Talk:Jacques Lacan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jacques Lacan article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Digression on post-structuralist is too far afield

While I agree entirely that calling Lacan a "post-structuralist" is not clear, going into a digression on the meaning of the term is distracting for the lead. We could say a lot about what different people mean by the term, whether Lacan ever affirmed or denied it, whether it applies to other Lacanians, and so on. But surely not in the lead.

The way the lead reads now is sufficiently non-committal without needing to belabor the point. We don't even say that any specific figure influenced by Lacan is post-structuralist, just that the general tendency is characterized in English in such a manner. That is open enough: it pins down which general, vague tendency of thought without putting a foot down on this or that person being or not being a postie. Likewise, I took out a parenthetical about Derrida which circumlocuted about his relationship with posties (maybe the article on Derrida can discuss that, but surely not here). LotLE×talk 05:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Courbet painting

I confess I have to agree that Lacan's ownership of a particular notable painting is at the level of trivia. But given the fame of the painting, as well as connections one might imagine between it and Lacan's own body of thought, some mention appeals to me. What was taken out was:

Lacan was the last private owner of Gustave Courbet's provocative painting L'Origine du monde (The Origin of the World); he had his stepbrother, the painter André Masson, paint a surrealist variant. The painting was given to the French government by Lacan's heirs after his death because of his having left them with a large burden of back taxes; it now hangs in the Musée d'Orsay.

I wonder if a shorter off-hand comment might still fit? Certainly, this is not central to Lacan's notability, but it might add harmless "color" to the text. What about:

Lacan owned Gustave Courbet's provocative painting L'Origine du monde; it was transferred to the French government by Lacan's heirs after his death.

Whadaya think? LotLE×talk 08:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you must, but I still think it qualifies as "too much detail". Can you explain why it is important for his thought? Maybe then it would add something, yes?MarkAnthonyBoyle 08:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I could make a "plausible speculation" about a connection. But doing that would be entirely WP:OR: no one cares what "LotLE's thinks might be a going on." On the other hand, some amount of stuff that is "trivia" gets into most bios: for thinkers, it doesn't usually really matter what their parents did for a living, or what town they were born in, or how many children they had... but that sort of thing is in most bios on WP. Anyway, I don't care that much, and won't put anything back right away, especially not until other editors have opined. LotLE×talk 08:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Short session

The bit about Lacan getting haircuts during sessions is funny, both the claim by Roudinesco itself (not really a reliable source for this, methinks) and the attachment of an editor to including it. While I have no idea whether Lacan actually did get a haircut during sessions, the logic behind breaking the process of transference is an actual intellectual point of Lacan, and against most other psychoanalytic traditions. I'm not really convinced myself by the logic of the short session, but neither do I imagine it a simple question of sloth or greed: there was a specific theoretical understanding to it.

It seems odd to me to imagine the analytic process as the equivalent of hiring a masseuse or a plumber (for whom you demand 50 minutes labor for a certain pay, not a minute less). An analyst should be neither a father substitute, imagined lover/friend, nor an hourly laborer. Even analysts who do not use short sessions--in fact, even psycho-therapists who are not analysts--make efforts to break the transferal and counter-transferal process. Something like a feigned demeanor of non-attention is a commonplace technique (I'm sure somewhere in the world a therapist is merely inattentive as well... but that wasn't Lacan's story). LotLE×talk 09:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I changed 5-minute to "truncated" to avoid the impression that every short session was exactly 5 minutes. The logic of the practice was the indeterminacy of the length, not substituting some specific shorter length. I also omitted pedicure, and left hair cut, just for flow. Either one seems to give the idea of "apparent inattention", which is the theoretical/ethical point involved. LotLE×talk 09:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that is fine. Glad you left it in. My thinking is that this whole article is beginning to read better now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkAnthonyBoyle (talk • contribs) 11:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I recall also reading sessions were occasionally conducted through the slightly ajar and still latched door of Lacan's flat, but I'll leave it out unless I come across the source again. honestly, it was my understanding that Freud's fifty minute session was derived from the length of an academic lecture, not from any clinical data, apart from what he admits is speculation concerning the attention spans and stamina of clients. Why should the clinician assume that every client in every session would benefit from some absolute limit to the session? Variable session length is crucial to the analyst's neutrality, since it allows a session to last precisely as long as is necessary, a period determined only by what would benefit the client. I suppose, tho, we must bear in mind what has become common practice amongst some psychiatrists in the United States, which is give a patient a short questionare, then in a matter of moments send them out into the world with a month's supply of potentially lethal drugs. Variable length sessions indeed. I hardly think many of them are Lacanian, tho.--Slenney (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Castoriadis writes of these sessions that "'variable duration' would obviously require each session of 5 or 10 minutes to be matched on average by one of 80 or 85" ("Psychoanalysis: Project and Elucidation" in "Crossroads in the Labyrinth") AllyD (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newish comments on Lacan and French Left

By the 1960s, Lacan was associated—at least in the public mind—with the far left in France. Echoing this sentiment, "Shortly after the tumultuous events of May 1968, Lacan was accused by the authorities of being a subversive, and directly influencing the events that transpired."

This seems like a pertinent inclusion, and I've seen this sort of thing claimed elsewhere, so there is obviously something to it. But, as a reader, I want to know:

"public mind"? was he a public figure by then?, and in what sense? what public? (intellectuals?, man in the street?, newspaper readers? was psychological practice in the news or just Lacan? who exactly?)
which bit of the "far left"? (anarchists?, Maoists?, trade union?, which bit of the left exactly? or was it his "anti-authoritarian" stance?)
how was he "associated" (did he do something?, say something?, did he belong to some organisation?)
which "authorities accused him? (the university leardership?, the police?, members of a political party?, the president?)
did the authorities give some reason as to how or why he directly influenced events? or was he just one of the "usual suspects"?

If we could briefly address these issues it would make for a much more informative articleMarkAnthonyBoyle 01:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lulu, makes more sense nowMarkAnthonyBoyle 18:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this section has to be more specific. Lacan himself wrote about the student uprising, both in the seminar of 1969 and, apparently, according to that source, in an article commissioned by Le Monde on the topic of education, which I have never actually seen, and his position is much more nuanced than this section makes appear. I will edit it to the best of my knowledge, citing sources, but I must admit my own failings on the issue. I simply know slightly more than is currently displayed. If anyone else knows more, I would be interested in hearing it. Also, there is, I know, an essay more or less on the subject in Lacan's Silent Partners, edited by Zizek, which I've not got around to reading, if anyone has the time and energy--Slenney (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overall shape of the article

Just looking over the article as a whole it has become more easy to read and more informative lately. It is shaping up nicely as good introduction to Lacan and his principle ideas (just like an encyclopaedia!). I'd like to suggest a non-trivial change at this point. I'd like to combine the sections: Life, Career, Analysis, Lacan's Seminars, The new school, and perhaps the Return to Freud. My thinking is that it would be beneficial for these parts to read more chronologically, to give an overall shape to the Biography, allowing his individual concepts to be outlined later on under their own subject headings. What do others think? PS maybe it's time archive the discussion page. Does anybody know how to do this? MarkAnthonyBoyle 04:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly have no objections to a more chronological biography. Even organized decade-by-decade would be fine, with the various concepts popping up when they occur in the seminars. It's a bit of an undertaking, and I can't necessarily promise to do a lot of it (my paying publishers are clamoring for their stuff, after all)... but if MAB wants to, I support it (and will help to some extent). LotLE×talk 04:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Limiting Infobox

I've had this problem elsewhere: Infoboxes tend to grow particular editor's favorite "influenced by/influenced" links, without any particular regard to centrality of influence or comparative fame of people listed.

What I believe is the obvious and correct approach to this is that anyone listed in an infobox as an influence(d) should be discussed (meaningfully) in the body of the article as such. A million people read Lacan, and were trivially "influenced" by him. Only those who are notable enough to be mentioned in the body belong in the infobox... or especially belong as influences upon him: only those whose influence is explicated. LotLE×talk 07:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biographical order

I have sorted out the article chronologically. There is a problem in the 1950's section: It refers to Ecrits 1960's. Can someone more familiar with his bio sort this out please. Thanks MarkAnthonyBoyle 02:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not an issue - Ecrits is a compilation fo essays,t he oldest one going back to the 1930s. Most come from the 1950s. The section says this. Phil Sandifer 16:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures ?

There aren't any illustrations on this page, is it meant ? If it is not, you can find a few ones on the french page dedicated to Lacan. Pythakos (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[I like his post structuralist approach to psychonalaysis, but that's because I Lacan education]

Erm, sorry to spoil the party but Lacans theories have been pretty conclusively proven to be garbage. Although he's obviously relevant, purely in terms of his continued influence on thinkers ect, ect. None of the criticisms of Lacan on this page seem to point out the comprehensive debunking of his claims. Why is this? He based his theories on Saussure, who as everyone knows is now irrelevant beyond serving a footnote to the history of linguistics. His 'mirror stage' concept has been shown to be erroneous in light of modern studies on child development. And, err, there ain't much left beyond his survival in the work of trendy theorists. May I add these crucial criticisms? I'm amazed this charade has been able to persist for song long....??? This page is suffering from a fundamental manque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.38.242.126 (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent addition of Raymond Tallis article to end of Criticism section

I followed the link provided and found, rather than the advertised "witty and persuasive demolition of Lacan's psychoanalytical works and writings", a rather short ad hominem attack that proceeds through argument by assertion and much throwing about of terms like "lunatic" and "psychopath". I am quite sure there are very good critiques of Lacan's theories out there, but this is not one of them.

As a newbie to editing Wikipedia pages I thought I would put this up for discussion rather than simply edit the page myself.

Iclubb (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of critics

The criticism section includes this, 'In Fashionable Nonsense, Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont accuse Lacan of "superficial erudition" and of abusing scientific concepts he does not understand. Defenders of Lacanian thinking claim that these critics' misunderstand—or often simply have not read—Lacan's texts. Bruce Fink has dismissed Sokal and Bricmont, claiming they have "no idea whatsoever what Lacan is up to," and accuses them of elevating a distaste for Lacan's writing style into an attack on his thought as a whole.[30] Similarly, Arkady Plotnitsky claims that Lacan uses the mathematical concepts more accurately than do Sokal and Bricmont.' May I ask what the last three sentences of this paragraph are doing here? This is supposed to be a section about criticism of Lacan, not about criticism of Sokal and Bricmont. There are two times as many sentences criticising Sokal as there are criticising Lacan! This is absurd, and I am strongly inclined to change it. Skoojal (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree there was too much on the "critics of critics." However, as I write in my edit comments, leaving the Sokal/Bricmont by itself treats it too much as serious criticism. There book is just a "who's who" of post-structuralist thinkers, with vague personalistic snipes at each thinker named. It's not a criticism of Lacan, he just makes it on a long "enemies list". It's also not really "criticism" at any serious level (I would object at all to removing the whole bit of nonsense from this article), more like a semi-academic version of The Star (magazine).
In any case, the entire section is really bad form under WP:CRIT. Having a title heading for places to add snipes about a bio subject is not encyclopedic. Actually integrating criticism into the discussion of particular concepts would be worthwhile. Of course, in that case, the personalistic snipes wouldn't make it in, since they are not about any particular concept or book. LotLE×talk 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Saying that leaving Sokal and Bricmont's comments there by themselves treats them as too serious a criticism is, I suppose, your way of saying that you do not agree with the criticism. That's irrelevant. This is supposed to be a neutral article. It also misses a fundamental point: criticism of Sokal and Bricmont belongs in the article about them, not here. I will undo your changes.
Also, I should make a correction: I wrote that there was twice as much criticism of Sokal and Bricmont as criticism of Lacan in that paragraph. That was a mistake. There is actually three times as much, going by sentence count. This is a blatant violation of neutrality. Skoojal (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I wrote the above before seeing what you actually did, however. Now that I take a look at it, I can see it's not unreasonable, so I won't undo it. Skoojal (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Webster

The section on 'Works about Lacan's works and theory' includes Richard Webster's Why Freud Was Wrong. I am going to remove it. Why Freud Was Wrong is a book of 673 pages. It mentions Lacan on six of those pages, always briefly and unhelpfully. It is not in any real sense 'about Lacan.' Skoojal (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)