“(…) What do we know of all this? —if it is only at the mercy of fluctuations
in the history of analysis, of the commitment of the desire of each analyst, we manage
to add some small detail, some corroborating observation, some incidental addition
or refinement, which enables us to define the presence,
at the level of desire, of each of the analysts.”
(Lacan, 1964 [2013], p. 166)
We have reached the 7th edition of LAPSO. This time and in these times, the topic for this new Issue was based on conversations that came up within the team supporting this magazine around «The Presence of each analyst» (taken as one of those phrases of Lacan that have the necessary opacity and force to challenge us and puts us to work). Let’s recover some questions that arose from it: What are we stating when we say ‘Presence’? What differentiates the Presence of the analyst from the semblance and the position of the analyst? How is the body conceived in relation to the Presence of each analyst? What relationship is there between the analyst’s Presence, the unconscious and the speaking body? How is the analyst’s Presence related to the interpretation? What happens with the Presence of the analyst in the virtual session? What can we learn and apprehend about the Presence and the speaking bodies in current times? And also, what about the Presence of each analyst in the practice in institutions as well as in the School? In addition, a question has persisted in relation to the practice (undeniably due the outbreak of the COVID‑19 pandemic): is there analysis and Presence only if the bodies of the analyst and the analysand are inside of the very same four walls? Perhaps we reached a certain moment of conclusion, not without its complexity, finding that there are clinical details that overthrow that idea, as well as others that support it. Thus, in the encounter with this complexity we were able to realize it is worthwhile to work around these issues, which are subject to verification every time and with each case.
If we review some references related to the topic of the Presence, we find that in his Book 11, (1964 [2013]) Lacan reads the transference differently that how it was being understood, and he conceives it as the analyst’s desire. He also reminds us that the concept of the unconscious cannot be separated from the «irreducible» Presence of the analyst. In his Book 17 (1969-1970 [2017]) Lacan highlights that the analyst is established on the basis of the act that institutes them, that is, the analyst does not exist without the passage through the experience of analysis. At this point, Lacan already puts the analyst in the place of the object a, as the cause of the analysand’s desire. In Book 19 (1971-1972 [2021]) Lacan underlines that the position of the semblance is «in the body», emphasizing that this position is inhabited precisely because there is no other sustainable position in relation to jouissance in the speaking bodies. Towards the end of his teaching, in The Third (1974 [2015]) Lacan tells us: «Psychoanalysts are not dead!». While in his Book 23 (1975-1976 [2013]) Lacan speaks of an analyst who responds and somehow «teaches» about merges and sutures that makes it possible to inhabit jouissance in a different way. It means that, throughout his teaching Lacan is locating the analytic operation, and showing it can never take place without the Presence of the analyst. It is very interesting, because until the end of his teaching, with all the twists and turns, there is still something that remains unchanged regarding the Presence of each analyst, which is the importance that he gives to the singularity of what remains as a remnant throughout an analysis, during which it becomes somehow a cause. Thus, in this journey we can see the novelty and the similarity to no other discourse of its kind that is in the psychoanalytical discourse of Lacanian orientation, in the work it performs to make operative that which is intended to be discarded, denied and even forclosed by the discourses and therapeutic practices related to the master’s discourse and neoliberalism.
If there is anything that can be made very clear to us throughout this Issue is that the analyst Presence depends essentially on the occurrence of a bond to what we can call the irreplaceable, the unquestionable and the inescapable operator for an analytic practice: the desire of the analyst, one that is impure, that needs to be brought into existence every time.
As Jacques-Alain Miller (2017) clearly states:
Lacan’s last words on the position of the analyst were aimed at making them an embodiment of this jouissance without symbol (…) it is an invitation for the analyst to take a stand, not as a representative of knowledge but (which is unprecedented in history) as an object that has no symbol in the universal discourse. (p. 60)
Regarding our journal and its parts: in the section Theory and Concepts, you will find a paper by Ana Cecilia González that proposes a theoretical-clinical development on the variations of the Presence throughout Lacan’s teaching; you will also find the elaboration of Carolina Ferrieres working on the Presence and the analytic act, where the question: “Whose act is it?” is sustained. You will also be able to follow Ivan Ruíz’ journey on virtuality, the Real and the clinic, developed around the question of how to affect the jouissance of the body that enslaves the patient. And, in this series of articles we also have the work of Carlos García, who contributes with material to think about the Presence of each analyst in their practice in institutions, sharing balances of knowledge drawn from his experience as a practitioner of psychoanalysis in an institution in Chile.
And of course, as in every edition, the LAPSO Interview, an exceptional section of our journal that allows us the resource of the live voice and image. This time we have the distinctive participation of Gabriela Grinbaum, who provides a detailed historization of the concept of transference, highlighting with clarity and precision the incorruptible link that must exist between the Presence of the analyst and the analyst’s desire. Moreover, she recalls Lacan’s forcefulness in stating both that the psychoanalyst is one by one, and in considering that the formation of an analyst is mainly found in their own analysis. And, as someone who has been nominated A.E. (Analyst of the School), Gabriela transmits the point of it all this and its value in the practice at the School in a way you would not want to miss.
In Intersections, you will also find an interview with Andrés Fassi (President of Club Atlético Talleres de Córdoba), talking about an unwavering desire sustained in the world of sports and how the Presence in the era of virtuality has been put into play, particularly in the Club he presides.
In addition, in the section Reviews you will be able to read writings around three works, which we can say refer to different events for psychoanalysis itself. One, El nombre y la causa (The Name and the Cause) written by Cristina Martinez de Bocca, referring to the awarding to Éric Laurent of the title of Doctor Honoris Causa by the National University of Córdoba, recognizing his tireless and lively presence for the analytic cause. Another one, by Ana Sol Sikic, who as a reader of Lacan Hispano invites to this book produced by Jacques-Alain Miller and Alejandra Glaze, in commemoration of the 40th anniversary of Lacan’s death, with the participation of psychoanalysts from all over the world, where they advise on the movement that is sustained by and supported on the transmission of psychoanalysis according to the Lacanian teaching, as well as the orientation that Miller gives to this and to which we hold on and make use of. For her part, Lucía Benchimol, addresses Tres segundos con Lacan (Three seconds with Lacan), a book by Esthela Solano Suárez that testifies about Lacan’s Presence as an analyst both in her own experience of analysis and in the control device of the practice.
Après coup, the cover: image chosen for having a power related to the theme that summons us, a certain illuminating opacity. This photographic work entitled Paciente (Patient), belongs to Karin Idelson[1] (2017), an artist who invites to navigate, visit, and somehow reflect on that dark zone of what she calls her own blind spots. As you will see, we find a non-standard divan there, lights and shadows filtering through a window, as well as a vivid detail that is almost unseen, but which is there, nonetheless. Besides, what makes a bed become a divan? Is it an instrument where words can be tilted and declined? Does it say something about the empty place that needs to be inhabit every time?
This edition of LAPSO awaits you with a variety of presences to dive into at your convenience. To paraphrase Lacan: we hope that this edition will provoke and accompany the presence of each reading to come in the history of all readings, with its interventions, with its details and complementary observations, with its incidences and therefore, with the presence of each reader at the level of desire…
We wish you good reading!
[1] You can find the work Paciente and more of her works in Paciente – Karin Idelson