My *impression* (it's been some time since I've thought about Lacan, and I fear I'm resorting to slogans) is that Lacan was pretty tone deaf regarding the tremendously nuanced ways that the idiosyncracies of development manifest themselves in the transference. This flowed out of his emphasis on the symbolic priority of the phallus; this prioritization was, in turn, fortified by the spare theoretical options left open by his recourse to Saussurian linguistics, which he took to require a sort of Uber signifier, a central source of meaning. In practice, this brought him down very heavily on the side of construing the analytic relationship in terms of the paternal transference. During this time English analysts such as Winnicott were reaffirming the importance of the mother's developmental role, and I think Lacan intended to challenge them, though his main critical target was ego psychology.
Randy
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelley" <jimmyjames at softhome.net> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Cc: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 8:33 PM Subject: Re: Fantasy Ideology, Lacan
> At 07:42 PM 8/20/02 -0400, christian11 at mindspring.com wrote:
> > >
> > > grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrowl. is it peak sunspot
> > > activity time of the month AGAIN?
> > > Seriously, I think we're defining
> > > "developmental" differently.
> > >
> > > kelley
> >
> >So, uh, okay. What do _you_ mean by developmental? Or, more precisely, in
what
> >way does Lacan blow off developmental theories of subjectivity?
> >
> >Christian
>
> developmental: kohlberg, piaget, that sort of thing. i see no reason to
> elaborate. that lacanian theory is a departure from kohlberg/piaget/etc is
> pretty standard stuff.
>
>
> kelley
>
>