Science and Anguish: The Two Paths of Access to the Real
Jean, Marie
Science and Anguish: The Two Paths of Access to the Real - 2014.
93
Freudian discovery and Lacanian theoretical advances repeatedly trace the path of a clinical practice, a major component of a reflection to be produced, and to maintain this keystone intact is our concern. Current logic would have us aim towards a standardization of practices and a generalization of diagnoses, thus revealing to common sense the concepts that are thought and theorized during clinical practices. The requirement of state and institutional examinations concerns, not only medical care, but also the assessment of inferred societal risks and the resulting costs. The obsession with zero risk leads to an escalation of assessment, anticipation, control, and cost management. It insists on anticipating, not only risks, but also threats. “The subject in question” cannot be reduced to a speech about the subject; the part which escapes, that of the real, must be taken into account. Irreducible, this stumbling block is sustained by the choice of its treatment. Should the illusion of a unified subject, the product of a fantasy of hold, not be left aside, and rather free rein be given to the ambiguity that the question of a divided subject raises?
Science and Anguish: The Two Paths of Access to the Real - 2014.
93
Freudian discovery and Lacanian theoretical advances repeatedly trace the path of a clinical practice, a major component of a reflection to be produced, and to maintain this keystone intact is our concern. Current logic would have us aim towards a standardization of practices and a generalization of diagnoses, thus revealing to common sense the concepts that are thought and theorized during clinical practices. The requirement of state and institutional examinations concerns, not only medical care, but also the assessment of inferred societal risks and the resulting costs. The obsession with zero risk leads to an escalation of assessment, anticipation, control, and cost management. It insists on anticipating, not only risks, but also threats. “The subject in question” cannot be reduced to a speech about the subject; the part which escapes, that of the real, must be taken into account. Irreducible, this stumbling block is sustained by the choice of its treatment. Should the illusion of a unified subject, the product of a fantasy of hold, not be left aside, and rather free rein be given to the ambiguity that the question of a divided subject raises?
Réseaux sociaux