No, I’m not referring to telepathy, precognition, and the like. Instead, to break up my streak of my own commentary about therapy, I thought I’d call attention to a piece I have found valuable and intriguing.
A brief introduction to the work of Jean Laplanche by Dominique Scarfone.
The article is copyrighted, and I had to purchase it to read. It can be found in Int J Psychoanal (2013) 94:545-566.
Jean Laplanche is perhaps best known for the reference book, The Language of Psychoanalysis (with J.B. Pontalis). What I did not know was Laplanche’s fascinating and organized take on psychoanalytic theory. It was reportedly developed by “‘interpret[ing] Freud with Freud’.” (but this was not a Lacanian ‘return to Freud’; my brackets in the quote).
Scarfone’s summary of Laplanche’s work shows us a modified but (I think) quite versatile view on many psychoanalytic ideas. However, I found a few first aspects most clarifying overall—and it got me to thinking about possible links to mimetic theory (Girard, Reineke’s expansion), too. My comments are in [ ]
Instincts (Animal Needs, Psychological) vs. The Sexual (Human Desires, The Psychic)
Unlike other animals, humans rely on more than biological instinct (the “adaptive” order). We also have and rely on a more “devious” aspect—the sexual.
[Here, I find it useful to think more widely than sexuality only. I tend to think of ‘needing’ as the biological, “adaptive order”, with ‘desiring’ as this “sexual”, the specifically human aspect. In nature, the sexual (desiring) is unique to humans, as opposed to more universal needs that must be met for the physical survival and continuance of all creatures.]
[So, it seems ‘the sexual’ does not refer only to reproduction, it is about the meaning of sexual (and other) desires and gratifications. Perhaps desires might include wishes, fears, and related anxieties]
Psychological Reality, Objective and Biological. Psychic Reality, Subjective and Social
Psychological reality is focused on brain functioning and basic biological vitality. By contrast, psychic reality is a human dimension of reality in which (to the infant) the / an “other” is of prime importance.
That includes the other’s partially encrypted and mysterious messages to the infant about ‘the sexual’ [desiring / desirous-ness].
[In my view, there is a major potential link to mimetic theory here. Through others, we are given messages about ‘what one should want’ or ‘what people want’ or ‘what life means / is’, and so on. This is true even if–or especially if–it is communicated and received without conscious awareness. Indirectly sexual elements, such as that in breastfeeding, are only part of this, I would surmise.]
Not having nearly enough pre-programmed instincts, humans rely on that partly mysterious input when we are totally dependent and learning. The sexual [to me, ‘desirousness’] fills in the instinct blanks for humans.
The Consequences of Encoded / Cryptic Desire Messages
They leave us mystified and always trying to resolve something we can’t quite put our fingers on. We live with confusingly unexplained, unspoken, non-understood drivers of our experience and actions.
[The hidden desires of others continue to affect us without conscious explanation.] “A repressed sexual ‘contaminant’ thus passes through as a stowaway passenger on the carrier wave of the relation of attachment.”
[Of course, one could add that these encoded desire messages also seem to give us our subjective reasons for striving and being, or at least serve as important placeholders for that until we ourselves decode them, decide what to do with them, and possibly elect to modify or replace them! Without them, there would be intense uncertainty and anxiety.]
Cryptic Desire Implants vs. Cryptic Desire Intromissions (Violations)
In a body metaphor, Laplanche referred to the unconsciously communicated and stored sexual [desire-based] propositions of others as being like a skin-level ‘implant’. It is a permanent irritant we are always trying to soothe or solve. The provider of the desire propositions often did not know they were transmitting anything and did not actually force their desires on us. Instead, there were cryptic hints and omissions, propositions (verbal, contextual, nonverbal, etc.) about such matters but no serious acting out. Such a situation is normal to ‘neurotic’.
However, corresponding to metaphoric violations of the body, the other sometimes does more forcefully intrude their desires into our being, whether through intense psychic means or physically (“intromission”, in the article). This is akin to trauma and is linked in the theory to more severe psychological symptoms and conditions.
One can see that, in the above ways, Laplanche makes a modified return to Freud’s earlier, trauma-based theorizing. There are other extremely interesting consequences to such a partial return, found in this great summary article.
I End with a Takeaway (My Translation and Expansion of a Quote in the Article):
Humans can theorize and re-theorize about themselves. One point in Laplanche’s work is that this is how Freud might have done in repeatedly wrestling with and revising his own theory!
We do this in a constant quest to come up with a theory that once and for all explains encoded / mysterious messages about what to desire and what to fear. Messages we unconsciously acquired from critically important attachment-and-modeling figures who unconsciously transmitted them.
[Unless the transmitter might somehow become conscious of the full content of these encoded desire messages, and becomes willing to share that content, the patient is stuck with only more or less well-informed theorizing. Theorizing that never ends with complete satisfaction and resolution of anxiety.]
[Of course, the original transmitter often cannot help because they remain unconscious of the content and where they got it! Even if they are aware of it, they are often not willing to admit this material, or they may be deceased, estranged, and so on. The next best things, in my view (and implied or stated, I think, by the article), include:
- Thoroughly examine all one’s theorizing attempts, old and newly constructed, to see what those theories say about oneself–the person about and for whom there might be at least some greater awareness and control
- To more mindfully accept that one’s attempts at translation / theorizing will continue–but can continue on an increasingly conscious basis that ‘sneaks up’ on us less, and
- To fully grieve the inability of the originator to explain themselves, to grieve the lack of any final answer–except the facts and theories we can accept and that create or perpetuate the least harm and the greatest health benefit
Because of the potential for circular self-reference and self-deception, the above aspects are best done with the help of a trained, compassionate, second mind that is not as entangled as some others in the patient’s life (a therapist, counselor, analyst, etc.)]
(as a side note, I think this ‘constant theorizing idea’ applies quite well in the context of my old post about The Shining documentary, Room 237…)
image: Christian Lendl unsplash