|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | | + | #redirect [[Subject Supposed to Know]] |
| − | | |
| − | The term '[[sujet supposé savoir]]' can be translated as the '[[subject supposed to know]]' or as the 'supposed subject of knowledge.'
| |
| − | | |
| − | The [[illusion]] of a [[self-consciousness]] which is [[transparent]] to itself in its [[act]] of [[knowing]], constituted in the [[mirror stage]], is put into question by [[psychoanalysis]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Psycho[[analysis]]]] demonstrates that [[knowledge]] (''savoir'') is not located in any particular [[subject]] but is, in fact, [[intersubjective]].<ref>Lacan, 1961-2: seminar of 15 November 1961</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | In 1964, [[Lacan]] defines [[transference]] as the attribution of [[knowledge]] to a [[subject]].
| |
| − | "As soon as the subject who is supposed to know exists somewhere there is transference."<ref>Sll, 232</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | It is the [[[[analysand]]]]'s supposition of a [[subject]] who [[knows]] that initiates the [[analytic]] [[process]] rather than the [[knowledge]] actually possessed by the [[[[analyst]]]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | The term '[[subject supposed to know]]' does not designate the [[[[analyst]]]], but rather a function which the [[[[analyst]]]] may come to embody in the [[treatment]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | It is only when the [[analyst]] is perceived by the [[analysand]] to embody this function that the transference can besaid to be established.<ref>{{Sll}} p.233</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | When this occurs, what kind of knowledge is it that the [[analyst]] is presumed to possess?
| |
| − | | |
| − | "He is supposed to know that from which no one can escape, as soon as he formulates it - quite simply, signification."<ref>{{Sll}} p.253</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | In other words, the [[analyst]] is often thought to know the [[secret]] [[meaning]] of the [[analysand]]'s words, the [[signification]]s of [[speech]] of which even the speaker is unaware.
| |
| − | | |
| − | This supposition alone (the supposition that the [[analyst]] is one who knows) causes otherwise insignificant details (chance gestures, ambiguous remarks) to acquire retroactively a special [[meaning]] for the [[patient]] who 'supposes'.
| |
| − | | |
| − | It may happen that the [[patient]] supposes the [[analyst]] to be a subject who knows from the very first [[treatment]], or even before, but it often takes some time for the [[transference]] to become established.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the latter case, "when the subject enters the [[analysis]], he is far from giving the [[analyst]] this place of the [[subject supposed to know]]."<ref>{{Sll}} p.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}} p.137</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | However, "even the [[psychoanalyst]] put in question is credited at some point with a certain infallibility."<ref>{{S11}} p.234</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | Sooner or later some chance gesture of the [[analyst]] is taken by the [[analysand]] as a [[sign]] of some secret intention, some hidden [[knowledge]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | At this point the [[analyst]] has come to embody the [[subject supposed to know]]; the [[transference]] is established.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The [[end of analysis]] comes when the [[analysand]] de-supposes the [[analyst]] of [[knowledge]], so that the [[analyst]] falls from the position of the [[subject supposed to know]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | The term '[[subject supposed to know]]' also emphasises the fact that it is a particular relationship to [[knowledge]] that constitutes the unique position of the [[analyst]]; the [[analyst]] is aware that there is a [[split]] between him and the [[knowledge]] attributed to him.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In other words, the [[analyst]] must realise that he only occupies the position of one who is presumed (by the [[analysand]]) to know, without fooling himself that he really does possess the [[knowledge]] attributed to him.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The [[analyst]] must realise that, of the [[knowledge]] attributed to him by the [[analysand]], he knows nothing.<ref>Lacan, 1967: 20</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 [[analyst]]s 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}} p.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]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == References ==
| |
| − | <references/>
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Category:Jacques Lacan]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Terms]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Dictionary]]
| |
| − | [[Category:New]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Concepts]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Psychoanalysis]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Subject]]
| |
| − | [[Category:People]]
| |
