My first answer would be: should I have to justify myself again ?

 

Not that I’d be irritated, but I like to develop an offbeat thought, supported as much on my clinic experience that on psychoanalysis. The subjective attention that a psychoanalyst gives to the objects in his environment, can, under some conditions to be developped, become subjectifying. This attention would therefore have effects over the efficiency of its act. I define it as unconscious. On a treatment mode, the psychoanalyst, when analysing, would be left to freely associate …

 

Just as we never know what we convey, neither do we know why we pay attention to an object? Is this the result of our unconscious intelligence? How does it developed itself? Attention can be paid in very singular ways: out of neural fields, it is the fruit of numerous constructions / deconstructions, related on our readings, our meetings, our history … The attention becomes a-tension, or power up by insufficience, repetitions, movements, substitutions and facts of everyday life as other scene, according the primacy to the unconscious and its formations. Could we grasp the signifiers involved in the development of a particular symptom? Are really Islamism and its so-called radicalization the very issue of the terrorist attacks in France? I believe that to mention the term radicalization leads us on a debilitating fast-thinking path, radicalizing our thoughts, clogging it, … With illusion and manipulation of public opinion, the word « radicalization » communitises and divides, when there is a substantive debate around the violence in our today’s society. A radical society that tends every day to strengthen the hold of technocracy and desubjectivation by fear and constraint.

 

Take part in the intellectual debate? Create a « clinic of speech »? This cartel may experience it. Many psychoanalysts since Freud have tried to enlighten with acts the messages sent by the umwelt, leaving their own path viewing position to become witnesses. If this position can not be defined without relying on literature, anthropology …, it is supported by psychoanalysis and therefore carries its singularity not as universal, but as being-in-the-world. Would therefore the psychoanalyst possess a third ear, different from those that he uses in his office to listen to the social field? I do not think so. The clinic often allows us to develop a political thought (to my thinking, inseparables), a thought on the world based on facts, that remain unknown to the patient, and could be, consciously or not, participating in our style. In the social, it would allow the emergence of a function of the significant :

 

[…] The significant, in opposition to the sign, is not representing something to someone, but is precisely what represents the subject to another significant. My dog is on the lookout for my signs and then she speaks, as you know; why is it that its talk is not a language ?

Precisely because, for my dog, I am something that can give signs, but can not give a significant.

The distinction of the word, as it may exist at preverbal level, and language consists precisely in the emergence of the function of the signifier. […]

 

This cartel tends to allow joint work on the basis of the cure as praxis, to think the social. It vectorizes the developing of psychoanalysts from different backgrounds. Roland Gori emphasizes as Ferenczi and Winnicott could become the men of vision of a totalitarian culture that feeds on hatred by forcing individuals to comply with requirements. Bion’s theory can be of greatest interest.

 

If the unconscious is politics, then would our nosology be of any relief to hear and find our place in the social? I mean with politics the whole of everyday objects such as statements, speeches that pass through the subject continuously, through channels increasingly elaborate often escaping to consciousness. If the function of the psychoanalyst is precisely to hear the parlêtre beyond his speech, it is likely that he can listen the speeches beyond the statements. As Colette Soler wrote « It is clear that by calling the regulation “speech”, or rather regulations, in the plural, because there are more than one, which order social cohesion, Lacan came out of the inner circle of individual treatment, and faced himself with the matter of the collective ». At risk of sometimes having to cope with shrugs, denunciation or prosecution.

 

The subjective dimension of the social fact will always remain half-said.

 

Claude Breuillot

psicoanalist Analyse Freudienne @anfreudienne