Critique de l’utilisation de l’enseignement de Jacques Lacan dans l’abord psychanalytique des troubles psychotiques ou d’une question postliminaire à tout traitement possible de la psychose

Abstract: Lacan has left a teaching, mainly in his “seminars”, which is often synthesized, simplified and reduced to a simple explanatory theory, principally regarding psychotic process. Such a simplifying view can become a discriminatory, iatrogenic conception of the psychotic person and of the psychotherapeutic (or psychoanalytical) treatment. In the first part of this paper, the author tries to show that Lacan’s teaching was principally a transmission of the psychoanalysis itself, in different ways, as half-sayings, ambiguity, poetry and style, topology, mathems… Lacan passed himself on as a possibility of analytical opening, like in a cure. He does not generate a rational discourse, but he proposed several different theories as simple “vectors”. In the second part, the author puts some concepts as “Name of Father foreclosure”, “borromean knot” and “object a” into a political (within the psychoanalytical community) and historical context. If those items of Lacan’s teaching are diverted from their primal function of “vectors” and are considered as explanatory theories, then they lose their pertinence and can lead to a stigmatizing conception and to possibly iatrogenic attitudes in the treatment. That will be examined further. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]