92

According to a recent text by Jean Laplanche, Oedipus (the mythological-symbolic character) no longer belongs to the “Unconscious.” By this formulation, Laplanche means the “pseudo-unconscious,” referring to a “Freudo-Lacanian” Oedipus that combines Lacan’s “return to Freud” of the 1950s and the Symbolic, i.e., the Oedipus of the Vulgate. But the status of the “myth,” which Laplanche applies to Freud’s “scientific myth” of the murder of the father and the Urmensch, refers to Lévi-Strauss. Laplanche criticizes Freud by means of the “retroactive” Lacanian concept of afterwardness, which contradicts Laplanche’s afterwardness of the theory of general seduction. To go further, this rationalist conception of the myth relates to the “social contract” in the civilization ( Kultur) and to a very French version of the Enlightenment, reinjected in the 20th century into Structuralism: here, nature is only a timeless myth, but in which civilization? The theory of general seduction, however, unwillingly represents a progress in the translation of the Oedipus in psychoanalysis. This concerns a non-pathological acception of the “unconscious” in Laplanche’s ongoing topography. I draft a connection (that Laplanche does not actually make) in an attempt to go back to the meaning of unconscious in the Freudian sense of “repressed,” a connection which should be broadened by revisiting the concept of hysteria in association to the Oedipus, an Oedipus to be generalized.