***
LACANBERRA
Project
***
Bulletin for psychoanalysis and social sciences
Volume II Issue 3
Autumn-Winter 2012
Lacanberra Project is a professional group in Canberra (ACT), dedicated to the study of Lacanian psychoanalysis and social sciences. Lacanberra Project is connected to the Lacan Circle
Consultant: Dr Russell Grieg, Associate Professor, Deakin University Melbourne/Geelong, Faculty of Arts and Education, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, President of the Lacan Circle Melbourne
Practice of Lacanian psychoanalysis: Dr David Westcombe, Curtin Consulting Rms, Canberra
Theory of Lacanian psychoanalysis and social fields: Dr Milan Balazic, Associate Professor, University of Ljubljana, Faculty for Social Sciences, Ambassador of the Republic of Slovenia in Australia and New Zealand
EVENT
ANU Centre for European Studies (ANUCES), Australian National University , Canberra
THE FUTURE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
(Slovenian Perspective)
Dear ladies and gentleman,
Esteemed Australians,
Fellow Slovenians,
Distinguished guests,
I am honoured to be invited to Australian National University Centre for European Studies (ANUCES) which has the reputation for attracting interesting speakers to its meetings. I would also like to be one of them, so - let’s start with a little quiz in geography: what is Slovenia Slovakia Slavonia ? Ex-russian province? Wrong. The answer is no.
Perhaps it is even too hidden to notice its fascinating history. Slovenia led an independent state already in 7th century: at that time it was called Carinthia . The elections of Carinthian duke were very similar to what we would call today democratic elections. Believe it or not, but this is exactly a model that Thomas Jefferson took as the basis for the concept of the US
The 80’s of the previous century saw the rise of strong democratic movements and in 1990 Slovenia Belgrade refused Slovenian proposal for democratic confederation in Yugoslavia Belgrade and Yugoslavia
With this constitutional act we legally established a single supreme authority on the territory of Slovenia Slovenia as a sovereign nation and a declaration of independence was sent to Belgrade Belgrade Slovenia Europe . We liberated our part of Europe . We broke away in two key ways: with Communist totalitarianism and with Yugoslavia
After 1991 and a short war – that we won - we fully established an independent state - not in the name of our nationalism but in the name of our commitment to democracy. Slovenia
In the last twenty years, from the day when Slovenia voted in a plebiscite to make its own way in the world, Slovenia Slovenia
Furthermore: Slovenian companies have in recent time produced numerous successful and highly innovative products. Ever heard of Elan skis, the ones used by skiing world champions? Or Seaway sailing boats and Pipistrel ultra light aircraft? Or perhaps the brilliantly designed Gorenje household appliances? And many other small, but highly innovative companies. Their products are persistently breaking into foreign markets and lend a boutique-type quality to Slovenia Slovenia
Trade between Slovenia and Australia Slovenia Chicago and Brussels Slovenia
Dear ladies and gentleman,
allow me a few words on the future of Europe . As we all know, XXth Century is over. There are many social models of this century that are out of date: communism, fascism, conservative corporatism and old big social democratic welfare state. But what about liberal democracy and capitalism? After the fall of the Berlin Wall emerged the Fukuyama
EU and US are in the middle of financial and economic crisis. For me this is a period of transformation. But when we talk about the reasons for it the leftists are pointing their finger at the liberal capitalism. A system with human face, they say, a system of morning greed and afternoon charity. For me this is not the answer, it is a question. The utopia of today is the idea that everything will go on like today without serious reforms of structural malfunctions. Instead we need new inventions and re-novations.
There is another reason for that. Western liberal democracy and capitalism are facing a huge competitor: so-called capitalism with Asian values, authorized by Lee Kwan Yu of Singapore and adopted by Deng Shiaoping of China China
I think, the right answer is – REFORMS. I am an optimist. Perhaps there’s an impression that the EU is in terrible crisis, especially by what is presented in the media. But the EU is doing well, it is alive and kicking. There comes a time when we have to focus and pose the right questions. The way how we formulate the questions is the part of the problem. There are no quick answers and easy solutions, just because we are approaching deep dead-locks – not in an apocalyptic manner, but in rational way. Yes, “Houston
There are also problems with democracy itself: it is losing its substance, there are democracy issues with anti-immigrant, nationalist parties and movements. Nationalism is a post-modern answer to globalization and not some kind of relic of the past. The problem is that the changes are set in such a way that nothing will fundamentally change. For this reason, the EU needs a new starting position for reforms. We need to reframe our perspective in order to see, what is possible and what not. For instance:
· flying to the Moon and Mars, living practically eternally, biogenetics, cloning, growing and replacing new organs is possible;
· a modest change of liberal capitalism, to expand democracy from political to civil-society and economic level (as a new productive force) is impossible: we will loose our competitivness, they say.
Institutionalized democracy is not strong enough to deal with global economic or ecologic problems. So I think we need to invent new democratic institutions of civil society out of state mechanisms and market for the market. This should be society of democratised democracy and liberal capitalism with Western values: efficiency and high productivity on one hand and social rights, including dignity of working people, on the other. The EU is in an excellent position to achieve that.
Famous French philosopher Michel Foucault once paradoxically said: the EU is the continuation of Europe ’s wars – but today, on the symbolic level. In other words, the fight continues, but it is a fight with words and ideas. In this framework, Europe is eternal idea, reinvented in every new historical situation. But it is now, that for the first time it has achieved an internal cohesion without a reason of having an external enemy like figures of the Other once upon the time: islam, jews, communists, immigrants etc. Within this logic we need to re-invent of Europe . We have to reinvent it by public use of reason, if I recall the words of another famous philosopher – Immanuel Kant.
The EU is so much more than bureaucracy in Brussels Europe haws a common European identification. We share the ideas of equality, democracy, human rights. We share the specific Judeo-Christian tradition, rich culture, heritage of modernity, philosophy, good life, exceptional food and wine (especially if you try excellent Slovenian wine). After the fall of the European Constitution we need a new definition of Europe - a vision of Europe that will mobilize people with less technocratic pragmatism and more efficient politics.
The ongoing crisis of EU appears as crisis of economy and finance. But that’s not the whole truth. The crisis which started in 2008 was imported: as always, blame America Union of independent national states or just a Common market. My answer would be: United States of Europe as modern and effective federation.
We need a lot of patience to make the EU come out of crisis. And we need to be prepared to new and different possibilities. We, Europeans, need to open trans-european debate, reformulate our problems, but also fell responsibility for the other parts of the world. Great and unique legacy of Europe is worth fighting for - because we learn from our mistakes. And because I am Slovenian I am also an unconditional defender of the EU. True fidelity is only possible in the form of resurrection: our common European return to “more Europe” looks like Hollywood comedies of re-marriage – the only true marriage is the second marriage (to the same person).
Thank you for your patience.
LECTURE
RETURN TO THE POLITICS OF PSYCHOANALYSIS
For Lacan, one of the fundamental symbolic places of the discourse of tradition are the Vatican corridors: speaking of freedom, Lacan recognises free thinkers only here – he cannot say for himself that he is a free thinker as he needs to remain true to what he says. Their free thinking gives meaning to everything – from the Big Bang theory to the great moan of human rights. Their theology incorporates everything – from the pagan tradition to contents of other religions and Thomistic restoration of ancient philosophy. Free thinkers stabilise the meaning of life and work on this side with a reward for the 'valley of suffering and tears' which unites us in a fraternity on the other. According to Lacan's distinction, orientation toward the Promised Land includes a jouissance separated from the cosmic substance and related to the semblant of the fraternal vow[1].
The fraternal vow of the included brings about universal ora et labora through a specific work ethic which becomes the protection law for enjoyment: "In this current era, the safety of jouissance enjoyed by the wealthy has been significantly increased by something what I will call universal legislation of labour"[2]. The social wars of the past have no equivalent in our era as a capital mutation occurred which gave the discourse of the master of the capitalist style, or, in other words, became the discourse of the capitalist: "…exploited or not, workers work. As far as the human race goes, labour has never been so highly regarded. It is out of the question not to work. This is still a partial success of what I call the discourse of the master"[3].
In the discourse of the capitalist derived from the discourse of the master, Marx discovers object a as the surplus-jouissance on the level of surplus-value. Marx did not invent this; however, before him, nobody knew where it was positioned: to the place of additional or rather surplus labour which can buy us enjoyment. Psychoanalysis facilitates our understanding of how the discourse of market economy in the capitalist society is related to subject's gains. As such, goods are related to the signifier-master; Marx's revelation solves nothing – this connection remains unchanged in the Communist era. As the truth of the discourse of the master in its capitalist derivation and post-revolutionary discourse of the university (which is, by the way, attached to the discourse of the capitalist) is masked, the analysis of everything that happens is important.
Surplus value can easily get attached to capital since we are in a homogenous field of value and knowledge, i.e., the discourse of the master – capitalist and the discourse of university: "First we have to see why the discourse of the master is so firmly established: so firmly that only a few among you have an idea how stable it is. This is the result of what Marx showed – not the full extent, I must say – in regards to production and what is called surplus-value and not surplus-jouissance. Since one moment in history, something in the discourse of the master changed. We will not try to figure out whether it was due to Luther or Calvin or to who-knows-what shipping traffic around Genoa or in the Mediterranean or elsewhere; the key is that from this specific day onwards the surplus value is counted, added, accounted for. Here starts what we call accumulation of capital"[4]. Accumulation of capital represents accumulation of surplus value and takes place along with a turn, when object a on the level of the discourse of university is in the position of more or less bearable exploitation.
Due to this exploitation, nobody dies of shame – the discourse of the university in the manner of Hegel's beautiful soul serves an offering after which there is no shame, even if this light-heartedness on every step can meet with embarrassment that we are still alive: "This is exactly what psychoanalysis uncovers. If you sober up a little, you realise that this embarrassment justifies the fact that you do not die of shame, that is, that you are trying to maintain the discourse of the perverted master with all your might – this is the discourse of university"[5]. We die of shame when we are forced to watch the fall of our own signifier which receives the fatal blow as the bearer of symbolic dimensions and the meaning of subject's being. Shame is related to the development of split from one's own signifier at the point of shortcut between the subject's being and the signifier who fails him.
"To die of shame" therefore means that the subject's symbolic being is exposed to blows which are experienced as the progressive disappearance of being in reality. As the subject with his signifier does not disappear, he encounters a break down and remains exposed with no symbolic cover: he is ashamed. The imperative of the discourse of university, however, is quite the opposite, the disappearance of shame, a call to the subject not to be ashamed of himself and his enjoyment. The perceived decline of the symbolic dimension for the benefit of survival implies that the subject is not willing to die for the Cause and – as Hegel's master – risk death in the fight for pure prestige.
Actually, the symbolic causality dimension and effectiveness of the signifier is still here, it is only that it has been pushed under the bar of the discourse of university: S1 under S2. This is not only a matter of opposing positions of the classic and the modern discourse of the master where prompting shame would work as a reflex of master's logic of honour and subject's singularity pointed at the reduction per unit of exchange value. We are dealing with a call for the subject to drop his desires as perseverance, sacrifice or death do not pay and this opens the register of guilt and priority of life. Thus, the discourse of university discredits real effectiveness of the subject in such a way that it becomes split from the reality of his signifying dimension and establishes the dimensions of knowledge (S2) and surplus-jouissance (a). Lacan emphasises that shame is that gap from where the signifier-master grows; it is necessary to approach it to an extent in order to subvert the discourse of the master. Shame can put pressure on knowledge to a degree when the signifier-master and the shift of inability of the Other of modern social ties are produced. Knowledge alone will not suffice – a certain risk of act is required which is taken from the truth of situation "for, if you wish that your words are subversive you must be very careful that they do not stick too strictly to the path of truth"[6].
In this act it is very important to make a distinction between acting out and passage à l'acte: the former is still a symbolic act addressed to the Other and the transition to the act introduces the act as real and thus suspends the dimension of the Other. Acting out is a (hysterical) exit from the symbolic trouble via act with a message directed at the Other where the dimension of truth remains active. The transition to the act steps out of the existing symbolic network and dissolves the status quo of the social tie. The dimension of truth is suspended by being positioned on the level of the real and subverted through the dissolving of the active social tie. If the subject takes the place of lacking in the Other, it can carry through the separation and suspend the masterdom of the Other, in other words, it carries out a separation from the existing symbolic order. This act of separation annihilates the gap between the impossible command and positive intervention. When Lacan claims that "the real act can never happen", this impossibility does not indicate that it cannot happen, quite the opposite – in the act, the impossible happens.
The hypothesis of the impossible that happened is an act by which the subject adopts non-existence of the Other and actualises the impossible within the existing socio-symbolic order. Such an "impossible" act of pure loss changes the coordinates of the strategically possible within the existing order. Lacanian perspective of event as a twisted space of being which follows the logic of pas-tout is opposed by Badiou's argument according to which what counts is not an event as an encounter with the real itself but rather its registration and the consistency of the new discourse that arises from the event. This counterargument, however, turns against Badiou and philosophical inconsistency, against the hysterical position in defending the impossible goal of pure presentation with no position of representation. The act implies the risk of taking the position of the master and reshaping political power and not just to maintain the safe hysterical position defined by the opposition to the master[7].
Every act (acte) gets over some kind of barrier which is at its core the barrier of incest and patricide. The Freudian myth is concerned with the patricide whereby the dead father is even stronger than the living one as the symbolic authority of the Name-of-the-Father takes the reins. With French revolution dies the dead father himself and thus loses his symbolic power. His name no longer operates in the sense of the basis of authority and in retrospect he shows himself as a crook – as every legislator. The fall of the symbolic authority is not followed by never ending spreading of revolutionary slogans but rather by the symbolic father's back side – the cunning reign of superego, semblant and Name-of-the-Name-of-the-Name-of-the-Father. If Marx says that the discourse of the capitalist is ruled by freedom, equality, brotherhood… and Bentham, Lacan says or worse (ou pire): Capitalism is ruled by freedom, equality, brotherhood and … père ou pire. From here comes Lacan's play of words where he reads révolution as rêve-olution, dream-olution. This neologism highlights the dreamy core of revolution where the meaning of subversion is covered by a semblant. The intertwining of revolution and semblant no doubt positions the meaning of the word 'revolution' in a turn in the circle, in a circular movement, and not to a subversion of the existing order.
The repetitive movement of revolution always, just like dreams in the meaning of the real which always return to the same place, returns to its starting point. Hence, revolution also belongs to the order of true acts that can never happen: the opposite meaning of the cessation of circling and discontinuation can only be a result of invention in which the repetition of the real uncovers the position of semblant. Revolution is an invention which is imposed in the form of semblant and preceded by the horror of the revolutionary act in the loneliness of its singularity. In its notional form and from a distance, its derivation to a semblant triggers a desire with no tense closeness to the real and the object–the reason of desire. Desire carries the promise of a new order which will stabilise the singular decentralisation with a new universal centralisation. According to Lacan, here is all progress: as a hypothesis of every master, it is in the function of repeated normalisation of the situation which will breed new eternal dreams of revolution – from spherical centralised circulation to revolutionary decentralisation and back.
In this way we described the movement of enjoyment, the basis of which in relation to the subject was established by the only true historical transition – from feudalism to capitalism. This transition was managed by Puritanism: "If we bring the universalisation of management of goods to its final consequences then the movement in which the world we live in today is embedded implies some kind of curtailment, sacrifice, namely the puritanic style in relation to desire as it was established through history"[8]. In the period between Seminar VII and Seminar XVII, Lacan's diagnosis of the movement of the world changed: instead of Puritanism the discourse of the capitalist is characterised by permissiveness. Capitalism separated itself from Puritanism and replaced the ban by prohibiting the ban.
The two periods, however, are differentiated by another issue: before the Paris Vincennes
If stereotyped masses recite symbols and extinguish their subjectivity into no turning in circle, Lacan evokes creative subjectivity which requires renewal of symbolic power. This subjective creation is supported by very few, therefore there will be no progress in finding the way out of the discourse of the capitalist if it is only for some and not for all. The limititation of this small number turns the before mentioned exit into a romantic perspective: in the discourse of the capitalist, the position of factor is taken by the hysterised subject ($) with no further reference from the signifier-master (S1). The consequence of this situation is the spread of non-nobleness. By deleting singularity S1 subjects are marked by signifiers which are merely more numerous. The signifier-master was the only point of singular value which could not be weighed, quantified or calculated.
By his proposal to prompt shame, Lacan wishes to turn the time from lowness to nobility: this proposal has nothing in common with guilt; shame could only serve as a facilitator to re-establish the signifier-master, the singularity of the subject. In front of him is the bearer of aristocratic virtue which allows the subject to transition to the other side primum vivere: something the modern man relinquishes through fear of death and desire for safety. The latter has its continuation in the 'virtue' of greed on the basis of which capitalism operates. It keeps spreading to all areas including in psychoanalysis where in the form of strategy of misunderstanding introduces procedures of cognitive evaluation and recognition of the reign of cost calculations and profits[10].
As the discourse of the capitalist focuses on the surplus of object a, it is no longer the discourse of the master. Its stability is replaced by instability of the symbolic order and dynamics of out-of-date material products. Continuous manufacturing of piled up waste is the result of permanent innovation where the cause is the transition in the subject's relationship with progress from tragique to moque-comique: "The main production of modern and postmodern capitalist industry is precisely waste. We are postmodern beings because we have realised that all our aesthetically pleasing consumer products will end up as remnants which will eventually turn the Earth into a huge rubbish tip. Tragedy has lost meaning; we perceive progress as subject to ridicule."[11]
The same applies to inter-subjective relations that were outlined by the transition from the signifier-master to object a. In the discourse of the master, the signifier-master (S1) ensures that the subject's identity and subject's ethical dignity is related to the loyalty to this signifier. This identification with the signifier-master is a ticket to tragedy: the subject is trying to remain loyal to the signifier who gives meaning and consistency to his existence; however, in the end his efforts fail due to object a which the signifier-master is unable to subordinate. On the other side, there is the elusive postmodern subject who, as he no longer receives any stable support from the signifier-master – keeps shifting. His consistency is established through the relation to pure left-overs, waste, throw-away and surplus, to the comical slice of the real. This identification with waste does not provide any dignity but rather presents a ticket to a ridiculous existence in which we witness persistent mocking subversion of any firm symbolic identification.
Identification with the signifier-master, the master's word (maître-mot) ensures and authorises the certainty of existence – 'il y a' that transforms into 'that's how it is'. Master's realistic decisions comprise the reality which determines being and at the same time imposes masterdom that requires serving. The secret of 'realpolitik' is the necessity of faith in the founding word which establishes continuity of the world of everything through subject's adaptation[12]. In psychoanalysis, Freud discovered that in the subject there is something opposing which is fundamentally unadaptable – the unconscious: "in this, psychoanalysis is on the side of freedom for if we imagine that the human being is totally adaptable there is only one thing left, and that is that we try to control his environment in a totalitarian way; in this way we imagine we can mould the human being. I do not believe that any teaching that promises to build a new human being is a true teaching of liberation. At the same time, Freud is certainly not leading us to trust anybody who aims to control human being's adaptation; I dare say that this is mainly turned against essential totalitarianism that is brought about – for many of you this may be a paradox – by any kind of empirics. On this basis we can see the revolutionary and subversive value of psychoanalysis, and also how psychoanalysis does not think that hope is necessarily on the side of truth "[13].
Lacanian politics does not put its stakes on the truth but rather on the real, hence it sees the progressivism of political fights and progress as something foreign. For J.-A. Miller, Freud's and Lacan's political scepticism leads to an oxymoron in which psychoanalysis is meant to be populist, liberal in Lacan's sense, that is, enjoy and let others enjoy[14]. As it was said before, for psychoanalysis revolutions are illusionary, but this does not mean that it preaches rejection of enjoyment and/or the death of the revolutionary desire: for the very reason that revolution is impossible, it is desirable. Finally, the School of Freud
Philosophical ethics is the ethics of values whereas psychoanalysis ethics is well-said ethics. The former ethics is formulated in maxims and principles that apply to everything. Aristotle and Spinoza developed the ethics of the universal, and Kant took it further to the universal logic of possible act according to the criteria of moral law. Analytical experience is in opposition to this philosophical illusion and poses the question of the ethics of singular[17]. Psychoanalysis subverts the philosophical ethical ideal but does not mean it subscribes to the revolutionary kind of change. The political-philosophical revolution is in paradigm always the result of an epistemological revolution: such was the case of, for example, the French Revolution as a result of realising scientific rationality of the era of Enlightenment.
The invention of the real requires another type of ethics which is based on the formula that those non-deceived are wrong. If the non-deceived are wrong because they are deceived by truth as semblant, psychoanalysis is open to be deceived by the real from where it can position truth as semblant. In the discourse of the master, this semblant is arbitrary and affects the semblant of power whereas psychoanalysis is here to serve the suffering subject. It is up to psychoanalysis to recognise non-transitions of everything in power regardless of whether it is on the left or on the right. As psychoanalysis uncovers the social division in surplus-jouissance it does not protect semblants of power which continue with their enjoyment but rather creates de-idealisation by providing a good reason. In this way, it breaks away from the routine which is essential for the identification with tradition: psychoanalysis neither ensures bourgeois dreams nor justifies arbitrary progressivism or authoritarian conservatism as they both add to the social order the flavour of necessary obscurity[18].
The actual non-transitions of our civilisation are not only related to the discourse of the master in the form of the discourse of capitalism attached to the discourse of the university. Segregation, racism, democratic levelling and emptying of post-politics, the culture of evaluation and the cult of number are products of the discourse of science which strives for the ideal of universal laws independent of the individual. The modern scientist is an alchemist who follows his ideal of pure objectivity on the basis of subject's exclusion. Science with the ideal of 'object with no subject' is in modern day complemented by ultra-Platonist philosophers, such as Badiou, who see as the ideal the 'subject with no object'. Nevertheless, they do not create much disturbance to the tendencies of science to level everything and to conform it to the norm. It is a matter of a new enjoyment of the universal which is the motivation for the discourse of science as an universal and egalitarian passion.
Here we can already see the danger presented by the discourse of science if it is directly applied to the structuring of the social order. Results include barbarian universalisations of jouissance – segregation, discrimination, racism – as the consequence of scientific progress. In the scientific discourse it appears as the yield of Saint-Simon technicists and the optimistic perspective on social transformation. The contemporary imperative of jouissance at any price is the course of discomfort in culture to which the psychoanalytic realisation of singularity appears as something extraordinary. In this imposed embrace, psychoanalysis articulated a 'return to politics' in order to meet the discourse of science in the open with its own means – with cognitivism. At the same time, this represented a return to some form of militantism by defending the Freudian cause, to an ideological war that assisted psychoanalysis in the fight against cognitivistic quantifiers, obsession with numbers and the dictate of the evaluation culture.
This is not science but rather a distortion which discards everything that cannot be measured or made empirically tangible as non-existent. Cognitivism defines the human being by using the analogy of a machine with the ability to process information; it is thus subject to vulgar materialism of the worst kind. It looks at people from the laboratory perspective with the view of finding an even more productive worker profile which could then be imposed as a standard to everyone. Metaphors relating to soul numbers have infiltrated daily thinking about the meaning to which cognitivism helps finding a new ontological understanding of being. Psychoanalysis is thus forced to accept the challenge of positivist scientism and in respect of cognitivism steps on the path of a real subversion of this reigning ideology of (humanistic) sciences[19].
Within this framework, psychoanalysis has no problem recognising that it is not scientific in Popper's sense. It accepts that it is a 'pseudo-science' in a clash with purely positivist 'scientific' psychology. Cognitivist dreams are related to social contingencies from which it develops its hypotheses and protocols of the laboratory world. This world is a complete universe with real human souls as its elements perceived in the manner medical science approaches the human body. Neopositivist dreams are structured as a dogmatic mysticism of mythical powers held by natural sciences in their opposition to social sciences which are incapable of scientific objectivisation, empirical testing of theories and certainty of prediction, all of which disqualifies their 'scientificability'. The return of scienticism requires a dogmatic reference to pertinent objectivity, despite the fact that quantum mechanics has proven its problematic standpoint – and technical effectiveness to instil, standardise and control the uncontrollability of desire by using cognitivistic methods of self-management and self-control.
Such scientific progress brings about fundamental political consequences. From the psychoanalytical perspective, the human being is rebelling against the authoritarian soul planning for totalitarian political projects and the cognitivist strategy of utilitarian-rational adjustment. The latter subscribes to the neoliberal concept of capitalism which presents everything, including the military intervention in Iraq , Afghanistan or Libya
The above mentioned procedures are shaped by the discourse of science which dreams of functionality and predictability of individuals reduced to the function of numbers. The technocratic social ideal of uniformity and quantification, standardisation and automatisation are just new images of scientific neutrality and objectivity. The hegemony of the discourse of science has built and empire of social technologies by refusing to recognise subject's singularity. In this respect, psychoanalysis provides resistance to the logics of 'scientific psycho-surgery' and focuses on the concept of subject's unconscious which is in radical opposition to the managerial bureaucracy and its dreams of technical formations[20].
***
[1] Lacan, J., Le séminaire XIXb: Le savoir du psychanalyste (1971-1972), 1. 6. 1972, unpublished typescript; Santner, E. L., Freud's Moses and the Ethics of Nomothropic Desire, in R. Salecl (ed.), Sexuation, Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2000, p. 57-105
[2] Lacan, J., Seminar VII: Etika psihoanalize (1959-1960), Ljubljana : DE, 1988, p. 199; Lacan , J., Le séminaire, Livre VII: L'éthique de la psychanalyse (1959-1960), Paris
[3] Lacan, J., Seminar XVII: Hrbtna stran psihoanalize (1969-1970), op. cit., p. 195; Lacan, J., Le séminaire, Livre XVII: L'envers de la psychanalyse (1969-1970), Paris
[4] Lacan, J., Seminar XVII: Hrbtna stran psihoanalize (1969-1970), op. cit., p. 207; Lacan, J., Le séminaire, Livre XVII: L'envers de la psychanalyse (1969-1970), Paris
[5] Lacan, J., Seminar XVII: Hrbtna stran psihoanalize (1969-1970), op. cit., p. 214; Lacan, J., Le séminaire, Livre XVII: L'envers de la psychanalyse (1969-1970), Paris
[6] Lacan, J., Seminar XVII: Hrbtna stran psihoanalize (1969-1970), op. cit., p. 216; Lacan, J., Le séminaire, Livre XVII: L'envers de la psychanalyse (1969-1970), Paris : Seuil, 1991; Zupančič, A., Lacan in sram, Ljubljana
[7] Badiou, A., Theoretical Writings, London Ljubljana
[8] Lacan, J., Seminar VII: Etika psihoanalize (1959-1960), Ljubljana : DE, 1988, p. 305; Lacan , J., Le séminaire, Livre VII: L'éthique de la psychanalyse (1959-1960), Paris
[9] Lacan, J., Écrits, Paris: Seuil, 1966, p. 757
[10] Miller, J.-A., Beležka o sramu, Ljubljana , Problemi 7-8, 2006, p. 39; Miller, J.-A., Note sur la honte, La Cause freudienne, no. 54, Paris
[11] Miller, J.-A., The Desire of Lacan , New York
[12] Milner, J.-C., Les noms indistincts, Paris
[13] Miller, J.-A., Pet predavanj o Lacanu v Caracasu, v: Gospostvo, vzgoja, analiza, Ljubljana : DDU Univerzum-Analecta, 1983, p. 20; Miller, J.-A., Cinco conferencias caraquenas sobre Lacan, Caracas
[14] Miller, J.-A., La psychanalyse, la cité, les communautés, La Cause freudienne, Paris
[15] In this respect, Université populaire de Psychanalyse Jacques Lacan was established in November 2009 with the aim to "educate the French people about Freud" (Université populaire de Psychanalyse Jacques Lacan), (Miller, J.-A., Lettre claire comme le jour pour les vingt ans de la mort de Jacques Lacan, in Lettres à l'opinion éclairée, Paris: Seuil, 2002, p. 69). Additionally, an international school for Lacanian psychoanalysis, Association Mondiale de Psychanalyse, AMP, was founded. This institution is fit to rival the infamous Freudian International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA). Even though there have been hints from the IPA that it may be willing to accept Lacan followers who were extradited twice in the period of Lacan's respective breakaways in 1953 and 1963, provided of course that they would renounce in one way or another Lacan but not the Lacanian thought which is beginning to making inroads in the IPA, there is no love lost between the two organisations. AMP, for example, adopted an ambitious strategy to conquer South America (Argentina but not Brazil
[16] Miller, J.-A., Lettre claire comme le jour pour les vingt ans de la mort de Jacques Lacan, op. cit., p. 76
[17] Miller, J.-A., Pas de clinique sans éthique, Paris
[18] Miller, J.-A., La psychanalyse, la cité, les communautés, op. cit., pp. 109-115
[19] Miller, J.-A., La psychanalyse, la cité, les communautés, op. cit., p. 112, 118
[20] Cartuyvels, Y., À propos du Livre noir de la psychanalyse. Guerre des psys ou enjeu de société?, in Miller, J.-A. (ed.), L'Anti-Livre noir de la psychanalyse, Paris