seminar
Lacan’s first seminar was delivered weekly at the Hôpital Sainte-Anne in Paris, beginning in November 1953. Unlike his later seminars, which increasingly employed formalization, topology, and mathemes, Seminar I remains closely anchored to Freud’s texts and to clinical questions of analytic practice.
The seminar takes as its primary reference Freud’s technical papers written between 1911 and 1915, including “The Dynamics of Transference,” “Recommendations to Physicians Practising Psychoanalysis,” and “Observations on Transference-Love.” Lacan reads these texts line by line, not to extract procedural rules, but to interrogate their implicit theory of the analytic situation.[5]
The published version of Seminar I is based on edited transcripts prepared under the direction of Jacques-Alain Miller and translated into English by John Forrester. The editorial work preserves the seminar’s dialogical and exploratory character while clarifying Lacan’s arguments and references. As with all of Lacan’s seminars, the published text is not a verbatim transcription but a carefully reconstructed teaching document.[1]
Major Themes and Arguments
Critique of Ego Psychology and the Question of Technique
A central aim of Seminar I is Lacan’s sustained critique of ego psychology and its conception of analytic technique. Lacan argues that postwar psychoanalysis, particularly in its American developments, increasingly defined the goal of analysis as the strengthening, normalization, or adaptation of the ego. For Lacan, this orientation represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Freud’s discovery of the unconscious and a distortion of analytic practice into a form of psychological re-education or suggestion.[1]
Lacan contends that ego psychology misconstrues resistance, treating it as an obstacle located primarily in the patient and to be overcome by the analyst through clarification, reassurance, or corrective guidance. Against this view, Lacan insists that resistance is inseparable from the analytic situation itself and must be understood structurally rather than morally or pedagogically. He famously reformulates Freud’s claim by asserting that resistance is always resistance of the analyst, insofar as it arises from the analyst’s position within the symbolic field of the treatment.[1][2]
From this perspective, technique cannot be reduced to a set of adaptive strategies aimed at managing the patient’s ego. Instead, analytic technique concerns the analyst’s handling of speech, silence, timing, and interpretation in relation to the unconscious structured by language.
Speech, Language, and the Symbolic Dimension of Analysis
One of the most significant contributions of Seminar I is Lacan’s insistence that psychoanalysis is fundamentally a practice of speech rather than a psychology of affects or behaviors. Drawing on Freud’s technical papers, Lacan emphasizes that analytic work proceeds through what is said, how it is said, and what fails to be said within the analytic setting.[5][1]
Lacan distinguishes sharply between the imaginary dimension of analytic interaction—dominated by identification, rivalry, and misrecognition—and the symbolic dimension, which is structured by language and governed by the laws of signification. In his reading, many technical impasses arise when analysis remains trapped at the imaginary level, where the analyst responds to the patient as an ego to another ego rather than occupying a symbolic position that allows speech to function analytically.[3]
Interpretation, in this framework, is not a matter of providing meanings, explanations, or insights to the patient’s ego. Instead, interpretation operates through interventions that affect the structure of the patient’s speech, producing shifts in signification rather than understanding. Lacan repeatedly stresses that the unconscious is not hidden behind speech but articulated within it, albeit in displaced, condensed, or distorted forms.[1]
Transference and the Position of the Analyst
Seminar I devotes sustained attention to Freud’s concept of transference, which Lacan treats as the cornerstone of analytic technique. While Freud described transference as both an indispensable motor of analysis and a primary source of resistance, Lacan reframes transference as a structural phenomenon arising from the symbolic position of the analyst rather than from the patient’s affective attachments alone.[5][1]
Lacan argues that transference emerges when the analyst is positioned as a subject supposed to know—that is, as the locus to which the analysand attributes knowledge about their unconscious. Although this formulation is more explicitly developed in later seminars, Seminar I already establishes the groundwork for understanding transference as a function of symbolic address rather than emotional dependency.[3]
This reconceptualization has direct consequences for analytic technique. The analyst must avoid occupying the position of an ego ideal, moral authority, or pedagogical guide. Instead, the analyst’s task is to sustain the symbolic function that allows the analysand’s speech to unfold and to intervene only in ways that respect the structure of the unconscious as articulated in language.[1]
Interpretation, Timing, and the Analytic Act
Another key theme of Seminar I is the problem of interpretation and its timing. Lacan criticizes interpretations that aim at immediate comprehension or emotional relief, arguing that such interventions often reinforce imaginary identifications and foreclose analytic work. Effective interpretation, by contrast, introduces a cut or disruption in the chain of speech that produces effects after the fact rather than immediate understanding.[1]
This emphasis on timing anticipates Lacan’s controversial use of variable-length analytic sessions. While the technical justification of session length is not the explicit focus of Seminar I, Lacan’s insistence on scansion—the strategic interruption of speech—emerges implicitly from his theory of interpretation. The analytic act is thus defined less by duration than by its structural effect on the analysand’s discourse.[2]
Interpretation, in Lacan’s account, is inseparable from the analyst’s position and responsibility. An interpretation that fails is not simply incorrect; it may actively produce resistance by misrecognizing the symbolic logic of the analysand’s speech. Seminar I thereby situates technique within an ethical framework, where the analyst is accountable for the effects of their interventions rather than their intentions.[1]
Relation to Freud’s Technical Papers
Seminar I is organized around a sustained rereading of Freud’s technical papers from the 1910s, texts that Freud himself presented as provisional recommendations rather than systematic doctrine. Lacan rejects the tendency to treat these writings as a secondary or merely practical supplement to Freud’s metapsychology. Instead, he argues that they contain decisive insights into the structure of analytic action and the logic of the analytic situation.[1]
Among the texts most frequently discussed are Freud’s “Recommendations to Physicians Practising Psychoanalysis” (1912), “The Dynamics of Transference” (1912), and “Observations on Transference-Love” (1915). Lacan approaches these papers not as historical artifacts but as living theoretical documents whose implications have been obscured by later developments in psychoanalytic technique.[5]
A recurring concern in Lacan’s reading is Freud’s insistence on the analyst’s position of neutrality and abstinence. Lacan emphasizes that Freud’s technical cautions—such as avoiding suggestion, moral guidance, or direct gratification of the patient’s demands—are not expressions of prudence alone but structural necessities dictated by the nature of the unconscious. For Lacan, abstinence does not mean emotional coldness or withdrawal but the refusal to occupy imaginary positions that would short-circuit the symbolic work of analysis.[1][3]
Resistance and the Analyst’s Responsibility
Freud’s discussion of resistance plays a central role in Seminar I. While Freud identified resistance as an inevitable obstacle arising from the patient’s defenses, Lacan radicalizes this concept by relocating resistance within the analytic situation itself. He argues that resistance appears when the analyst misrecognizes their own position or intervenes in a way that reinforces imaginary identifications.[1]
Lacan’s oft-cited formulation—that resistance is always resistance of the analyst—does not deny the existence of defensive formations in the analysand. Rather, it emphasizes that analytic impasses are inseparable from the analyst’s handling of speech, interpretation, and transference. In this sense, Freud’s technical warnings against suggestion and premature interpretation are reread as ethical imperatives governing analytic action rather than procedural advice.[2]
This rereading also leads Lacan to challenge the notion that resistance can be overcome through clarification or explanation. For Lacan, explanation belongs to the imaginary register and risks reinforcing the ego’s demand for coherence. Analytic progress depends instead on interventions that respect the unconscious logic of displacement and condensation articulated in speech.[1]
Transference-Love and the Limits of Technique
Freud’s paper on transference-love occupies a particularly important place in Seminar I. Lacan stresses Freud’s insistence that the analyst must neither reject nor reciprocate the patient’s love, but instead treat it as material to be analyzed. Lacan interprets this position as evidence that transference is not an accidental emotional complication but a structural feature of the analytic situation.[5][1]
For Lacan, transference-love reveals the danger of confusing symbolic address with imaginary attachment. When the analyst responds at the level of personal relation—whether through gratification, reassurance, or refusal grounded in moral judgment—the analytic frame collapses into an imaginary dyad. Freud’s restraint is thus reread as a condition for maintaining the symbolic function of analysis rather than as a technical recommendation grounded in professional decorum.[3]
Seminar I repeatedly returns to Freud’s insistence that analytic technique cannot be reduced to rules applicable in all situations. Lacan interprets this indeterminacy not as a weakness in Freud’s thought but as a consequence of the fact that analytic action is oriented toward the singular structure of each subject’s speech. Technique must therefore be derived from the logic of the case rather than applied as a standardized method.[1]
Clinical and Technical Contributions
Through its rereading of Freud’s technical writings, Seminar I establishes several principles that would become enduring features of Lacanian clinical practice. Chief among these is the primacy of speech over affect, behavior, or adaptation. The analyst’s task is not to manage emotions or guide conduct but to sustain a space in which the unconscious can be articulated through language.[1]
The seminar also introduces a redefinition of interpretation as an act that operates on the signifying chain rather than on meaning. Interpretation is effective not when it produces insight or emotional relief, but when it alters the structure of speech in a way that allows new signifiers to emerge. This conception distances Lacanian practice from explanatory or educational models of therapy.[2]
Finally, Seminar I lays the groundwork for Lacan’s later formalization of analytic ethics. By emphasizing the analyst’s responsibility for the effects of interpretation and the structural nature of resistance, the seminar reframes technique as an ethical practice oriented toward the subject of the unconscious rather than toward normative ideals of health or adaptation.[1]
Significance Within Lacan’s Teaching
Seminar I occupies a pivotal position in Lacan’s body of work, functioning both as an inaugural statement and as a methodological foundation for his subsequent teaching. While later seminars would introduce increasingly complex formalizations—such as mathemes, topology, and discursive structures—Seminar I establishes the core orientation that would govern Lacan’s approach to psychoanalysis for the remainder of his career.
One of the seminar’s most enduring contributions is its insistence that psychoanalysis must be grounded in a rigorous reading of Freud’s texts rather than in the evolution of technical norms or institutional consensus. Lacan’s method of close textual engagement, exemplified in his line-by-line readings of Freud’s technical papers, becomes a defining feature of his seminars and a hallmark of Lacanian pedagogy.[1]
Seminar I also marks the first systematic articulation of the distinction between the imaginary and symbolic dimensions of analytic practice. Although the tripartite schema of the imaginary, symbolic, and real would be elaborated more fully in later years, Seminar I already demonstrates how analytic impasses arise when treatment is conducted at the level of imaginary identification rather than symbolic structure. This distinction would prove foundational for Lacan’s later theories of subjectivity, desire, and discourse.[3]
Finally, the seminar establishes the ethical orientation that would increasingly come to the fore in Lacan’s teaching. By defining technique in terms of the analyst’s position and responsibility rather than procedural correctness, Seminar I anticipates Lacan’s later formulation of the ethics of psychoanalysis, most explicitly developed in The Seminar, Book VII: The Ethics of Psychoanalysis (1959–1960).[1]
Reception and Institutional Impact
At the time of its delivery, Seminar I was closely intertwined with Lacan’s escalating conflict with psychoanalytic institutions, particularly the Société Psychanalytique de Paris (SPP) and the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA). Although the seminar itself does not explicitly address institutional politics, its theoretical positions—especially its critique of ego psychology and its implicit justification of variable-length sessions—placed Lacan increasingly at odds with prevailing norms of analytic training and practice.[4]
Lacan’s emphasis on the symbolic function of interpretation and his rejection of adaptive models of therapy challenged the dominant orientation of postwar psychoanalysis, particularly in the United States. These tensions culminated in Lacan’s resignation from the SPP in 1953 and his subsequent association with the Société Française de Psychanalyse. Seminar I thus emerges not only as a theoretical intervention but also as a practical stake in debates over who could legitimately claim fidelity to Freud.[2]
The publication of Seminar I in edited form several decades later further shaped its reception. Like all of Lacan’s seminars, the text was reconstructed from notes and recordings, raising questions about authorship, editorial intervention, and textual authority. Nevertheless, Seminar I has come to be widely regarded as one of the most accessible entry points into Lacan’s work, due to its sustained engagement with Freud and its relatively limited use of later formal devices.[1]
Legacy and Influence
Seminar I has had a lasting influence on Lacanian clinical practice and on the interpretation of Freud’s technical writings. Its redefinition of technique as a function of symbolic structure rather than procedural method has shaped generations of Lacanian analysts and continues to inform contemporary debates about analytic ethics, interpretation, and training.
The seminar’s insistence on the primacy of speech and the analyst’s position has also influenced broader theoretical discussions beyond clinical psychoanalysis, particularly in philosophy, literary theory, and cultural studies. However, unlike some of Lacan’s later seminars, Seminar I remains firmly anchored in clinical concerns and resists abstraction detached from analytic practice.[3]
Within Lacan’s own teaching, Seminar I serves as a reference point to which Lacan repeatedly returns, either explicitly or implicitly, when clarifying his conception of the analytic act, the nature of transference, and the limits of interpretation. Its rereading of Freud’s technical papers continues to be cited as a corrective to reductive or normativizing approaches to psychoanalysis and as a reminder of the ethical stakes embedded in analytic technique.[1]
- References
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book I: Freud’s Papers on Technique, 1953–1954. Translated with notes by John Forrester. New York: W. W. Norton; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Nobus, Dany. Jacques Lacan and the Freudian Practice of Psychoanalysis. London: Routledge, 2000.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Evans, Dylan. An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. London: Routledge, 1996.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Roudinesco, Élisabeth. Jacques Lacan. Translated by Barbara Bray. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Freud, Sigmund. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Vols. XII–XIV. Translated and edited by James Strachey. London: Hogarth Press, 1958.
Downloads
| Author(s) | Title | Publisher | Year | Pages | Language | Size | Filetype | Downloads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jacques Lacan | The Seminar of Jacques Lacan: Freud's Papers on Technique (Seminar I)
9780393306972 |
W. W. Norton & Company | 1991 | 312 | English | 4 Mb | djvu | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
| Jacques Lacan | The Seminar of Jacques Lacan: Freud's Papers on Technique (Seminar I) | W. W. Norton & Company | 1991 | 312 | English | 23 Mb | 1, 2, 3, 4 | |
| Jacques Lacan | Das Seminar von Jacques Lacan Buch 1 (1953-1954)
Freuds technische Schriften 9783530502138, 3530502138 |
Walter | 1978 | 364[363] | German | 9 Mb | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
Related
| Richard Feldstein, Bruce Fink, Maire Jaanus | SUNY Series in Psychoanalysis & Culture
Reading Seminars I and II: Lacan’s Return to Freud |
State University of New York Press | 1996 | 460
[445] |
English | 3 Mb | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | |
| Richard Feldstein, Bruce Fink, Maire Jaanus | SUNY Series in Psychoanalysis & Culture
Reading Seminars I and II: Lacan’s Return to Freud |
State University of New York Press | 1996 | 445 | English | 7 Mb | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | |
| Richard Boothby | Death and Desire: Psychoanalytic Theory in Lacan's Return to Freud [1 ed.] | Routledge | 1991 | 276 | English | 4 Mb | djvu | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
| Jacques Lacan | La cosa freudiana e altri scritti | Einaudi | 1972 | 252 | Italian | 8 Mb | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | |
| Jacques Lacan | Das Seminar von Jacques Lacan Buch 1 (1953-1954)
Freuds technische Schriften 9783530502138, 3530502138 |
Walter | 1978 | 364[363] | German | 9 Mb | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
French
|
|
French versions of Lacan's Seminars Source: http://ecole-lacanienne.net
<pdf width="450px" height="600px">File:Seminaire_01.pdf</pdf>