Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:End of analysis

27 bytes added, 02:10, 5 September 2006
no edit summary
{{Top}}fin d'analyse{{Bottom}}
==Sigmund Freud==
In ''[[Analysis Terminable and Interminable]]'', [[Freud]] asks:
<blockquote>"Is there such a thing as a natural end to an analysis?"<ref>{{F}} ''[[Sigmund Freud:Bibliography|Analysis Terminable and Interminable]]'', 1937. [[SE]] XXIII p.219</ref></blockquote>
In ''==Jacques Lacan==[[Lacan]]'s answer is that [[psychoanalytic treatment]] is a [[Analysis Terminable and Interminableprogress|logical process]]with a beginning and an end-point,''' designated as the "[[Sigmund Freudend of analysis]] reflects upon whether it is ever possible to ".
discusses ===Aim===The [[end of analysis|''end'' of analysis]] must be distinguished from the question ''[[End of analysis|aim]]'' of whether it is ever possible to conclude an [[analysispsychoanalytic treatment]], or whether all analyses are necessarily incomplete (Freud, 1937c).
The [[end of analysis|aim]] of [[treatment]] is to lead the [[analysand]] to articulate the '''[[truth]]''' about his or her [[desire]].
While not all [[Jacques Lacantreatment|analyses]] asserts that are carried through to their [[progress|conclusion]], any [[treatment|analysis]] -- however incomplete -- may be regarded as successful when it is indeed possible to speak achieves this [[end of concluding an analysis|aim]].
The term 'question of the [[end of analysis]]' (Fris therefore something more than whether a [[treatment|course]] of [[treatment|analytic treatment]] has or has not achieved its aim; it is a question of whether or not the [[treatment]] has reached its logical [[End of analysis|end-point]]. ''fin d'analyse'')
===Definition===
[[Lacan]] conceives of this [[End of analysis|end-point]] in various ways.
analytic treatment :1. In the early 1950s, [[Lacan]] describes the [[end of analysis]] as "the advent of a true [[speech]] and the realization by the [[subject]] of his [[history]]" -- that is a logical , as coming to terms with one's own [[processdeath|mortality]] which has an end.<ref>{{E}} p. 88</ref>
it is necessary to distinguish between the end of analysis and the aim of psychoanalytic :<blockquote>"The [[treatmentsubject]]. The aim of psychoanalytic treatment is .. begins the analysis by speaking about himself without speaking to lead the analysand you, or by speaking to articulate the [[truth]] you without speaking about his [[desire]]himself. Any When he can speak to you about himself, the analysis, however incomplete, may will be regarded as successful when it achieves this aimover. The question of the end of analysis is therefore something more than whether a course of analytic treatment has or has not achieved its aim; it is a question of whether or not the treatment has reached its logical end-point"<ref>{{Ec}} p.Lacan conceives of this end-point in various ways373, n.1</ref></blockquote>
l:2. In the early 1950s1960, [[Lacan]] describes the [[end of analysis is described ]] as "the advent of a true speech and the realisation by the subject state of his history."<ref>E, 88</ref> (see [[speechanxiety]])."The and [[subjectanxiety|abandonment]] ... begins the analysis by speaking about himself without speaking to you-- that is, or by speaking to you without speaking about himself. When he can speak to you about himself, the analysis will be over."<ref>Ec, 373, n. 1</ref>The end as a state of analysis is also described as coming to terms with one's own [[mortalityhelplessness]].<ref>E, 104-5</ref>
2:3. In 19601964, [[Lacan ]] describes the [[end of analysis as a state of [[anxiety]] and abandonment, and compares it to as the point when the [[helplessnessanalysand]] of "traverses the human radical [[infantfantasy]]."<ref>{{S11}} p. 273</ref>
3:4. In 1964 he the final decade of his teaching, [[Lacan]] describes it as the point when the [[analysandend of analysis]] has as an "[[traverseidentification]]d with the radical ''[[fantasysinthome]]''."<ref>Sll, 273</ref> (see [[fantasy]]).
4. ====Position of Analysand and Analyst====In the last decade of his teachinggeneral, he describes the [[end of analysis as "[[identification]] with involves two fundamental changes in the ''respective [[sinthomediscourse|subjective positions]]''", and as "knowing what to do with the sinthome." (see ''[[sinthome]]'').of
Common to all these formulations is the idea that the end of analysis involves a change in the [[subjective position]] of * the [[analysand]] (-- the analysand's '"[[subjective destitution]]'), and a corresponding change in the position " of the [[analystanalysand]] (the loss of [[being]] [Fr. ''désêtre''] of the analyst, the fall of the analyst from the position of the [[subject-supposed-to-know]]). At the end of the analysis, the analyst is reduced to a mere [[surplus]], a pure [[objet petit a]], the [[cause of desire|cause of the analysand's desire]].and
Since Lacan argues that all psychoanalysts should have experienced * the [[processanalyst]] -- the "[[loss of analytic being]]" ([[treatmentFrench]] from beginning to end, the end of analysis is also the passage from : ''[[analysanddésêtre]] to '') of the [[analyst]]. "The true termination of an analysis" is therefore no more and no less than that which "prepares you to become an analyst."<ref>S7, 303</ref>
In 1967, Lacan introduced The [[analyst]] is reduced -- from the procedure [[discourse|position]] of the [[passsubject-supposed-to-know]] as -- to a means mere [[surplus]], a [[objet petit a]], the [[cause]] of testifying to the end of one[[analysand]]'s analysis. By means of this procedure, Lacan hoped to avoid the dangers of regarding the end of analysis as a quasi-mystical, ineffable experience. Such a view is antithetical to psychoanalysis, which is all about putting things into words[[desire]].
Lacan criticises those ====Passage from Analysand to Analyst====For [[psychoanalystLacan]]s who have seen , the [[end of analysis in terms of ]] is also the passage from [[identificationanalysand]] with the to [[analyst. In opposition ]] -- for all [[psychoanalysts]] must undergo [[analytic treatment]] from beginning to this view of psychoanalysis, Lacan states that the "crossing of the plane of identification is possible."<ref>Sll, 273</ref>Not only is it possible end before being allowed to go beyond identification, but it is necessary, for otherwise it is not psychoanalysis but suggestion, which is the antithesis of psychoanalysis; "the fundamental mainspring of the analytic operation is the maintenance of the distance between the I - identification - and the apractice as [[analysts]]."<ref>S11, 273</ref>
Since [[Lacan also rejects the idea ]] argues that the end of analysis involves the 'liquidation' of the all [[transferencepsychoanalysts]].<ref>see S11, 267</ref>The idea that should have experienced the transference can be 'liquidated' is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the transference, according to which the transference is viewed as a kind process of [[illusionanalytic treatment]] which can be transcended. Such a view is erroneous because it entirely overlooks from beginning to end, the [[symbolicend of analysis]] nature of the transference; transference is part of also the essential passage from [[structureanalysand]] of to [[speechanalyst]]. Although analytic treatment involves the resolution of the particular transference relationship established with the analyst, transference itself still subsists after the end of analysis.
Other misconceptions of the end of analysis which Lacan rejects are: "strengthening the ego", "adaptation to reality" and "happiness<blockquote>". The end of analysis is not the disappearance of the [[symptom]], nor the [[cure]] true termination of an underlying disease (e.g. [[neurosis]]), since analysis " is not essentially a therapeutic process but a search for [[truth]], therefore no more and the truth is not always beneficialno less than that which "prepares you to become an analyst."<ref>Sl7, 122{{S7}} p. 303</ref></blockquote>
<ref>54</ref>===Misconceptions=======Identification with the Analyst====[[Lacan]] criticizes those [[psychoanalysts]] who describe the [[end of analysis]] in terms of [[identification]] with the [[analyst]].
For [[Lacan]], it is not only possible, but necessary to go beyond [[identification]], for otherwise it is not [[psychoanalysis]] but [[suggestion]] -- which is the antithesis of [[psychoanalysis]]. ====Transference====[[Lacan]] also criticizes those [[psychoanalysts]] who describe the [[end of analysis]] in terms of "liquidation" of the [[transference]]. For [[Lacan]], this erroneous view is based on a misunderstanding of [[transference]] -- as a kind of illusion which can be transcended -- which overlooks the [[symbolic]] nature of [[transference]] -- as an essential [[structure]] of [[speech]]. Although [[analytic treatment]] does involve the resolution of the particular ''[[transference|transference relationship]]'' established with the [[analyst]], [[transference]] itself still subsists after the [[end of analysis]]. ==References==Other Misconceptions====The [[end of analysis]] does not involve: * the strengthening the [[ego]]* the [[adaptation]] to [[reality]]* the [[disappearance]] of the [[symptom]]<references/>* the [[cure]] of an underlying disease (e.g.''[[neurosis]]'')
For [[Lacan]], [[analysis]] is not essentially a [[treatment|therapeutic process]] but rather a search for [[truth]] -- and the [[truth]] is not always beneficial.<ref>{{S17}} p. 122</ref>
==See Also==
{{See}}
* [[Analysand]]
* [[Analyst]]
||
* [[Fantasy]]
* [[Sinthome]]
||
* [[Speech]]
* [[Subject]]
||
* [[Symptom]]
* [[Transference]]
{{Also}}
==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Terms]][[Category:Concepts]][[Category:Treatment]][[Category:Psychoanalysis]][[Category:Jacques Lacan]]__NOTOC__
Anonymous user
Retrieved from "https://nosubject.com/Special:MobileDiff/11552...16375"

Navigation menu