Full text unavailable

You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.

IJP 100(2):315-332 (2019) • DOI: 10.1080/00207578.2019.1576137

On the value of the Lacanian approach to analytic practice

Author: Bruce Fink

Abstract

Rachel Blass has kindly asked me to discuss here what is unique to the Lacanian approach to psychoanalytic practice and its relevance to non-Lacanian analysts. A few preliminary comments about this twofold task seem to me to be necessary:

There is no single Lacanian approach to psychoanalytic practice. There are many different Lacanian schools and they do not all emphasize the same facets or periods of Lacan’s teaching, nor do they all always interpret his work in the same way. Like the writings of Freud and Melanie Klein, Lacan’s work can be understood in a variety of ways, which entail different views of clinical practice. My own grasp of Lacanian theory is apparently thought by some in the Lacanian community to be overly direct, transparent, and simplistic, leading me to make excessively practical recommendations as regards technique—in a word, as overly “American.” This is, no doubt, at least partly because the French rarely if ever make any recommendations whatsoever regarding technique in print, and generally only discuss case material in highly condensed and abstract terms that give readers little sense of how they actually practise.
For me to indicate what is distinctive about Lacan’s approach implies contrasting it with how non-Lacanians practise, which assumes that I have extensive knowledge of other analytic schools—both their theoretical frameworks and approaches to practice. This would be to considerably overstate my familiarity with them. I have devoted the past 35 years to grappling with and translating Lacan’s often difficult work, and have only in the past decade begun to try to familiarize myself with other schools of psychoanalytic thought. Those well-versed in the work of other theorists are thus likely to find my characterizations of them somewhat reductionistic.
My knowledge of the work of other theorists comes from my admittedly limited reading, and my knowledge of what sort of practice their work leads to comes from three main sources: (1) clin

IJP 100(2):315-332 (2019) • DOI: 10.1080/00207578.2019.1576137

On the value of the Lacanian approach to analytic practice

Author: Bruce Fink

Abstract

There is no single Lacanian approach to psychoanalytic practice. There are many different Lacanian schools and they do not all emphasize the same facets or periods of Lacan’s teaching, nor do they all always interpret his work in the same way. Like the writings of Freud and Melanie Klein, Lacan’s work can be understood in a variety of ways, which entail different views of clinical practice. My own grasp of Lacanian theory is apparently thought by some in the Lacanian community to be overly direct, transparent, and simplistic, leading me to make excessively practical recommendations as regards technique—in a word, as overly “American.” This is, no doubt, at least partly because the French rarely if ever make any recommendations whatsoever regarding technique in print, and generally only discuss case material in highly condensed and abstract terms that give readers little sense of how they actually practise.
For me to indicate what is distinctive about Lacan’s approach implies contrasting it with how non-Lacanians practise, which assumes that I have extensive knowledge of other analytic schools—both their theoretical frameworks and approaches to practice. This would be to considerably overstate my familiarity with them. I have devoted the past 35 years to grappling with and translating Lacan’s often difficult work, and have only in the past decade begun to try to familiarize myself with other schools of psychoanalytic thought. Those well-versed in the work of other theorists are thus likely to find my characterizations of them somewhat reductionistic.
My knowledge of the work of other theorists comes from my admittedly limited reading, and my knowledge of what sort of practice their work leads to comes from three main sources: (1) clin