Notes & References for Jacques Lacan’s Seminar IV : 21st November 1956

by Julia Evans on February 28, 2017

ECp refers to page numbers in the Earl’s Court Collective’s translation : Alma Buholzer,  Greg Hynds
, Jesse Cohn, 
Julia Evans (www.lacanianworks.net).

See Seminar IV : The Object Relation & Freudian Structures 1956-1957 : begins 21st November 1956 : Jacques Lacan or here for updates and new translations.

References for 21st November 1956

Onwards from ECp3 : Clinical analysis : 1956 : Maurice Bouvet or here

ECp6 : A Short Study of the Development of the Libido, Viewed in the Light of Mental Disorders : 1924 : Karl Abraham or here

ECp6 : Tracing Stages linked to Libido in Freud by Julia Evans on 24thOctober 2017 or here

ECp10 : Grades of Ego-Differentiation : 27th July 1929 (Oxford) published 1930 : Edward Glover & here

ECp10 : The relation of perversion-formation to the development of reality-sense : 7th September 1932 (Wiesbaden) [1933] : Edward Glover or here

ECp10 : On the Etiology of Drug-addiction : July 1932 : Edward Glover or here

Commentary : Seminar IV : 21st November 1956 :

Tracing Stages linked to Libido in Freud by Julia Evans on 24th October 2017 or here

Lacan with D. W. Winnicott : 25th June 2011 (Dublin) : Joanne Conway or here

The development of Sigmund Freud’s ideas on stages, libido, etc is sketched in Introduction to ‘The Complete Letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess 1887-1904′ : 1950 : Ernst Kris : See here

Notes : 21st November 1956

From time to time new material will be added to these notes, as it emerges. They are not in a static, final form.

– [Footnote] 3, ECp1 [p1 of English translation] : Seminar I: Freud’s papers on technique: 1953-1954 : begins on 18th November 1953 : Jacques Lacan : See here

- ECp1 : “notion of transference” : This may refer to the seminar on Dora which Jacques Lacan gave prior to Seminar I. The only surviving section of this is Intervention on the Transference (Paris): Seminar on ‘Dora’ – 1950-1951: October 16th 1951: Jacques Lacan : See here

- ECp1 : “ and the notion of resistance” : This may refer to the seminar on the ‘Rat Man’ which Lacan gave prior to Seminar I which informed his 1953 text ‘The Neurotic’s Individual Myth’. (See The Neurotic’s Individual Myth : 1953 : Jacques Lacan or here)

- 4, ECp1 : Seminar II: The Ego in Freud’s Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis: 1954-1955: begins 17th November 1954 : Jacques Lacan : See here

- 5, ECp1 : Beyond the Pleasure Principle : 1920g : Sigmund Freud : Available here

- 6, ECp1 : Seminar III: The Psychoses: 1955-1956: from 16th November 1955: Jacques Lacan : See here

________________________________________________________

-7, ECp2 : Schema L first appears in Seminar on ‘The Purloined Letter’ : 26th April 1955 : Jacques Lacan : See here

Comments on the Schema in Seminar IV

Seminar III (See here) : 16th November 1955 : Jacques Lacan : p14 of Russell Grigg’s translation : (This precedes Seminar IV) :

Quote : Our schema, I remind you, represents the interruption of full speech between the subject and the Other, and its detour through the two egos, a and a’, and their imaginary relations. Here it indicates triplicity in the subject, which overlaps the fact that it’s the subject’s ego that normally speaks to another, and of the subject, the subject S in the third person. Aristotle pointed out that one must not say that man thinks, but that he thinks with his soul. Similarly, I say that the subject speaks to himself with his ego.

Jacques Lacan wrote this up after Seminar IV: From On a question preliminary to any possible treatment of psychosis : December 1955-January 1956 : two most important parts of Seminar III : Jacques Lacan :  p197 of Alan Sheridan’s translation of ‘Ecrits’

: Schema R : Those of you who attended my seminar for the year 1956-7 know the use that I made of the imaginary triad presented here, a triad of which the child as the desired object constitutes in reality the summit I – to restore the notion of the Object Relation, now somewhat discredited by the mass of nonsense that the term has been used in recent years to validate, the capital of experience that legitimately belongs to it.

In effect, this schema enables us to show the relations that refer not to pre-Oedipal stages, which are not of course non-existent, but which cannot be conceived of in analytic terms (as is sufficiently apparent in the hesitant, but controlled work of Melanie Klein), but to the pregenital stages in so far as they are ordered in the retroaction of the Oedipus complex.

Note : The Mirror Schema also includes relation between the subject and other and no schemas are given in the 1936 or 1949 version of this paper. See Mirror Stage: 1936, 1938, 1949, 1966: Jacques Lacan : See here

- ECp2 ‘…in the form of an unconscious speech, his own message. The subject’s own message, which is forbidden to him, is received as distorted, interrupted, seized, profoundly misrecognised …’ : Tracing the translation –

Translator A : This message of one’s own which is forbidden to the Subject

Can I suggest here the simpler “This message is forbidden the subject”? Lacan is referring to the subject that receives his own message in the passage above.

Translator B : Try ‘One’s own message which is forbidden….

‪Translator C : How about this? A little redundant, but it brings out the paradoxical nature of this “message” — it’s mine, but it’s forbidden to me.

‪(Side note: I suddenly have a whole new way of reading Kafka’s “An Imperial Message.” Why the hell didn’t I think of that before??)

JE notes: The final translation emerged from the above, and the way translating brings forth other material is also illustrated.

_____________________________________________________

10, ECp3 : Bouvet,M. La clinique psychanalytique, la relation d’objet. : Published in English as Clinical analysis : 1956 : Maurice Bouvet : See here

______________________________________________________

- 8 ECp4 : La psychanalyse d’aujourd’hui : P.U.F ; 1956 : Mostly, this is not translated into English.

A collection published under Sacha Nacht’s direction, with M. Bouvet, R. Diatkine, A. Doumic, J. Favreau, M. Held, S. Lebovici, P. Luquet, P. Luquet-Parat, P. Male, J. Mallet, F. Pasche, M. Renaud,

Preface by Ernest Jones

Note : Ernest Jones & Sacha Nacht were present, together with others, at this meeting : see Minutes of the meeting of the International Psychoanalytical Association : 30th July 1953 : Dr Heinz Hartmann (IPA President & Chairman of the Meeting) : See here

Rudolf Loewenstein, who was Lacan’s training analyst from 1932 to 1938, was also Sacha Nacht’s analyst and was present at this meeting.

There is an analysis of how Miss Anna Freud & Dr Sacha Nacht, supported by Dr Ernest Jones & Princess Marie Bonaparte, attack Jacques Lacan at this meeting : here

Note : there is further reference to Sacha Nacht in Seminar X : 12th December 1962 & Seminar X : 30th January 1963. See Seminar X: The Anxiety (or Dread): 1962-1963: begins 14th November 1962: Jacques Lacan: Text in English & References or here for further details.

- 8 ECp4 : Further comment on this collection is to be found in The Direction of the Treatment and the Principles of its Power:10th-13th July 1958 : Jacques Lacan : See here

- ECp4

Notes on Sacha Nacht:

++++++++++++++++++++

From Wikipedia :: Despite wishing himself to avoid a split, Lacan was drawn into the dissident movement led by Daniel Lagache, as a result of his own separate dispute with the president Sacha Nacht over his practice of “short sessions”.

An excerpt of the timeline, from Seminar X: The Anxiety (or Dread): 1962-1963: begins 14th November 1962: Jacques Lacan: Text in English & References : See here

1951-1952: Seminar on Freud’s case of the Wolf Man.

1952, Summer:  Sacha Nacht (1901-1977), president of the SPP, presents his views on the organization of a new training institute (Institut de Psychanalyse).

1952, December:  Nacht resigns as director of the Institute, and Lacan is elected new director ad interim.

1952-1953:  Lacan’s seminar on Freud’s case of the Rat Man.

1953, 20 January:  Lacan is elected president of the SPP. Creation of the Société Française de Psychanalyse (SFP) by Daniel Lagache (1903-1972), Françoise Dolto (1908-1988) and Juliette Favez-Boutonnier (1903-1994); Lacan joins soon after.

1953, 8 July: Lacan gives the opening lecture at the SFP on the symbolic, the imaginary and the real. See Conference Report, SIR : Inaugural meeting of SFP, Paris : 8th July 1953 : Jacques Lacan or here

1955, July: the IPA rejects the SFP’s request for affiliation.

1956, Winter:  first issue of the journal La Psychanalyse, containing Lacan’s ‘Rome Discourse, 23 September 1953’ [See Discours de Rome et réponses aux interventions (Rome) : 26th September 1953 : Jacques Lacan or here & The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis (Rome) : 26th September 1953 : Jacques Lacan or here

and his translation of Heidegger’s ‘Logos’ 1951

From Jeffrey Mehlman’s footnote to Letter to Rudolf Loewenstein : 14th July 1953 : Jacques Lacan : See here

Rudolf Loewenstein, who was Lacan’s training analyst from 1932 to 1938, was also the analyst of the two other principles referred to in this letter, Sacha Nacht and Daniel Lagache. Born in Poland, Loewenstein would emigrate to New York during the War, where he would be a principal proponent of ego psychology.

Daniel Lagache, a psychoanalyst and Sorbonne professor, was a proponent of integrating psychoanalysis into a general theory of psychology. He saw in the University the institutional ethos best suited for guiding the organization of the practice of psychoanalysis.

Related texts on the split in 1953 which led to the formation of the Société Française de Psychanalyse (SFP) :

Conference Report, SIR : Inaugural meeting of SFP, Paris : 8th July 1953 : Jacques Lacan or here

Letter to Rudolf Loewenstein : 14th July 1953 : Jacques Lacan : See here

Minutes of the meeting of the International Psychoanalytical Association : 30th July 1953 : Dr Heinz Hartmann (IPA President & Chairman of the Meeting) or here

Note: The following were present, together with others, at this meeting : Edward Glover, Melanie Klein, Ernest Jones, Donald Winnicott, Sacha Nacht, and many others see Minutes of the meeting of the International Psychoanalytical Association : 30th July 1953 : Dr Heinz Hartmann (IPA President & Chairman of the Meeting) : See here :

There is an analysis of how Miss Anna Freud & Dr Sacha Nacht, supported by Dr Ernest Jones & Princess Marie Bonaparte, attack Jacques Lacan at this meeting : here 

Further texts on Lacanian history : here

There is a further run-in between Sacha Nacht and Jacques Lacan when Lacan comments on Nacht’s recently presented paper : Presented to the 22nd International Psychoanalytic Conference in Edinburgh: July to August 1961: ‘The curative factors in psychoanalysis’. Published in the International Journal of Psycho-analysis: Vol 43: 1963: p206 – 211 during Seminar X : L’Angoisse : 1962 to 1963 : See here. I have yet to trace the exact location.

+++++++++++++++++++++

11, ECp4 : Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality : 1905 : Sigmund Freud : See Section V : The Finding of an Object : in Part III The Transformations of Puberty

12, ECp4 : The Project for a Scientific Psychology: 23rd & 25th September & 5th October 1895: Sigmund Freud  : See here

Jacques Lacan comments on the Project or Entwurf in Seminar II : 26th January 1955, Seminar II : 2nd February 1955 which includes some relevant schemas (p108-109 of Sylvana Tomaselli’s translation), Seminar II : 9th February 1955

See Seminar II: The Ego in Freud’s Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis: 1954-1955: begins 17th November 1954 : Jacques Lacan : or here

& Seminar VII : 2nd December 1959, Seminar VII : 9th December 1959, Seminar VII : 16th December 1959, Seminar VII : 23rd December 1959, Seminar VII : 13th January 1960, Seminar VII : 20th January 1960

See Seminar VII: The ethics of psychoanalysis: 1959-1960: begins 18th November 1959 : Jacques Lacan or here

From Seminar VII : 13th January 1960 : p99 of Dennis Porter’s translation :

It is nevertheless true, as I will show you, that in certain authors of antiquity – and interestingly enough in Latin rather than Greek literature – one finds some and perhaps all the elements that characterize the cult of an idealized object, something which was determinative for what can only be called the sublimated elaboration of a certain relationship. Thus what Freud expresses over-hastily and probably inversely, concerns a kind of degradation which, when one examines it closely, is directed less at love life than at a certain lost cord, a crisis, in relation to the object.

To set out to find the drive [instinct in original] again is the result of a certain loss, a cultural loss, of the object. That such a problem exists at the centre of that mental crisis from which Freudianism emerged is a question that we will have to ask ourselves. The nostalgia expressed in the idea that the Ancients were closer than we are to the drive [instinct in original] perhaps means no more, like every dream of a Golden Age or El Dorado, than that we are engaged in posing questions at the level of the drive [instinct in the original] because we do not yet know what to do as far as the object is concerned.

At the level of sublimation the object is inseparable from imaginary and especially cultural elaborations. It is not just that the collectivity recognizes in them useful objects; it finds rather a space of relaxation where it may in a way delude itself on the subject of ‘das Ding’, colonize the field of ‘das Ding’ with imaginary schemes. That is how collective, socially accepted sublimations operate.

- ECp4 : ‘This object corresponds to a certain advanced stage in the development of instincts; it is the refound object of first weaning, precisely the object which formed the first point of attachment for the infant’s first satisfactions – it is an object to refind.’ :

Comment : This probably refers to The Primal Cavity : a contribution to the genesis of perception and its role for psychoanalytic theory : 1955 : René Spitz where weaning is examined. Spitz is referenced in p106 of English translation of the Nacht collection in : Psychoanalysis of Children : Lebovici and others.

& also by Jacques Lacan : p132 to 133 of Dennis Porter’s translation : See Seminar VII: The ethics of psychoanalysis: 1959-1960: begins 18th November 1959 : Jacques Lacan or here

Notes :

Notes from Seminar VII : 3rd February 1960 (p132 & top p133) : Discussion with Victor Smirnov on René Spitz’s ‘Yes and No’ : Reading Group of 7th September 2013 by Julia Evans on 7th September 2013 or here

Notes from Seminar VII : 3rd February 1960 (p133) : Interventions by Xavier Audouard & Jean Laplanche on René Spitz & the function of ‘rooting’ : Reading Group of 28th September 2013 by Julia Evans on September 28, 2013 or here

René Spitz is also referred to in 28th November 1956 session – see ECp5 : the object – is it the real, yes or no? of Notes & references for Seminar IV : 28th November 1956 by Julia Evans on 2nd July 2017 or here

_________________________________________________________

- 15, ECp5 : ‘as Freud has always established, the reality principle is only constituted by that which is imposed for its satisfaction on the pleasure principle,’

See Beyond the Pleasure Principle: 1920g : Sigmund Freud

- 17, ECp6 : Reality principle is first mentioned in The Interpretation of Dreams: 1st November 1899 (published as 1900): Sigmund Freud  : See here

in XI A dream of Bismarck’s

(C) Wish-Fulfilment [p492] ³ [Footnote added 1914:] I have elsewhere carried this train of thought further in a paper on the two principles of mental functioning (Freud 1911b) – the pleasure principle and the reality principle, as I have proposed calling them.

Chapter VII : p520 (E) THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY PROCESSES – REPRESSION

I presume, therefore, that under the dominion of the second system the discharge of excitation is governed by quite different mechanical conditions from those in force under the dominion of the first system. When once the second system has concluded its exploratory thought-activity, it releases the inhibition and damming-up of the excitations and allows them to discharge themselves in movement.

Some interesting reflections follow if we consider the relations between this inhibition upon discharge exercised by the second system and the regulation effected by the unpleasure principle.

- 18, ECp6 : Mirror Stage: 1936, 1938, 1949, 1966: Jacques Lacan : See here

Note : Jacques Lacan delivered a paper ‘Le stade du mirroir’ at the fourteenth International Psychoanalytical Congress, held at Marienbad in August 1936 under the chairmanship of Ernest Jones but it was not published until 1938. Its contents are outlined in his article on the family in the ‘Encyclopedie Française’, available Family Complexes in the Formation of the Individual: 1938: Jacques Lacan.

Delivered as a paper at the 16th International Psychoanalytic Congress on 17th July 1949 in Zurich.

- ECp6 : one of the first to emphasize this, but not as early on as is generally thought, was [Karl] Abraham : probably A Short Study of the Development of the Libido, Viewed in the Light of Mental Disorders : 1924 : Karl Abraham : See here .

This paper is the most thorough going attempt to establish correlations between the stages of libidinal stages or phases.

Karl Abraham was Helene Deutsche’s analyst – see note in Seminar IV : 28th November 1956 on Helene Deutsche. Karl Abraham does not seem to have been present at the IPA meeting on 30th July 1953.

Further details  in Tracing Stages linked to Libido in Freud by Julia Evans on 24th October 2017 or here on how & if Freud develops stages.

Summary

So it seems that Jacques Lacan is pointing to Sigmund Freud’s insistance on function rather than static stages. In Letter to Wilhelm Fliess of 21st September 1897 : known as Letter 69 : Sigmund Freud (See here) Sigmund Freud comments on what drives function and states that ‘Then, third, the certain insight that there are no indications of reality in the unconscious, so that one cannot distinguish between truth and fiction that has been cathected with affect. ….’ [P264 of Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson’s translation of Letter of 21stSeptember 1897 ]

– p238 of Jean LaPlanche and  Jean-Bertrand Pontalis: The language of psychoanalysis : 1967 : Trans. D. Nicholson-Smith. New York: Norton.:

It is interesting that when he does raise the problem – as, for example, in ‘The Disposition to Obsessional Neurosis’ (1913) – the notion of the ego is not as yet restricted to the precise topographical sense that it is to have in The Ego and the Id (1923). He suggests that ‘a chronological outstripping of libidinal development by ego development should be included in the disposition to obsessional neurosis’, but he points out that ‘the stages of development of the ego-instincts are at present very little known to us’ …

We must stress that Freud for his part never undertook the formulation of a holistic theory of stages which would be able to embrace not only the evolution of the libido but also that of the defences, of the ego, etc.; such a theory eventually comes to include the development of the whole of the personality in a single genetic sequence under the general heading of the notion of object­relations.

– P45 of Ernst Kris : The psychic entities of psychoanalysis are described as organisms and characterised by their functions, just as physiological organs are. This is a direct link with the “Project” of 1895. From : Introduction to ‘The Complete Letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess 1887-1904′ : 1950 : Ernst Kris or here

See also The Project for a Scientific Psychology: 23rd & 25th September & 5th October 1895: Sigmund Freud or here

_____________________________________________________

- 19 ECp7 : ibid.

- ECp7 (bottom) : Analysis of a Phobia in a Five-year-old Boy – ‘Little Hans’: 1909 : Sigmund Freud

The dates of Jacques Lacan’s examination of Sigmund Freud’s five main case studies follow:

1950 to 1951 : Fragment of an analysis of a case of hysteria (‘Dora’) : 1901 ; Sigmund Freud

This seminar on Dora did provide the backdrop for his 1951 paper Intervention on the Transference (Paris): October 16th 1951: Jacques Lacan : See here .

1951 to 1952 : From the History of an Infantile Neurosis (The ‘Wolf Man’): 1914 : Sigmund Freud

A small excerpt is published as Seminario 1951- 1952 su “L’uomo dei lupi” (in Italian only) : Jacques Lacan : See here

1952 to 1953 : Notes upon a case of Obsessional Neurosis (The ‘Rat Man’) : 1909d : Sigmund Freud

This seminar informed Jacques Lacan’s text The Neurotic’s Individual Myth : 1953 : Jacques Lacan : See here 

1955 to 1956 : Psychoanalytic notes on an autobiographical account of a case of paranoia (Dementia Paranoides) [President Schreber] : 1910 (published 1911c) : Sigmund Freud

Seminar III : See here

Schreber’s ‘Memoires’ were published in English translation in 1955 as Memoirs of my nervous illness: 1903: D. P. Schreber   : See here though Jacques Lacan is very dismissive of this translation.

1956 to 1957 “Little Hans” : 1909 : Sigmund Freud

Seminar IV : a translation – a work in process

See also End Note

________________________________________________

- 27, ECp10 : There are many texts by E. Glover published in the International Journal of Psychoanalysis (I. J. P.) before 1957 such as :

Grades of Ego-Differentiation : 27th July 1929 (Oxford) published 1930 : Edward Glover : See here :

On the Etiology of Drug-addiction : July 1932 : Edward Glover : See here

The relation of perversion-formation to the development of reality-sense : 1933 : Edward Glover : See here

Note: Edward Glover was present, with others, at Minutes of the meeting of the International Psychoanalytical Association : 30th July 1953 : Dr Heinz Hartmann (IPA President & Chairman of the Meeting) : See here

& ECp10 : Quote from Seminar IV : ‘Certainly the notion of texts like those of Glover, for example, refer us to a very different notion of the exploration of object relations, even named and defined as such. We see Glover’s texts approach essentially what seems to me to characterize the stages, the phases of the object at different periods of individual development, that is, the object conceived as having a completely different function.’..…

ECp10-11 : Quote from Seminar IV : ‘The object is first of all an outpost against an established fear which gives it its role, its function at a given moment, at a determined point within a certain crisis of the subject, which is not therefore fundamentally a typical crisis nor a developmental crisis. This modern concept, if you will, of the phobia is something that can be more or less legitimately asserted. We will also have to criticize from the outset the concept of the object as promoted in the works and in the mode of conducting analysis characteristic of Glover’s thought and technique.’

It is probable that Jacques Lacan is referring to Maurice Bouvet’s comments on Edward Glover in Clinical analysis : 1956 : Maurice Bouvet [See here]. Here they are:

P48 of MB: Edward Glover

In this way, his relationships with other human beings appeared normal at the cost of an extremely rigid, defensive isolation, and his relationships with symbolic persons (his obsessions) were pathologic in a less controlled, and therefore more valid because dynamic, fashion.

Such a regression, as Glover has justly remarked, not only protects the subject from the inherent difficulties of the oedipal situation but also restores the subject to a perfectly tried and true mode of contact with the world.

p66 of MB: Edward Glover

A close connection exists between perverse and neurotic organizations of the psyche. There is no difference in nature between the perverse ego and the neurotic ego, and the problem always remains the same : how to organize the object relationship. But there remains one aspect of the question to which I should like to draw attention. As Glover pointed out in 1933, the existence of a perversion favours the conservation of a certain sense of reality. It represents a periodic attempt to struggle against introjection, and the projection of anxiety by excessive libidinization. Sometimes this is directed against the parts of the body of the subject or the object threatened with destruction. According to Glover, “Libidinization is one of the primitive cures for fear, for it obliterates the imaginary deformations of reality caused by fear.” If I understand this remark correctly, it is only to the extent that the patient can exhaust the regressive instinctual tensions and the accompanying conflicts within a significant object relationship which is limited to the system of the perversion or addiction that an apparently objective view of reality is possible.

See Seminar IV : 12thDecember 1956 (here for updates and new translations) where Jacques Lacan also critiques object relation theory and their development of stages using a paper by Alice Balint. There is also comment in Seminar I : 2ndJune 1954 :  p211, 212, 213 of John Forrester’s translation : See Seminar I: Freud’s papers on technique: 1953-1954 : begins on 13th January 1954 : Jacques Lacan or here on this paper.

- 28, ECp10 : The translation of ‘angoisse’. According to the on-line translation site www.linguee.fr, here , anxiety can translate to anxiété or rarer, inquiétude or angoisse or peur or crainte . Therefore whenever angoisse is translated as anxiety, angoisse appears in brackets. Note from Freud’s Lecture 25 – Anxiety :

See footnote 2 & 3 near the beginning for the translator’s note of the difference between Angst and Anxiety.

& 3 or 4 pages in, where Freud states ‘I will only say that I think ‘Angst’ relates to the state and disregards the object’ … ‘A certain ambiguity and indefiniteness in the use of the word ‘Angst’ will not have escaped you. By ‘anxiety’ we usually understand the subjective state into which we are put by perceiving the ‘generation of anxiety’ and we call this an affect. … But I do not think that with this enumeration we have arrived at the essence of an affect. We seem to see deeper in the case of some affects and to recognise that the core which holds the combination we have described together is the repetition of some particular significant experience.’

2 pages further on ‘If we now pass over to consider neurotic anxiety, what fresh forms and situations are manifested by anxiety in neurotics?’

Lecture 25 – Anxiety : 1917 : in Part III – General Theory of the Neuroses of Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis: 1915-1917 (Published 1916-1917) : Sigmund Freud :

Published by www.questia.com and available here

or published by www.gutenberg.org and available here

or published by www.archive.org and available here

– ECp10 : ‘Freud and others who have studied the phobia, both with him and after him, cannot fail to demonstrate that there is no direct connection to the “alleged fear” [prétendue peur] that would stain this object with its fundamental mark by constituting it as such, as primitive object. There is instead a considerable distance from the fear in question,’

“alleged fear” may refer to the following from Sigmund Freud :  Proceeding now to neurotic fear, what are its manifestations and conditions? There is much to be described. In the first place we find a general condition of anxiety, a condition of free-floating fear as it were, which is ready to attach itself to any appropriate idea, to influence judgment, to give rise to expectations, in fact to seize any opportunity to make itself felt. We call this condition “expectant fear” or “anxious expectation.” Persons who suffer from this sort of fear always prophesy the most terrible of all possibilities, interpret every coincidence as an evil omen, and ascribe a dreadful meaning to all uncertainty. Many persons who cannot be termed ill show this tendency to anticipate disaster. We blame them for being over-anxious or pessimistic. A striking amount of expectant fear is characteristic of a nervous condition which I have named “anxiety neurosis,” and which I group with the true neuroses.

From : Sigmund Freud : A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis : 1920 : Part Three – General Theory of the Neuroses : Section XXV Fear and Anxiety

_______________________________________________________

End Note

Jacques Lacan & Psychoanalytical Institutions

Object Relations theory (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_relations_theory) : The initial line of thought emerged in 1917 with Sandor Ferenczi and, later in the 1920s, Otto Rank, coiner of the term “pre-Oedipal,”. British psychologists Melanie Klein, Donald Winnicott, Harry Guntrip, Scott Stuart, and others extended object relations theory during the 1940s and 1950s. Ronald Fairbairn in 1952 independently formulated his theory of object relations.

Within the London psychoanalytic community, a conflict of loyalties took place between Klein and object relations theory (sometimes referred to as “id psychology”), and Anna Freud and ego psychology. In America, Anna Freud heavily influenced American psychoanalysis in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. American ego psychology was furthered in the works of Hartmann, Kris, Loewenstein, Rapaport, Erikson, Jacobson, and Mahler. In London, those who refused to choose sides were termed the “middle school,” whose members included Michael Balint and D.W. Winnicott.

1932 to 1938 : Dr Rudolph Loewenstein was Jacques Lacan’s training analyst. Born in Poland, Loewenstein would emigrate to New York during the War, where he would be a principal proponent of ego psychology.

1934 : Joined the Société Psychoanalytique de Paris

1936 : Presented paper on the ‘mirror stage’ to the International Psychoanalytic Congress in Marienbad (Information here )

Until 1952 : Distinguished member of the French psychoanalytic establishment

1953 :

From Wikipedia : Société Française de Psychanalyse : Despite wishing himself to avoid a split, Lacan was drawn into the dissident movement led by Daniel Lagache, as a result of his own separate dispute with the president Sacha Nacht over his practice of “short sessions”.

8th July 1953 : Conference Report, SIR : Inaugural meeting of SFP, Paris : 8th July 1953 : Jacques Lacan or here This was the first so-called scientific presentation of the new Societé Française de Psychanalyse (French Psychoanalytic Society), which had just resulted from the split that occurred in the French psychoanalytic movement.

14th July 1953 : Letter to Rudolf Loewenstein : 14th July 1953 : Jacques Lacan or here Rudolf Loewenstein was also the analyst of the two other principles referred to in this letter, Sacha Nacht and Daniel Lagache. Daniel Lagache, a psychoanalyst and Sorbonne professor, was a proponent of integrating psychoanalysis into a general theory of psychology. He saw in the University the institutional ethos best suited for guiding the organization of the practice of psychoanalysis

21st July 1953 : Letter to Heinz Hartmann : 21st July 1953 : Jacques Lacan or here

30th July 1953 : Minutes of the meeting of the International Psychoanalytical Association : 30th July 1953 : Dr Heinz Hartmann (IPA President & Chairman of the Meeting) . An analysis of the emergent themes here Many of those critiqued in Seminars I & II, were present & active at this meeting. Dr Rudolph Loewenstein, tried to find a way through supported by Dr Paula Heimann & others. Miss Anna Freud & Dr Sacha Nacht, supported by Dr Ernest Jones & Princess Marie Bonaparte seem to lead the attack.

26th September 1953 : Following the lecture in July 1953, Lacan set about writing the report that he was to present in Rome two months later at the first congress of the new society and which was epoch-making (Rome Report (Autres Écrits) : Also known as ‘The function and field of speech in psychoanalysis’ :  September 1953 (Écrits) : see here for information & availability.

18th November 1953 : Seminar I begins

17th November 1954 : Seminar II begins.

21st November 1956 : Seminar IV begins.

In the first session, La psychanalyse d’aujourd’hui : 1956 : a collection under the direction of Sacha Nacht is criticised by Jacques Lacan [See here for further information.] The whole seminar is returning ‘object relations’ from the certainties emerging with the ego psychologists to the structures as proposed by Sigmund Freud. Jacques Lacan also comments on Sigmund Freud’s fifth case study ‘Little Hans’.

Julia Evans

Practicing Lacanian Psychoanalyst, Earl’s Court, London

Further posts:

Translation : Seminar IV : The Object Relation & Freudian Structures 1956-1957 : begins 21st November 1956 : Jacques Lacan or here

Notes & references for Seminar IV : 28th November 1956 by Julia Evans  on 2nd July 2017 or here

Commentary on Maurice Bouvet’s description of Object Relations Theory (Seminar IV) by Julia Evans  on 27th July 2017 or here

Commentary on Maurice Bouvet’s case of Obsessional Neurosis (Seminar IV) : a reconstruction of the case by Julia Evans  on 15th June 2017 or here

Some Lacanian History here

Of the clinic : here

From other LW working groups : here

Translation Working Group here

Lacanian Transmission : here

By Sigmund Freud here

Notes on texts by Sigmund Freud : here

Or by Jacques Lacan : here

Notes on texts by Jacques Lacan here

By Greg Hynds : here

By Julia Evans (See here or www.LacanianWorks.net )