Changes

It is the [[analysand]]'s supposition of a [[subject]] who [[knowledge|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 be said to be established.<ref>{{S11}} p. 233</ref>

In other words, the [[analyst]] is often thought to know the [[secret]] [[meaning]] of the [[analysand]]'s [[word]]s, 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>{{S11}} p. 233</ref>   The [[analysand]] may initially regard the [[analyst]] as a buffoon, or may withold withhold 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 term "[[subject supposed to know]]" also emphasizes 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>{{L}} "[[Works of Jacques Lacan|Proposition du 9 octobre 1967 sur le psychanalyste de l'École]]," 1967, ''Scilicet'', no. 1 (1968) p. 20</ref>

[[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>{{S17}} 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]].