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.
The problem around the exchange of money in therapeutic relationships has many dimensions and can be viewed- or justified—from different theoretical or even ideological perspectives. The intrusion of the analyst's need into the therapeutic relation is often the culprit. Using Jacques-Alain Miller's language, the author argues that when it comes to matters of money, the analyst's unconscious at times reveals itself in a bizarre manner. This is particularly true when the analyst pockets the change if a naïve patient gives him a large bill. The reasoning is that the patient's unconscious has interpreted—fixed—a new price for his or her analysis. The question is: Would the analyst reduce the fee if the patient “unconsciously” gave him or her a small bill, i.e., less than the
* “Did You Say Bizarre?” is the title of a 1999 presentation by Jacques-Alain Miller at New York University. Miller contends that the analytic session is a monologue except when the analyst makes an interpretation, which Miller thinks is, in itself, always a bizarre mode of speech. He also maintains that the unconscious always reveals itself in a bizarre manner. The implication is evidently Miller's understanding of Jacques Lacan's conduct in analytic sessions. For Lacanians, another explanation of this behavior is to argue that Lacan intentionally tried to exhibit—enact—the language of the unconscious.
stipulated fee? If the analyst listens to the patient's unconscious by increasing the fee in the former case, why not equally listen to the unconscious by reducing the fee in the latter case? Should the analyst listen to the patient's unconscious only when it is in his or her self-interest? In such instances, it is more plausible to contend that the analyst listens to the unconscious language of capitalism.