Argument for the Conference on the Writings of Lacan in Belgium

By Adrian Ortiz

I am going to present a possible reading of Lacan’s Ecrit “Intervention sur le

transfert”. The reading of this article should be placed within the framework
of a way of conceiving the Lacan Freud articulation. And this within the at
least three ways of thinking of the analytic praxis from the path traveled by
Lacan.

Lacan has repeatedly indicated that reading implies applying to the text what
he proposes to us: in this regard, in this Ecrit, I would emphasize "le caractère
textuel du commentaire que j'en donne". The textual nature of the commentary
that I make." Textual here is to be understand in the sense of significant
materiality.

The text is marked by the incessant repetition of the term recognition and its
opposite misrecognition, and the term truth and its opposite, falsehood.
The repetition of certain terms has to do with the support the thesis gives to
recognition in its variants, recognition of man by man, recognition of the truth,
recognition of the truth of the object of desire.

But the main thesis that supports the significant articulation of the text has
been suppressed between one publication and another. This produces a
twisting of the text by shifting its centre of gravity from recognition to the
"dialectical renversements" the "dialectical reversals” marked by a logical
temporality. But, can the principal thesis of a text be withdrawn and still be
maintained? Does not this maintenance show that its structure does not rest
only on the theses it proposes or on its significant structure? Which shows that
the topology of the text is more complex than we thought at first sight. And
that is necessary to apply to it the topology of the object cause of desire, Mary
Douglas could help us to consider new perspectives in this regard.

But let's start first with the differences between the publication in 1952 in the
Revue francaise de psychanalyse (pages 154-163) and the republication and
rewriting in 1966 in the Ecrits (pages 215-226).

We note that there are two paragraphs that have been deleted and / or re-
formed. On line 9 of the Revue Francaise version of Psychanalye (RFP),
Lacan states: "Ce qui constitue en effet l'homme en tant qu'homme, c'est une
exigence d'être reconnu par l'homme". "What in fact constitutes man as a man,
is a requirement to be recognized by man."

He sets out in this way what lead to his initial conception of analysis:
recognition; in its various versions: recognition of man by another man,
recognition of desire, recognition of the truth of his desire.

It is clear, and explicit at that time, especially from his fervent denials, the
mark of Hegel and his Phenomenology of the spirit, which places recognition
as the foundation of the structure of the subject and the social bond.

What is psychoanalysis for Lacan at that moment? "Dans une psychanalyse en

effet, le sujet, à proprement parler, se constitue par un discours où la seule
présence du psychanalyste apporte avant toute intervention la dimension du
dialogue". That dialogue is characterized by the recognition of one by another,
that supporting the place of Another, seeks, recognizing in the analysand's
word the structure of a desire, having it recognized by the analysand.

The text then aims to ensure a "textual reading". The textual reading of this
Ecrit we have said allows us to verify that there are countless repetitions of
both the word truth and falsehood, and of the word recognition and
misrecognition in different senses:

1 “… c´est une exigence d´être reconnu par l´homme”

Rfp pag.154,
E supprimés
E (english version Fink/Grigg) deleted
E (castellano versión Tomas Segovia, suprimido

2 “… ne pouvons nous voir là quelque méconnaissance d´une donnée

immédiate” Rfp page. 155,
E. Page 216,
E (e F/G) page 177 “indicate misrecognition of an immediate given”
E (castellano versión Tomas Segovia, “¿No podemos ver en ello algún
desconocimiento de un dato inmediato…? Pag. 38

3 “Et reconnaître dans l´attention privilégiée accordée a la fonction des traits

muets” RFP page. 155
E page 216
E (e F/G ) page 177 “Must we not recognize, in the privileged attention...”
E (castellano versión Tomas Segovia, “…y reconocer, en la atención
privilegiada concedida a la función de los rasgos mudos del
comportamiento…” pag. 38

4 “Si méconnaissance il y a en effet nous devons l´interroger selon les

méthodes que nous appliquerions en tout semblable cas” RFP pag. 155
E page 216
E (e F/G ) page 177 “If, indeed, such misrecognition is occurring here..”
E (castellano versión Tomas Segovia, “Si hay en efecto desconocimiento
debemos interrogarlo según los métodos que emplearíamos en todo caso
semejante”. Pag. 38

5 “La femme c´est l´objet impossible à détacher d´un primitif désir oral et où
il faut pourtant qu´elle apprenne à reconnaître sa propre nature génitale.” RFP
pag. 159
E page 221
E (e F/G ) page 180 “Woman is the object which cannot be dissociated from a
primitive oral desire, in which she must nevertheless learn to recognize her
own genital nature”.
E (castellano versión Tomas Segovia, “La mujer es el objeto imposible de
desprender de un primitivo deseo oral y en el que sin embargo es preciso que
aprenda a reconocer su propia naturaleza genital.” Pag. 43

6 “Pour accéder à cette reconnaissance de sa féminité il lui faudrait réaliser

cette assomption de son propre corps” RFP pag 159
E page 221
E (e F/G ) page 180,181 “In order for her to gain access to this recognition of
her feminity, she would have to assume [assumer] her own body...”
E (castellano versión Tomas Segovia, Para tener acceso a este reconocimiento
de su femineidad, le seria necesario realizar esa asunción de su propio
cuerpo… pag. 43

7 “Mais cet hommage… Dora, ne pourrait être reçu par elle come
manifestation du désir, que si elle s´acceptait elle même comme objet du
désir” “RFP pag. 160
E page 222
E (e F/G ) page 181 “But this homage, whose beneficial value for Dora was
glimpsed by Freud, could be received by her as a manifestation of desire if she
could accept herself as an object of desire...”
E (castellano versión Tomas Segovia, Pero ese homenaje del que Freud
entrevé el poder saludable para Dora no podría ser recibido por ella como
manifestación del deseo sino a condición de que se aceptase a si misma como
objeto del deseo… pag 43,44

8 ... le problème de sa condition est au fond de s’accepter comme objet du

désir de l’homme...” RFP pag. 160
E page 222
E (e F/G ) page 181 “... the problem of her condition is fundamentally that of
accepting herself as a man’s object of desire...”
E (castellano versión Tomas Segovia, el problema de su condición ese n el
fondo aceptarse como objeto del deseo del hombre… pag. 44

9 “Si Freud en un troisième renversement dialectique eût donc orienté Dora

vers la reconnaissance de ce qui était pour elle Mme K…” RFP pag- 160
E page 222
E (e F/G ) page 181 “If, therefore, in a third dialectical reversal, Freud had
directed Dora towards a recognition of what Frau K was for her...”
E (castellano versión Tomas Segovia, Si Freud en una tercera inversión
dialéctica hubiese pues orientado a Dora hacia el reconocimiento de lo que era
para ella la Señora K…. pag. 44

10 “La question du sens du transfert positif ouvrant ainsi la voie à la

reconnaissance de l´objet viril” RFP pag 160
E page 222
E (e F/G) page 181 “... the question of the meaning of the positive
transference here), opening up the path to her recognition of the virile object.”
E (castellano versión Tomas Segovia, -no hacemos sino tocar aquí la cuestión
del sentido de la transferencia positiva- abriendo así el camino al
reconocimiento del objeto viril… pag. 44

11 “en entraînant tout le monde à la reconnaître pour malade…” RFP pag 161
E page 224
E (e F/G) page 182 “... leading everyone to recognize her as ill...”
E (castellano versión Tomas Segovia… la catástrofe por donde Dora entro en
la enfermedad, arrastrando a todo el mundo a reconocerla como enferma…
pag. 46
12 “À ce moment elle a fait reconnaître par tous la vérité” dont elle sait
pourtant qu’elle n’est pas, toute véridique qu’elle soit, la vérité dernière...
RFP pag 162
E page 224
E (e F/G) page “But at that time, she has gotten everyone to recognize the
truth which, as truthful as it may be, she neverthless knows does not constitue
the final truth...”
E (castellano versión Tomas Segovia, En ese momento ella ha logrado que
todos reconozcan la verdad… pag. 46

If the paragraph that concentrates the version of analysis focused on the search
for recognition is the one that articulates and ensures the significant structure
of the text, which locates the analyst seeking to recognize and make the
analysand recognize his desire, has been suppressed, it is because when Lacan
rewrites all his articles, when publishing his Ecrits in 1966, he does so from a
new conception of analytic praxis.

In 1952 Lacan was concerned about an "objectivation of certaines propiétés de

l'individu" "objectification of certain properties of the individual". And that
objectivation he contrasted with the structure of language in the conformation
of the subject. Hence his emphasis on psychoanalysis as a "dialectical
experience". The dialectical experience of the recognition of the other and his
desire. Placing the subject implied fundamentally locating it facing the
recognition of the desire object.

In this Ecrit there are two paragraphs where Lacan makes explicit his
conception, indicating where, according to him, Freud should have conducted
the analysis of Dora: in the first he expresses: "si elle s'acceptait elle même
comme objet du désir ..." "if she accept herself as an object of desire; in the
second he adds: "If Freud in a third dialectical turn had then directed Dora
towards the recognition of what Mrs. K was for her ...". For him the "error" of
Freud would have been to promote Mr. K to the place where Lacan places
Mrs. K.

The analytical dialectic happens because according to Lacan the analyst must
guide the analisand towards the recognition of it as the truth object at the time
as situating what constitutes the object for it.

But in 1966, at the time of writing his Ecrits Lacan goes from accentuating the
recognition of the object of desire to conceiving the object as the cause of
desire. It is no longer a matter of taking the subject towards the recognition of
what constitutes the object of his desire, but of situating the circumstances of
the emergence of the object caused by desire.

It is not a matter of changing Mr. K for Mrs. K or vice versa, but of situating
the emergence of the object as the cause of a fascination that in Freud's
analysis is represented under the modality of "la blancheur ravissante de son
corps" and by the figure of "the Madonna" in the Dresden Museum painting.

It is the very nature of this fascination that makes it fall, which makes it
impossible for the subject to appeal to any recognition. The fascination poses
an enigma to the analyst: How to intervene by appealing to the analysand from
and on the very picture scene of this fascination?