Chapter 6. 1973 São Paulo. Brazilian Lectures

If psychoanalysis is to survive and develop, there has to be a contact with the reality with which we deal. That is why the practice of psychoanalysis is dependent on the analyst and the analysand being able to contact psychoanalytic facts. When we talk about ‘psychoanalytic facts’, that is itself a theory; it is a definitory hypothesis and practice depends on being able to recognize what kind of event falls into the category of ‘fact’. Unfortunately, all I can do here is to mention further theories, but in the practice of analysis carried on in the consulting room, there is a chance of being able to say, “That is what I call a fact”, or, “That is what I mean when I say ‘anxiety’”, or, “That is what I would call ‘sex’”. The reply can be: “What about it? We all know that”, or, “What about it? It's nonsense – typical of psychoanalysts to say it's sex”. This situation can arise over and over again because we have to use words like hate, envy, jealousy, anxiety and it is difficult to say “I don't really mean what you mean when I say ‘envy’ or ”sex’”. It is relatively easy to talk about physical facts such as the resemblance of the baby's hand to that of the adult. But it is not so easy when it comes to mental facts like the feelings of the baby which grow up into the feelings of a man or woman. In the consulting room it is easier, because it is possible to say, ”What you have just said”, or ”What you have just done is what I call sex”, or, ”That which you have just expressed in ordinary language is what I call evidence of envy”. The advantage of being able to do that is that the analysand can say, ”I don't agree with you”, or, ”I agree with you”, or, ”I think I see what you mean”. One could say, ”You don't deny this, but you can't confirm that what I have said is right. Perhaps later on something will happen which may show that we are both right about this, or perhaps that we are both mistaken.”