Psychoanalysis, founded by Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), emerged in 1895 as a project for scientific psychology that would provide a complete picture of inner spiritual life based on objective observation and analysis of individual phenomena. Psychoanalysis, in all its variations, has from the very beginning claimed to be the central theory of individual human mental life and human culture as a whole.
Classical psychoanalysis 3. Freud. Freud begins as a physician, physiologist, is interested in hypnosis and physiotherapy as methods of treating hysteria and in 1895 publishes the results of joint with Josef Breuer “Studies on Hysteria”, where a conclusion is made about the transformation of suppressed emotions into physical hysterical symptoms. Based on observations, a conclusion is made about the internal conflict of the psyche as the cause of nervous diseases. In the next work “Interpretation of Dreams” (1899), which immediately made Freud famous, contains the main discoveries of psychoanalysis. First of all, this is the discovery of the internal structure of the psyche – its two components: the conscious and unconscious parts – and the formulation of the problem of studying the unconscious. It is the unconscious that contains painful desires that are under a conscious ban, expelled from consciousness and for this reason turn out to be the source of the conflict that leads to neurosis. Describing the basic functions of the two components of the human psyche and speaking about the censorship factor, it was important for Freud that he immediately discovered a way to penetrate the sphere of the unconscious – these are dreams, which he called “the royal gates to the unconscious”, as well as slips of the tongue, mistakes and other unconscious expressions of desires. In fact, this was another discovery of Freud’s, connected with the future therapeutic practice of psychoanalysis: the identification and awareness of these repressed desires, this internal conflict of the unconscious with my conscious Self through its pronunciation in itself has a therapeutic effect, removes the internal conflict, eliminates the physical symptoms of neurosis.
Following the “Interpretation…” were published “The Psychopathology of Everyday Life”, “Jokes and Their Connection with the Unconscious” (1900), and in 1905 – the work “Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality”, which presented two, even more scandalous, discoveries of Freud – conclusions about the sexual nature of the unconscious and about the stage-by-stage formation of the psyche, associated with the development of childhood sexuality. Freud explains the content of the unconscious by drives, primarily children’s. In parallel, the theory of libido (from the Latin “desire”) is developing, by which Freud understands the original energy, sexual in nature, underlying all transformations of drive. This first definition of libido considers it as objective, i.e. aimed at mastering a certain goal, and final, i.e. associated with the satisfaction of desire. As an example, Freud considers the children’s game Da-Fort – Closer-Farther, the essence of which is that the child throws a toy out of the playpen and demands that it be returned to him; having received the toy back, the child throws it away again so that he himself cannot get it and again demands it back. Freud’s interpretation is that this game demonstrates the objectivity of the child’s desire: he strives to endlessly repeat the satisfaction from the moment of mastering a previously inaccessible toy. Libido, from Freud’s point of view, will always be a quantitative concept with the help of which it is possible to “energetically” – with certain characteristics of “condensation”, “shifting”, “movement” – explain psychosexual phenomena. At first, however, Freud contrasts libido with the drive for self-preservation, later, when self-preservation is also interpreted from the sexual instinct, this concept is transformed into a relative opposition of the libido drive and the death drive. Even when this energy can be desexualized, for example, in the process of so-called sublimation – an attraction that is directed towards socially significant objects (for example, artistic creativity), Freud explains this as a secondary process of rejection of the sexual goal itself.
In the same work, the Oedipus complex is considered as fundamentally important for the formation of the main structures of the psyche and the completion of the period of childhood sexuality: it is during puberty that the child is forced, under the influence of social prohibitions (primarily the taboo on incest – incestuous sexual relations), to change the object of his attraction from the closest – the parent of the opposite sex – to an external object. The decisive factor for boys is the threat of castration from the father, under the influence of which they accept the prohibition and overcome the complex, displacing into the unconscious that dual attitude towards the father, which is associated with the experience of the Oedipus complex. If this change does not occur and the child does not solve the problem of choosing external possible objects of attraction, then a conflictual displacement of attraction into the sphere of the unconscious occurs, leaving the Oedipus complex as a source of neuroses of the adult psyche unresolved. Later in the work “On Narcissism. Introduction” (1914) Freud will specifically focus on the case when the subject himself becomes the new object of attraction – then another complex arises, the Narcissus complex. At the same time, the feeling of jealousy towards the parent of the same sex is replaced by a strategy of creating a model, an ideal according to his example, and on the basis of these procedures a conscious self is formed with moral principles, acceptance of social prohibitions.
The process of formation of the psyche is thus understood as a process of socialization – the process of acceptance by the individual of the prohibitions, norms, rules and values existing in society. In 1913, in “Totem and Taboo” Freud will consider the myth-hypothesis about the murder of the forefather and the subsequent simultaneous introduction of the cult of the totem as the image of the forefather and the taboo on incest – as a filial reaction of remorse and shame for this murder. According to Freud, despite the problematic nature of the myth, this is the moment of the beginning of human history. As K. Levi-Strauss will later emphasize, this is the moment of the difference between culture and nature. For Freud, turning to myth meant, first of all, that the experience of the Oedipus complex is not associated with the specific behavior of parents, but is a universal need to introduce a ban for the formation of full-fledged structures of the psyche.
Since 1920, in his works “Beyond the Pleasure Principle” (1920), “The Ego and the Id” (1923), “Prohibitions, Symptoms, and Anxiety” (1926), “An Outline of Psychoanalysis” (1938), Freud introduces the Super-Ego into the structure of the psyche as a censoring authority responsible for self-criticism, acceptance of social norms and laws, and the presence of the ego-ideal. Thus, the picture of the so-called first topic, where the unconscious, which is not conscious in principle, can be in conflict with verbalized consciousness and then the potentially conscious preconscious should be used in order to establish a connection with the unconscious, changes. It is replaced by a three-member structure: the It, as the main characteristic of the unconscious with the dominant pleasure principle, the I, modified both by the It and by the Super-I, and the Super-I, an instance that begins to form with the first experience of the Oedipus complex (that is, somewhere between three and five years). However, all instances are generated by and include the unconscious. The concept of the so-called classical psychoanalysis of Freud in its own way continued the traditions of naturalism, presenting a definition of consciousness through the internal conflict of the basis of behavior, passion, and the rational component, thought, – trying to show the universality of their common basis – the psychic energy of the unconscious.
Analytical Psychology of C.G. Jung. Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) in his concept of the unconscious emphasized precisely this broad energetic interpretation of libido. This characterizes his development of Freud’s concept from 1906 until the severance of all relations with Freud in 1913 due to theoretical disagreements, set out, in particular, in Jung’s work “Metamorphoses and Symbols of the Libido” (1912). From his point of view, this is a universal vital-psychic energy. Its regression leads to the emergence of neuroses, which are characterized by the reproduction of archaic images. The formation of the psyche thus occurs in the process of individuation – mastering, appropriating as personal, unique archaic cultural experience accumulated by generations of people and expressed in symbolic form, primarily in fairy tales, superstitions, myths, religions. From this point of view, both Eastern cults, which assume the complete dissolution of individuality in the universal, and the European desacralized culture, which forms an extroverted individual, are neurotically dangerous.
The unconscious, therefore, according to Jung’s work “The Relationship between the Ego and the Unconscious” (1928), includes the collective and the impersonal – archetypes, images of the collective unconscious. Jung has several aspects of understanding archetypes. Firstly, he considers archetypes as psychic correlates of instinct, “self-portraits of instinct”. They are universal for all cultures. Human behavior is built on the basis of the archetype understood in this way – each time differently. For example, two principles are combined in each person – anima and animus. The archetype of femininity – anima – is associated with the emotional principle. It can be realized both in harmonious human behavior – when the anima allows you to establish warm relationships with other people, live in peace with yourself
itself, and to manifest itself negatively: to cause instability of mood, capriciousness, tearfulness, etc. The opposite principle – animus – personifies the male rational principle. Both archetypes can be represented symbolically. Modern man encounters this in a dream. However, their nature, according to Jung, is unclear. He notes that this is a special substance, the result of spontaneous generation of neurodynamic structures of the brain. But at the same time, he believes that the archetype can be a pure act of perception. The main thing is that the archetype cannot be understood discursively. Psychology can only describe, interpret and typify. This is the basis of the concept of character types, outlined in the work “Psychological Types” (1921), which is actively used today in socionics.
Jung believed that the concept of the unconscious, a fundamentally new irrational object of research, requires a new type of scientific rationality: it should proceed not from causal dependencies, but from the synchronicity of the object under study. The unconscious should be considered outside of time sequence as a significant whole (for example, the work “Psychology and Alchemy” (1944)). The archetypes of the unconscious are simultaneously the basis of the world that the subject builds, and the structures of the psyche, with the help of which we can talk about human consciousness and culture. They themselves are outside of time and space – this is the only way to explain a number of parapsychic phenomena.
Individual Psychology of A. Adler. Alfred Adler (1870-1937) proposed a different interpretation of libido – as a desire for superiority. Freud did not share Adler’s views, so he and nine of his associates, who were, by the way, active social democrats, had to leave Freud’s circle. In his work “On the Nervous Character” (1912), a year after his break with Freud, Adler presented not only a different understanding of libido, but also a fundamentally different explanation of human behavior, based not on causality, but on finality. Man is a purposeful creature, therefore all his actions, thoughts, feelings should be interpreted based on the goal that a person has set for himself. It is believed that Adler realized, first of all, Nietzschean motives for explaining an individual personality from the point of view of the original desire for self-affirmation. The will to power is inherent in children, women, and physically weak men. Society specifically establishes prohibitions on the open manifestation of this desire for domination. Politics should become the sphere where this desire is most freely realized. Therefore, problems of education come to the forefront, and among educational tasks, the first, according to Adler, should be the task of nurturing social feeling.
Existential psychoanalysis by E. Fromm. Erich Fromm (1900-1980) believed that it is difficult to find a biological basis for the psyche. Social connections and relationships are of decisive importance for the formation of the psyche as a so-called social character (“Man in Himself” – 1947). These are existential dichotomies, or opposites: man is a part of nature, the laws of which he cannot change, but at the same time he creates his own human cultural world, opposite to nature; man is finite and mortal, but he affirms eternal values; man is lonely and unique, but strives to find common ground with other people; man is alien to this world, but strives for harmony with it. Man strives for freedom, but at the same time it often happens that he strives to avoid everything that is associated with freedom (“Escape from Freedom” – 1941). Each person chooses from these positions, trying to make this choice meaningful: like, for example, Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake for his beliefs, or Galileo Galilei, who agreed to change his views in order to survive (“To Have or to Be” – 1976). This is how the concepts of freedom, truth, justice appear, but it is precisely because of the need to choose that negative answers also appear – hatred, evil, cruelty, aggression, etc. They are not biological, not natural – they are rooted in human character. Therefore, the appearance of automatism is created.
Other trends and schools of psychoanalysis. It should be noted that at the beginning of the century there were several centers of psychoanalysis outside Vienna, where Freud worked: Jung in Zurich, Sandor Ferenczi in Budapest, Jones in London, Karl Abraham in Berlin. The latter were engaged specifically in child psychoanalysis, creatively developing Freud’s ideas. Their followers include, for example, Melanie Klein (1882-1960), whose ideas about children’s imagination, the emphasis she placed not on the real, but on the symbolic dimension of children’s fantasies, influenced the emergence of Lacanian psychoanalysis.
“Structural” psychoanalysis of J. Lacan. Jacques Lacan (1901-1981) considered his concept of psychoanalysis as a development of Freud’s ideas, as an interpretation of contradictory moments in the texts of the founder of psychoanalysis. Lacan’s concept formulated the traditional problems of psychoanalysis taking into account the modern context of humanitarian knowledge. Therefore, questions related to language came to the fore – about meaning, about the plane of expression, especially since the development of psychoanalytic practice by the middle of the century shifted the emphasis from the patient’s monologue addressed to the doctor to the dialogue of the client and the analyst. Therapy turns into a kind of training. What was Freud’s discovery and concerned the practice of psychotherapy of neuroses becomes an independent theoretical problem – the psyche is conditioned by both desire and the way of expressing desire (representation). The basis for understanding this determinacy in Lacan is the understanding of the Self as split, ambiguous, changeable.
Lacan’s central discovery was the detection of a turning point in the constitution of the ego at the pre-Oedipal stage of development: the so-called Mirror stage. Lacan delivered a paper entitled “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Functions of the Ego as It Appears in Psychoanalytic Experience” at the 16th International Psychoanalytic Congress in Zurich (1949). This is the period of preparation for speech activity, when the child begins to recognize his own reflection in the mirror. Freud, to whom Lacan refers, wrote about this moment back in 1914 (“On Narcissistic Love”): he drew attention to the fact that even before the formation of mental structures, the child is able to concentrate his attention on himself. Lacan considers this moment to be fundamentally important for understanding what subjectivity really is. According to Lacan, this is not just a concentration of attention, it is a construction of oneself, an attribution of meaning to oneself. But where does meaning come from before the emergence of detailed speech and detailed mental structures? The whole point is that the child’s I, looking in the mirror, discovers in the mirror not only the one who is looking, but also the I that is being looked at by the Other who brought it to the mirror, who is looking at it. That is, in the mirror the I sees what the Others want to see, first of all the child’s Mother. Thus, the forming Ego is split into the I that is looking and the I that is being looked at. This unstable subjectivity, this internal changeable opposition is preserved during the acquisition of language and is transferred to the way subjectivity is constituted by means of language: there is always the I that pronounces, articulates, and the I that speaks, that is, reproduces, refers to meanings. The subject turns out to be not an individual, integral and definite, but a dividual, fragmented and changeable. Language is metaphorical, perhaps even metonymic: the signified and the signifier mutually transform into each other, they are not opposed to each other – these are only temporary boundaries, the meaning of which is to constantly go beyond these boundaries. Lacan gives the formula F (S’\ s)S~S( + )s, where the signifiers S and S’ are approximately equal to the signified, which constantly crosses the border with the signifier – S ( + ) s. Lacan criticizes Fromm and K. Horney for the fact that, in their opinion, one can speak of a stable Ego. From Lacan’s point of view, the I is always in search of itself and in relating itself to the gaze of the Other, the meanings of the Other – i.e., it turns out that the I can only be represented through the Other. Later, it was these ideas of Lacan that pushed for the radicalization of the theory of the signifying Other.
The splitting of the Self, the dichotomy that underlies identity, thus turns out to be not final. This is connected with another fundamental position of Lacan’s conception – the explanation of the nature of human desire, which underlies the psyche, as non-objective and infinite. That is, the object of desire has a symbolic nature, represents a disappearing signified. An illustration of this is Lacan’s version of the interpretation of the textbook children’s game Da Fort: the child experiences desire and pleasure from the experience of desire not when he has a toy, but when the toy is out of his reach, when he strives for it, when he desires it; accordingly, the repeated action of throwing away the toy is connected with the fact that the child strives to once again experience the attraction to an inaccessible object.
Lacan’s understanding of desire is connected with his understanding of the Hegelian Absolute, or more precisely, with the interpretation of Hegelian philosophy by A. Kojève, whose seminars Lacan attended. Analyzing the ideas of Hegel’s “phenomenology of spirit”, Kojève concludes that man turns out to be an absolute negation of negativity, since in a concrete action – labor, struggle – he is the real presence of nothing in being. Language tries to define what brings suffering and death to man – nature, therefore, ultimately, language cannot define anything, it is empty, just like man himself, historical and temporary, although it strives to grasp the Absolute that is deadly for him. It is language that gives the illusion of omnipotence – it is not connected with objective reality, therefore it can depict anything, since ultimately it depicts death. Lacan “humanizes” the negative activity of the Absolute, which is represented by Kojève. Desire is always directed beyond the immediate object as such (as an object that can be possessed), since the object of desire is not an object, but something symbolic. The same applies to the experience of the Oedipus complex and the loss of the mother as a lost object, and to the experience of the castration complex. The order of reality, which Freud described as real, appears symbolic. There are no specific fixed criteria in what is experienced. In contrast to Freud’s aphorism “Anatomy is destiny”, Lacan introduces the idea of a masquerade of identities, the manifestation of symbolic definitions of sexuality that are not connected and not determined by biological criteria of sexuality. These ideas, most thoroughly outlined in the article “The Meaning of the Phallus”, influenced American post-Lacanianism (J. Rose, L. Mitchell, etc.), which develops problems of sexual identity, as well as the so-called gender philosophy in general, which understands gender as a social construct.
The subject does not obey an external law – it obeys what appears as internal, as an instance of the symbolic. And the three types of identification that we saw in Freud – according to the model of the parent, according to the choice of the object and according to the objective relation to the model of identification – acquire a fundamentally different – symbolic character in Lacan. And this means that neither in the case of the first – libidinal – relations, nor in the last case can the subject have a fixed relation to one or another model of identity. In one of the first seminars – and Lacan conducted them for almost 20 years until 1980 – he clarified that this is not logical logic, but topological logic. The problem of subjectivity understood in this way is the problem of the organization of space. One of the most striking images illustrating the image of Lacan’s understanding of subjectivity is the Mobius strip: a twisted and glued strip of paper turns out to be an endless movement on both sides of the paper without any possibility of determining where the front side is and where the back side is.
The three instances of the psyche that Lacan discovers are the real, the symbolic and the imaginary. At the same time, unlike Freud, Lacan does not connect the plane of the real with objectively occurring or past events – this plane is never given directly, it is always “out of play”, but at the same time, the entire development of the psyche occurs in relation to the real, and in this sense the real is “always here”. Lacan’s real is similar to Freud’s concept of drive – it is the cause of desire, what produces the object of desire with endless determinations, thisness, given in the psyche itself. Lacan himself describes the real as what must appear as a result of the work of the analyst as an illusionist. If we compare him with the image of Freud’s analyst, he would be more like a disillusionist who ultimately makes objective reality appear. The imaginary is understood in opposition to the real, as an adaptation to the real – this is the I, the narcissistic I from the mirror stage, the construction of an illusion that creates a balance between the subject and the world, protects the subject. The imaginary is structured around the symbolic in relation to the real – the symbolic, which is presented as the order of language or, more broadly, the order of culture, appears for an individual subject under the name of the Father. The way Lacan describes the symbolic brings it closer to the Freudian instance of the Super-I, however, all primary myths and complexes are interpreted by Lacan symbolically. For example, through symbolic castration, the subject is introduced to the dimension of Being-towards-death. Lacan uses the ideas of J. Bataille, M. Heidegger, J.-P. Sartre in order to describe desire as a connection of all three components of the psyche.
Lacan was expelled from the International Psychoanalytic Association and created his own society, the influence of which on practicing psychoanalysts extends to France, Great Britain and the USA. But Lacan’s ideas had a much more powerful influence on the entire philosophical thought of the second half of the 20th century, affecting the most diverse areas of humanitarian knowledge: literary criticism, psychology, methodology of science, history, cultural studies, political science.
Literature
1. Freud 3. I and It: In 2 volumes. Tbilisi, 1991.
2. Freud 3. Psychology of the unconscious. M., 1990.
4. Freud 3. Beyond the pleasure principle. M., 1992.
5. Jung K. G. Tavistock Lectures. Kiev, 1995.
6. Adler A. Raising children. Interaction of the sexes. Rostov-on-Don, 1998.
7. Fromm E. To have or to be? M., 1990.
8. Lacan J. Seminars 1, 2. M., 1998, 1999.
9. Klein M. Development in psychoanalysis. M., 2001.
10. Sigmund Freud, psychoanalysis and Russian thought. Moscow, 1994.
11. Rutkevich A. M. From Freud to Heidegger. Moscow, 1985.