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.
Both Lacanian and Kleinian theory are of such complexity that to make a comparison between the two is a hazardous undertaking. Discussion of one aspect of these theories inevitably, albeit unfortunately, neglects other equally important aspects. Since most people are trained in only one of the psychoanalytic schools, there is always the danger that when we bring our specialized knowledge of one theoretical school, or a certain psychoanalytic approach, to the table a stalemate ensues wherein each interlocutor turns a deaf ear to the Other. In such a context, Organisational and Social Dynamic's initiative in encouraging dialogue is commendable. Every psychoanalytic school has its blind spots, visible only from the outside, meaning that one can always learn something from the Other.
In his response to my paper ‘Caring and its Impossibilities - a Lacanian Perspective’, Andrew Cooper highlights some important issues and problems that, while potentially relevant to my paper, are not applicable as a critique of Lacanian psychoanalysis per se.
Lacanian psychoanalysis is characterised by a subversion of classical psychological and psychoanalytic conceptions of psychic problems. One feature of this subversion is found in Lacan's introduction of the three interrelated registers of mental experience he names the Real, the Imaginary and the Symbolic. It is by way of this three-part structure that Lacan develops his conceptualisation of psychoanalysis (cf. Nobus, 1998).
As indicated in our paper, the Real refers to the dimension of the drive, one of whose primary characteristics is found in the way all representations of it inevitably fail due to the drive's incongruous nature. Anxiety is considered to be its clinical manifestation. The concept of the Imaginary refers to the activity of identity-building and the formation of subjective images which are primarily acquired