Milena Velba Best Clips

On RAI: Poiesis a political institution and Bénédicte Maurin

Meeting of the AUCTION, Reims 25 and June 26, 2010 .

The Making of care. Creating and Democracy

Workshop 4

Poiesis of an institution and by political Bénédicte Maurin

When Patrick Chemla representing the auction organizers asked me to speak here, he did it by stressing the importance of this cultural association to invite young people to participate in this event. From the outset, the auction raises ethical and political act by assuming a duty of care transmitting its commitment at a time when the training of all "psychics" leaves to be desired.

's my turn now to try to realize what I sent and the 39 others, all these meetings with me and support me in institutional work daily with children with autistic and psychotic but also to the team. A painstaking, almost invisible, extremely slow, the effects are not immediately apparent but which tend to question the practice of articulation of social alienation and insanity.

Hence the title, poiesis and political institution.

from the Greek poiesis poiein, meaning making, produce, create. Or how in manufacturing, the creation of an institution, the RAI (Meeting Home and Institutional), within the institution Day Hospital is a political act, through what can be undertaken.

Previously, children were in day programs. They participated in group therapy closed and more individualized care, but also more time to interstitial and collective. At that moment, prevails in the day hospital care psychoanalytic conception of letting it roll to a minimum institutional life based on some time host interstitials. The dimension of the political meaning of everyday life seemed to be suffering. With the advent of inclusive education, special classes, the SESSAD, the assumption becomes sequential. Children are now on short time. The day hospital to adapt to these changes, has removed the group shortly, retreating into small groups and workshops cleaved from each other. Children are mostly enrolled in small fixed groups meeting three times a week. From what they show, the team will provide care instructions to be validated and syntheses that will lead workshops on such tales, basin, land, psychodrama, etc.. It is thus closed groups and workshops that take place in well defined areas where it does not like that. Circulation of children are not favored by this arrangement of care. Given the increase in institutional violence, work days are held leading to the establishment of the RAI, a revolution in the day hospital, which is imposed by the Director. Revolution rather limited. This new body, on Monday from 16:00 to 17:30, includes most of the children cared for by the institution and do not necessarily intersect during the week and all the team members, maintenance workers and women Household understood through the teaching staff, psychologists, speech therapists, the psychomotor, the director, secretaries, doctors, the teachers. Following this meeting / weekly tasting, children fall freely in activities they themselves have proposed and subsequently implemented by the entire team present at the meeting. There followed a recovery team of a half-hour. RAI contrast sharply with any healthcare organization's day hospital: children raise themselves and their own statements and "trace" their way.

Imagine my joy! Coming in a place as a result of reflections on violence, an attempted arrangement of a club set up! Except that this little meeting seemed "natural" in a place of care was not at all self, resistance would emerge. Tosquelles wrote that "the resistance phenomena are triggered by geometric progression in our therapeutic action, when one moves from individual psychotherapy to the psychotherapy group and the institutional psychotherapy.

Anyway, the RAI is then established, and the team will have to walk with, grope, examine, get involved. I therefore propose, through this text, to follow our first steps, while emphasizing how Arnaud a psychotic child, took up the space.

Arnaud is greeted at the day hospital since his six years. It now has ten. When he arrived he was greeted at the school, ITEP and was placed in two foster homes. He had three weeks in one and spent the fourth in another. Gradually, the child has exhausted his interlocutors. At seven, he is de-schooled of Education, is no longer allowed in ITEP and the family home receiving the one week a month failed to resist. So he returned, this time there with her mother, who requested placement. His unique place for socializing and meeting with other children is the day hospital. The team held at all costs, supporting the attacks of that child. Still exhausted, she decided that at the beginning of 2009, Arnaud was no longer allowed on time groups because it makes them explode and undermines the other children. Arnaud therefore benefits from the month of September of class time in the hospital and individual therapy workshops.

early September, then, on Monday, the day hospital reopens after the summer holidays, the RAI stands at tea made especially for this occasion by one of the weekly children's hospital. At this first meeting, the director, who was the project to re explained to all the framework and basic rules of the collective moment: everyone in the school participate in the RAI apart from the little ones who are likely to be troubled by the large group. Oddly, the ladies of services and the maintenance officer was missing, we obviously "forgot" to invite ... This "forgetting" that I tip discreetly at the meeting of recovery that followed mark the work we have to do to move from a division office work to a collective sharing of work. The three ladies of service and maintenance officer joined us the following Monday for the meeting / lunch. Naively imagined that it was only the team "caregiver" who survive mainly on sharing basis with the healthcare team "maintenance." However, only two of the interview were included in activities. But two, it is a start. It allowed me a few weeks later to ask why they were not involved in recovery time and development around the RAI. Thus Aziza, Fabrice Latifa and Christiane are entering the meeting on the half-hour devoted to the RAI. Two months later, they expose us their difficulty: they appreciate being involved in the RAI and activities resulting from this fact but they do not have time to do their chores. We agree that at the end of business, we will hand broom. Initially we were 4 and we will stick, then three, then two ... and then two new recruits arrived so I caught, telling them that one of the first act of resistance to do here is to get the brooms! This RAI is slowly starting to work Team on the status issue opening on shared features.

Another example relates to the presidential office of this meeting. During the first months she was held de facto by the Director. But a Monday morning, he announces that he will be with us at the meeting with institutional children. Here is a new opportunity presented to me in the triad requestionner Role / Status / Position: but then, who will occupy the presidential office? I propose that it is now shared by all adults, not excluding the fact that it may one day be possible that children themselves can hold this position.

Upon implementation of the RAI part was given to children by the team: one does not strike another, whether child or adult. It is forbidden to harm others or oneself. The children were immediately seized this point, speaking and referring to what was forbidden, "it is forbidden to strangle everybody", "it is forbidden to shake," "we have no right bumping his head. " This illustrates how children are able to immediately take up this space to talk and conflictualize the difficulties they encounter in their lives. The following week, were read the sentences pronounced by the children about it. A teacher had the good idea to open a notebook specifically for this meeting. Children were particularly attentive during this reading, waiting for their words are repetitions. One of them even mentioned that his sentence had not been placed on the notebook.

He also explained that children at the RAI, one can turn to speak, make proposals that ask for some to be studied in more detail by the team to consider their feasibility. If needed, the return on reflection will made. This shows that workers are struggling to release their grip on children and create a degree of freedom showing poiesis and co-construction in pain.

Finally, it was offered to children to think about activities that take place after the RAI. Adults and children then made numerous proposals. Many children, supported by Arnaud, asked sports, mainly football. These children are among the older and more agitated. A debate within the team then took place about the benefit or not to propose a time of football: "they already play at recess," "mostly, they exclude the younger," "it goes wrong, they hit each other, can not play together '," the court recreation, concrete, is in itself an indication-cons to the practice of a sport "," sport is not really a choice for children, they were influenced by Arnaud ", etc.. All team members had in mind Arnaud. I argue that it took Arnaud, who just asked to do a team sport, was so far deprived of collective time because he did not wanted, making derail the groups in which it was registered, whether in school, ITEP, or day hospital. This time team sport could be considered as a possible space to be together because supported by his desire. Submit this time sports would certainly not easy but working with these children is also stuck with their difficulties. Upon reflection, we decided to increase the number of professionals attending the workshop multisport or 4 people who have volunteered: the director, a psychologist, a psychomotor and myself. I did not particularly want to participate in sports right now, instead wishing to establish a newspaper, but the support seemed necessary, so I registered. The maintenance worker, once he was invited to the RAI, was also included in this activity.

The team had already planned the activities they would like to propose, but after that meeting, the majority of the team decided to leave the children's proposals: asking them why they think so after the fact we do not keep account? The proposals are children, mostly become real activities. The desire is their speech which is then taken into account. The establishment of the RAI is indeed a beginning of a therapeutic club, opening on empowering children

Moreover, children are a Monday to the next shift activity and even move from one activity to another to realize what is happening. Soon, this group can "open" for these activities came to question members of the team, used to work from closed groups. Some colleagues ask so that their activity does not remain open to new children when it was started. Colleagues highlight the break in the growth of activity and the effect of intrusion that may have previously formed the group. What activities can remain open, accommodating any time a child is not a problem to the team from when others remain closed. After a year of experience of the RAI, it is clear that all activities were re-opened and this time of RAI is one element that makes us work on the institutional divisions.

By the second meeting, the children had also thought about this new space they were proposed because some responded by asking if there was a "swing activity," "speech activity", it was possible to go "with Chris," a teacher who does not work because it can not be present on Monday, or "with Fabrice," the maintenance man, "for a real job." The children then link the issues that we had not considered: we can choose the activity not on the media nor the status but according to the person who holds it, so depending on the transfer? One is obliged to enroll in an activity? This question was taken in a meeting and we agreed it was possible that some choose to do "nothing" or "to swing", that choice was respected, it was a rare moment " do nothing "they were allowed. Three team members have thus become "flying" that is available to children who do not wish to choose work or not is yet to make a choice.

Finally, the organization of care is emphasized, for example, Arnaud, the fact that we are not always able to play with others, it's not serious and that is the possibility to do something else, which does not prevent us from returning to their chosen activity the following week. There may be sidelined from an activity without much to exclusion or isolation room of appeasement because others are there to "greet" the child concerned, who can either build on wheels, or incorporate another activity. The meeting

RAI is often a huge mess. Difficult to hear and speak. Also difficult to keep children attentive when they have finished snack: they tend to play out in the yard, to move back and forth, stirring up. Little small, we try to adjust the lines of this meeting by proposing that the time allowed to take place at the taste, while the kids eat. We try various facilities of the tables in the room, use the blackboard to record the agenda, etc.. Without success, hence a certain discouragement.

A colleague points out that we had set as a basic rule that the children were not forced to participate in this meeting. They know they have their place, they can come there, that's where things are said. But they can not reach. Some children, when they will not well, protect themselves and protect others by staying in the yard. Other children simply can not, for now, where they are entering a room grouping so many people. And yet, he arrived as team members keep children out of the room, thereby amplifying the excitement of these children but also by other contagion.

Maintaining this institution remains precarious. One day, the RAI almost did not happen. During the tasting, nobody spoke. The children are then taken out. We were more than a few to expect. It took out, sound the recall of adults and children for the meeting takes place. Nobody was allowed to take the presidential ... This has had very little to the meeting goes out the window. Tired, I sat down and had ensured the conduct of meetings.

In return, we'll talk about the climate of violence. The team is tired, tense and worried about his working tool. The accreditation approach, protocols may appear on the horizon, the psychiatrist we troubleshoots a half day per week on a full-time because we can not recruit, the hospital is fiscal consolidation, Post disappear, we can not do our job as we would like to do, etc.. Children feel our worries? How does that play there on their behavior?

The following week, again, missed the meeting has to be retracted. Opting for the secretary, I installed when tasted with the meeting book, among the children. Time passes. Nothing. Children start to finish eating, some are already out. I am speaking to a colleague who takes the presidential office? His answer floored me: let go, we'll see. More and more children are out, adults with them. I turn around and speak Two other colleagues: we do not have the meeting? Again, the answer is disturbing: Yes, well, it's been three weeks since it slips, the director has to be there! A feeling of loneliness I traveled. But why consider that this meeting may take place in the absence of the director? Holding or supporting this meeting? I resigned myself to write the book that there had been no meeting that day and went to the store.

Fortunately, another colleague responded and went to fight the recall. I get out my notebook and reinstall.

In return we decide creating a collective presidency of the meeting.

The team decision seems necessary for some colleagues who thus feel legitimized to take this function. This new attempt at arrangement did not last long: the other felt completely disengaged from the conduct of the meeting, leaving us to stew in the semolina. To get out, I decided to lean on children, referring to that meeting their demands, using the specifications, nor for the record of the meeting but for the establishment of order the day. Arnaud helps me: at my suggestion, he picked up the book to say that educator he has spoken ill, he proposes an exit alley, he enrolled himself in the name of a child who would not dare ask to watch the match of the World Cup, etc.. Meetings are always difficult but I am beginning to have allies among both children and adults who perceive that this space can become an area of say, a space where there can start discussions and decisions that will not delayed by a recovery team. This would not have been possible in September. The team first need to walk with this new tool. Delion Peter reminds us that "accountability of caregivers do can be achieved by allowing the establishment of an independent progressive group functioning. The definition of the democratic structure given by Kurt Lewin is found here: directivity in procedure and not directional in terms of content. "This structure enables the personal reappropriation, the alienation by the rediscovery of what Moreno calls the creative spontaneity."

In a moment of anxiety about its survival, the day hospital cleaves and stiffens his care organization removing the functionality of its joints. The dialectical role-status-function is blocked in a device penetrations into the hierarchy reinforced by the statutory procedures for accreditation.

The creation of the RAI is a first step from what Delion called "the statutory hierarchy" on the side of the object container to the "hierarchy subjectal" on the side of meaning, purpose content , ie the subject. Recently, the team plans to rethink its development tool, that can again practice the "metaphorical function" well down now. Indeed, elaborations spaces are modeled on the areas of care, they are also cleaved and it does not work: each time with a child care must have a recovery time between professionals engaged in this task. Then, for the same time these same professional care and should be put in place a regulation with an additional psychologists of the day hospital. Finally, meetings should take place international workshops bringing together all professionals animating groups and workshops around a child, always with the presence of a psychologist. Finally, the summaries have leagues, bringing the whole team and putting the care instructions. If a member of the team involved in a child is absent or workshop, or if the psychologist animating regulation or meeting international workshop is absent, then these are set aside time for reflection. We spend so much time not to mention children.

The RAI has put a little oil and play Arnaud, during a RAI, said that the Director is absent but that the activity will take place multi anyway. It comes to show that it is extremely sensitive to the continuity of this activity. He points that the organization of work allows us to host it.

Admittedly, a lot of work remains to be done to continue the deregulation, encourage circulation and bring all these scattered pieces of the care each other. RAI, so I come to speak of the interest meetings constellation. They would gather transplants transfers scattered here and there. They would tend -1 function shared by all and not vested in our psychologists. By refocusing work focuses on the child and not on the issues of narcissistic and caregivers take into account the effect Stenton and Schwartz. Some still cling to their device "pull" of meeting, but others seem to begin to take on this idea. In any case, a debate was launched.

This week, a record of the year RAI has occurred. While I expected to have to fight for its renewal, colleagues surprised me: they have adopted and are even beginning to go further in their thinking, wondering whether it would be useful there may have other areas in the week, echoing this institutional work. Gradually, the RAI is small and my proposal for a workshop open daily all the time after meals interstitial interested.

To conclude, it remains difficult to convey such practices and policies for home care madness. The slow and institutional inertia are sometimes seen often daunting. Hence the importance of having an elsewhere, places like the Other Auction to relax and regroup, for example by doing work on his work. This is how I can accept some solitude while continuing to sweep the resistors together dust.

Bénédicte MAURIN

educator specializing

Does Monster Energy Cause Bloating

Gisele Chaboudez Orleans Conference about "Sexual intercourse and sex ratio" Pierre Delion

On behalf of Patrice Ridoux
Reading workshops and studies Freud: ALI Orleans

20, Venelle Bellevoie 45000 Orléans. Tel: 02 38 55 06 96.
e-mail: alef.orleans @ free.fr
http://alef.orleans.free.fr/

Alef is a regional school of the International Association Lacanian

Conference Gisele Chaboudez , psychiatrist, psychoanalyst,

Member Space analytical

about his book (Denoël):

" Sexual intercourse and sex ratio "

Orleans, June 26, 2010

Since the book came out, I had occasion to consider the prospect a few years back, to make a kind of post deal, and that's how I write my comments today

Yes, human sexuality is anything but natural, and Freud gave a first impression with the Oedipus complex, which proved the contamination while is a celebration of sexuality prohibited. Nothing else seemed to symbolize his sexuality prohibited. The Oedipus taught nothing about what is to be a man or woman or their relationship, but yet determined, even beyond its decline. And time of psychoanalysis has been only Oedipal long she thought that the Oedipus alone gave the keys to the relationship between man and woman, once resolved. She left somewhat about it on the threshold of this report, the assumption now armed to confront it. This design has evolved massively Lacan, in the sixties, it is another foundation of causal sexual acts, in addition to Oedipus and the name of the Father, but perhaps we are beginning to take the measure until recently. It is essential to grasp, despite the difficulty of its concept, to weigh what it changes and adds to the development of Freud and those that followed, because it is the condition that psychoanalysis continues to remain relevant, that it renews itself by continuing its discoveries and additions, its adjustments, alterations in social sometimes appear to exceed it, then it has for 50 years how to think.

Father of Oedipus teaches nothing about the relationship between man and woman

It was long thought in psychoanalysis that the resolution of the Oedipus complex in childhood, according to what Lacan called the structure Name of the Father, then enough to develop a satisfactory report with a partner of the opposite sex, since it involved an integration of the Act. The law of the incest taboo, but also the sexual law that distributes the phallus as having or not, being or not, between the masculine and feminine. We now know that the law itself is not enter what would be sexual intercourse, in the sense that Lacan understands it, that is to say a ratio between the two sexes as such. She is a substitute, introducing a report that includes only a signifier, the phallus, and an enjoyment for both sexes. The gender issue has exploded in the U.S., or it was based initially on the Lacanian description of the dialectic of symbolic phallus gender, the sexual act that Lacan described in the 60s. The resolution of the Oedipus complex led to this law, which is not a report of two sexes, which has many consequences. Freud was right when identified the "most common belittling the love life, which distributes in a man's love without desire on one side and the other the desire without love, according to interpret the Oedipus complex, as a clumsy attempt to avoid incest evoked a desire for the beloved. It was thus in a sense, the absence of suspected sexual intercourse between man and woman. It was enough for it to emphasize the Oedipus effect was to sever the current tender and sensual in its infancy, so they become difficult to meet again on partner while their partner is in the meeting which could actually be called sex.

because the Oedipus complex and its resolution by the name of the Father to prepare everything but a relationship between a man and a woman as such. It symbolizes the sexual pleasure, which is symbolized so that from that which is forbidden. Hence organized enjoyments subsequent to exclude what is of the same "kind", so to say, that the enjoyment incestuous, and precisely the meeting of desire and love on one partner Freud had pointed out, is readily apparent to that nature. In addition to the Oedipus does the issue of sexual organs on the way in which they appear in this framework, ie as a symbol of the phallic organ or its absence, and simply as a masturbatory enjoyment. This is only to have the phallus for a boy, or not having and being, for a girl. Freud stated that Oedipus is abandoned by the boy to preserve vital organ to narcissism, and indeed the phallic phase of childhood that does auto-eroticism and narcissism in their report to the symbolic, not sexual pleasure as such. Masturbation is widespread, but orgasm, without exception, do not occur in childhood, and the penis, clitoris and vagina, occur only under the phallic phase, equity or not. With the onset of orgasm during adolescence that begins to produce a maturation of the object involved in the genitalia, and then adds its problems in the sexual act to that of Oedipus .

Besides, how could he Oedipus prepare for sexual pleasure, which is to enjoy a Other as such and to be its enjoyment when it is resolved by exclusion of the enjoyment of the Other, the mother and not a subject that builds private enjoyment too? It allows to develop an enjoyment residual after this operation, a residue that serves as the lost enjoyment and tries to compensate his loss. So that Oedipus once resolved, with the function of the Name of the Father, only offers two routes, one which involves partner like object, lowered to be desired, perverse way, and one that manages to meet the desire and love in the partner, but at the cost of the ban. This there are two ways to enter that Freud described how each sex finds sexual pleasure disappeared in the organization of civilized sexuality, forbidden desire for the woman, being lowered for man. These observations remain just and valuable, and they continue to assign a large part of the organization of sexual enjoyment.

Thus Oedipal psychoanalysis can only deal with sex as such, and therefore it did not. The phallus, in psychoanalysis, was considered to Lacan that as he is to have or not, the only enjoyment was that according to the object or part prohibited. They seemed to consider that the Freudian theory, according to the disappearance of the Oedipus complex and dialectic phallic enough to establish what would later be a man or a woman. It was and it was enough that the boy identifies with the father as the one who has the phallus, to become a man, and the girl waiting to receive child phallus of the same father, to become a woman. But identification with the father is the desire to enjoy a partner as an object, like the mythical father of all women enjoy while waiting for the child's father-phallus eventually produced a daughter and mother not a woman. In any case this is not sufficient to establish a sexual relationship. The Oedipus complex and its resolution does not prepare the report of man and woman as such, but a report perverse or incestuous, it creates a structure likely to form a story from the infant, but not a pleasure that unites man and woman as such. This is not the same goal, they are even two opposing goals. Since the topic at the end of the Oedipus complex is formed by separation of enjoyment, it is maintained and reproduced as a separate pleasure, it can be later a path to the enjoyment of the Other, which remains prohibited as such. It is therefore surprising, as Lacan did in 1968, the exclusive attachment to the coordinates of the oedipal psychoanalysis, which are family when she says so little about the enjoyment of men and women, which is in principle the center of the sexual cause, on which he has an accent interrogative with the aphorism "there is no sexual relation."

If psychoanalysis believed that the resolution of the Oedipus complex, provided they are correct, sufficient to substantiate a report later between man and woman it also stated that our civilization for centuries this law sexual relationship between a man and woman, resulting from the Oedipus complex. Based solely on the dialectic phallic having or not and then later or may not be as phallic object of desire, this report is for the man to give it to one that did not but the east and for women to be and to receive it. It is this law that Lacan called a simplistic fiction, and summarized in terms of man "It was what was what," and he believed it had misfired. The man in this Act has the phallus as the father was in the Oedipus, and the woman is like the child was. Father, according to its meaning the name of the Father, is the only one with the phallus and enjoy, and it prohibits the enjoyment for both mother and child. The man is supposed to enjoy the female counterpart to the Father so supposed to enjoy the mother.

In sum, according to the speech of this bill, which is both that of the exchange of women or that the alliance is not out of the Oedipus complex, is not outside the system name Father: it is content to overthrow or to shift the terms. This supplementary report by having and being, links two bodies, insofar as one is supposed to enjoy each other. The definition of what would be a sexual pleasure is replaced by what is to enjoy a body. The relationship of male pleasure its purpose registers as though he were a sex ratio in the institutions of the speech at the origin of our civilization. Genesis establishes it as such, the metaphor for Adam's rib. It is a logical complement, where both partners are not two, but more something that is less than one its complement. Such a ratio seems to be sexual since it divides, is organized between two persons of both sexes. But it is not sexual in the sense that it does not affect both sexes as such, does not unite or two pleasures that would complement, but an alleged sex and enjoyment of the other. Even it is not about sex as such, enjoy as a body within the meaning of disposal is not sexual in itself.

That woman is not confined to the object of enjoyment, that man can not enjoy it as well, because it enjoys in this case only a part of himself, all in our Western societies became apparent, and was articulated in the Lacanian elaborations 60s. The resolution of the Oedipus complex only results in subjective positions constituting the fiction of the supplementary report between having and being, it leaves an outstanding relationship between two sexes within the meaning of what is in the speech but it also lets them build one in the margins of discourse, sometimes in a particular pair of partners, including the enjoyment of a woman, where the stream met the current tender and sensual, desire and love. When something radically changes in our civilization, as regards the name of the Father and of the Oedipus complex, it appeared that the report he founded between man and woman was a fiction, and there is sometimes a report that s' establishes between a man and a woman they know little, so there is not the current report, enduring them, the sense of universal discourse or proportion as it is announced. The speech included all the logic of phallic-castrated all but one of which is the logic-neurotic, for boys as for girls. Psychoanalysis can not be satisfied, for deciphering the unconscious, the Oedipus and not more than logical that he founded.

But this sexual act does not result solely from Oedipus and the Name of the Father. This is not only to prevent maternal incest as the desire of man is filled with such an object. Another basis is to consider

The other foundation of sexual law

The metaphor underlying this law and this object, in Genesis, that of Adam's rib, organizes the relation of man to woman like a whole to its part, the ratio thus symbolized For centuries under the aegis of the God of the Bible, and whose purpose now seems quaint in these days of sexual equality conquered, at least in the latitudes that inherit from this religious tradition. But it is not enough to see the end of a speech, it is still necessary to grasp the reason.

When Lacan begins to analyze the metaphor of the birth of the mythical feminine object, there first notes that the figure of the sexual act as address register between man and woman. But whereas elsewhere at the same time, he studies and develops the question of orgasm, left radically far apart by psychoanalysis, except for some marginal examples, trying to grasp how language takes hold of some anatomical and physiological characteristics of man to create a logic that organizes the desire, another metaphor appears behind him thereof. It seems that this subtraction of bone metaphorically evokes another subtraction for intercourse between man and woman, what he called a trend too early detumescence of penis under the female orgasm, which is a power enjoyment, so castration for both partners. Therefore the way a joke, it decrypts the called side is in fact precisely the bone loss of the body so that there is not too soon ...

Moreover, this cut functionality of the body that interrupts the sex act based an imaginary object: subtracts what is causing a desire to return, so reverted, constituting a value of enjoyment, and this is in lieu of an object feminine. And as is the phallus that is subtracted, the woman comes to equal enjoyment of such value. This is precisely what we see in the scene Genesis of metaphorically: Eve is formed of a bone removed, what should be the phallic body so that there is no subtraction of enjoyment of the couple. Genesis deals thus the intercourse of man and woman, and from its symbolization determines their social ties. "They will become one flesh" has several meanings, therefore, anatomic course, as metaphor, then the biblical sense of enjoyment, in fact they do have one, that of man, but also by condensation of the two, there is enjoyment than an anatomical part. Lacan says " God uses his sleep, pulling him one side, we are told, to make the first Eve. Divine intervention is extra, it results in the dialectic of the sexual act, that man is a subject dealing with a piece of his own body, leaving the door ajar evil inherent in the famous command: they shall become one flesh "May 24, 1967

The development of this process completes for himself the discovery of the object in 1963, this object consists of a value of enjoyment postponed after subtraction , causing a desire for found in one form or another. And to this extent it provides and in 1968, that the object is that in which the sexual partner must be found for man, that this truth is placed in the heart of Genesis, and c is why it is so bad since that time on that perfection would imagine that as the conjunction of two pleasures. Why that is why it is so bad since that time? The fact is that if the partner of man is thus formed, there is no possible combination of two pleasures between man and woman, one is only the value of enjoyment other. Such a relationship is not sexual in the strict sense but makes this one of the partners, such as a hand off of him, is enjoying what he thinks of himself as when he finds it. It is not sexual and it has a perverse dimension if we accept this definition entirely appropriate that the pervert is not interested in the partition between men and women, but that of the body and enjoyment. Since becoming subject, the body must be cut off from the enjoyment at the outset, it remains separate, but the pervert seeks to regain by being the object of the Other. And we understand how in a world where there is no Partition man woman who is defined as such by the speech, the perverse subject makes all the service to develop an alternative by the partition of the body and pleasure This is not a substitute for intercourse, but at least it exists and it is universal, so it takes its place for centuries and centuries, registering as a law.

The organizer of this metaphor of the relationship between man and woman, as the speech of our religious tradition was established and maintained, is the God of the Bible. And we could see was a simple metaphor that introduces the Oedipus by disappearing, since the formation of Eve as a partner in this mode can remove man's fear of incest. Indeed since the partner only occurs as the value of enjoyment, enjoyment in it does not, and therefore can not raise the risk of the mother. The sexual act that symbolizes this metaphor well result in that the resolution of the Oedipus complex by the name of the Father with the relationship deduced. But it is clear that this is not all. For if God intervenes to override Eve as being the man in the desire of the mother, what would he do in the subtraction command interruption of the sexual act? It is inconceivable that so literally it is first identified as one who is the agent of this interruption, and in this sense indeed removed the bone that void. This enjoyment is subtracted metaphor which would avoid it, and that would make the sexual enjoyment that would regulate only the satisfaction, therefore without castration. The Name of God is the name given to the officer that castration does not.

March 11, 75, RSI in his seminar, Lacan believes that the Name of the Father is a rut useless "This rut Name of the Father, the father as naming is emerged from the Bible, he says, and it is for man a way to wriggle out of the game phallic. " He added: "This tribal God is the add useless - ... .- that a man's body gives the asexual partner lacks. He misses how? Because it is "aphligé" of a phallus which is what bars his enjoyment of the body of the Other. "This new commentary on the myth of Genesis brings in a few words the thesis that we have just unfolded. Eve is created because the mode of use of the penis bar enjoyment that man could be a woman. Subtraction of its functionality prevents the enjoyment of the female body, which forms a phallic signifier on its removal, which then symbolizes the body, and its perverse consequences. This is why, says Lacan, "the man is married to his phallus, no other woman than that." There is no need for God's enjoyment of this subtraction is occurring because of the functionality based on the physiology of the instrument. But God is the author of subtraction, ie castration, as the resulting object. The Father is created as agent of castration, whereas this is castration does not need an agent to exist, and when it became his agent in the unconscious, it in turn influences the physiology.

Lacan seems to say that the God of the Bible, our Father's name, could have been invented as an agent for something that relates to the sexual act and not procreation, as was thought. This God would have been the first name created to serve as commanding officer at this break in the enjoyment of human copulation. It is the name of what would amount to man in order to enjoy, to ejaculate, and therefore subtracts his body, as if an order was given for it, why it is mentioned as a vocative command. And so God is the name that the castrates, and forms a value equivalent to that enjoyment has been subtracted, the principle of the object becomes the woman. Appoint an agent for something that has no need, that's basically what Lacan calls "phallic to succeed at the game." This is to ensure that the onset of orgasm is like a command, a commander with so in others in the sexual pair, which has many consequences.

The sexual symbolism of the ancient civilizations keeps track of such a hypothesis. Some civilizations as ancient China, have attempted to control male orgasm or ejaculation, so the couple back to the subtraction of sexual enjoyment, so castration. Our civilization has not tried that, she gave him a manager, an agent of divine subtraction deduced the object of desire. The effectiveness of this metaphor is great because it builds between man and woman on a report that fits the mode of complement, and it bears within it the seeds of possibility of science, but it means in consequence that this report will not be to join, not even to attempt to conjoin two pleasures, since it will issue more than one use, with its castration and its purpose. Thus, in the words of Lacan, it is so bad since that time ...

But then what about the Name of the Father of Oedipus, representative and guarantor of the forbidden incest, the mother interdicteur agent? What does he do with it? Both modes of symbolization obviously have a convergent result, since the object formed from the resolution Oedipus is the equivalent to that formed by the postponement of a value subtracted in the enjoyment of intercourse. The female phallic object formed by reduction of the Other to the oedipal object, castration once made, is homologous to the enjoyment value subtracted from forming Eve sex. In both cases, the subtraction of use is attributed to the Father, and translates into subtracting the phallus, is simply one of the other real symbolic. And in both cases the feminine object is formed by delaying the enjoyment subtracted is imaginary phallic object. Thus the sexual act has two sources, it is not only a consequence of the Name of the Father of Oedipus, who is but a subjective source, that is at stake for a subject, while the source of the sex has its place community of discourse, which would explain why it is widely present in the myths of ancient civilizations. And of course it is conceivable that what is at stake for the subject based courses in which the community of discourse, or the reverse, as the point where you ask, they linked together the to one another.

is why we need a double-loop topology, like the eight internal, used by Lacan in 1964, to think this double determination of the reports of sex and language. It helps to imagine that if these two sides appear parallel and equivalent as the two loops placed one upon the other, one is logically first, that the real watershed. It is in the gap of sex that the Name of the Father is established, falls first to a flaw in the metamorphosing enjoyment, and only then it is determined then as interdicteur mother and founder of symbolic system. So that the prohibition of incest, far from being merely symbolic because of a defect report is precisely to hide and compensate for a lack of real relationship, since prohibit the mother returns to prescribe desired, which is part of a report as an prohibited. Once appointed as agent of castration in the report, the Name of the Father, serves interdicteur. This is also the whole of the speech, according to Lacan, who stands around in the gap of intercourse, because the language does not establish the two sex, but substitutes. It is understood the difficulty of this conceptualization, but we also need designs

Psychoanalysis can no longer be content to decipher the unconscious solely from the Oedipus and his father's name. This is certainly necessary and essential as training subjective results, but provided you do not forget or ignore it is articulated to another formation, that is the metaphor of another castration, the relation sexual man and woman, the name of another name if you want. Analysis tackle always sure about the Oedipus complex, and even then it has to go so far as it can not do without the Oedipus it has therefore to be made on both partitions simultaneously, somehow, and also to decipher the impasse that the subject encounters in intercourse, in its articulation to the enjoyment of the other sex. An impasse on this issue there is, as it has developed from the Other, but an impasse that is present for all, by the solution that the speeches were introduced in front of the pleasures of disjunction man and woman, symbolizing their report on this mode. We can not therefore say that this impasse is due only to symbolic language, but not to be due to physiology : It is due to meet them, that the language has made the physiology and logic, which he founded on this basis. The analysis aims to overcome the logic of any phallic established with the name of the Father and the sexual act, and hence may allow access, in the margins of discourse, a different logic, that person does nothing to universal but only a singular relationship that has a chance this time to be sexual in the sense of having two sexes.

Become report with the deconstruction of the Name of the Father

But the speeches have largely evolved which is to define gender roles and the relationship between man and woman. With the massive deconstruction of Father Christian monotheism and the redesign of the sex ratio, the man is no longer defined in the speech which has as an object, its half or portion thereof, or a woman as if 'y summarizing. Therefore what is the current evolution has in relation to that report? We see the analytic experience how each develops its own solutions to try to find its way to the other sex, when the institutions that set out what should be the link no longer universal weight, even more weight at all. What happens when a man is not established a priori as the one with the phallus, and a woman who is so sure of being the object of desire or be castrated for doing so? What happens there beyond this dialectic phallic?

can get an idea of what Lacan thought about this issue in a fair and full of humor. The commentary in The Purloined Letter by Edgar Allan Poe, who was first to show how the unconscious is also handy, though misunderstood, that the letter was stolen, the report also addresses gender and its future. When the minister took the letter from a great kingdom of the Queen has received and must hide from the king, and he then uses to exercise power over it, nothing here indicates a priori that there is something that could affect the future of the relationship between man and woman. But when Lacan makes this letter a sign of female orgasm, outlaw speech where it is supposed to enjoy than to be the wife of the man, the scope of review changes, and Poe was probably his even wanted it. Because this letter becomes something else when is stolen for the purpose of blackmail, so clamping it becomes the signifier of the phallus. So initially we are dealing with the sign of the female orgasm, then when a man seizes for having taken on the woman, he becomes a signifier of power.

The commentary in the preface to the paperback edition of the Writings in 1969, allows us to think that Lacan developed the tale on that date as a metaphor for how the relationship between man and woman in Western society is changing. Indeed, if one considers that the Greek Patriarchate and the Roman had a signifier of the phallus power of man, after he has long been the symbol of the enjoyment of the goddess, the wife-mother incestuous, a metaphor emerges. The phallus was going so incestuous enjoyment phallic enjoyment, in the order of narcissism. And at a time when deconstructed patriarchal signifiers, this letter is in fact now being taken to continue with this metaphor, except that she does not belong to anybody, a priori, it must be conquered one by one. The phallus is no longer in effect, in our countries, the same status as it is now obvious to all, or nearly so, it is not superimposable the penis and enjoy the phallus is not necessarily having to own, within the meaning of narcissism, the enjoyment of such a woman is to enjoy it without having it. Phallic jouissance for now so obvious that women and men, since it is heavily at work in the achievements of each other. But the commentary on Lacan's The Purloined Letter goes further, considering that he plays it is not catastrophic for the Minister that he resumed the letter, because it is contrary to the letter when he in his possession he was feminized. No longer having castrates him, somehow, but especially the relief of the femininity he had suffered for having seized the sign of the female orgasm. This makes its dimension of man "who dares to do anything." The fate of the men in our society seems to say it, makes us think about this, as if in fact want to be the God of the woman, the man found himself, during all these centuries, equivalent to woman of God.

The current relationship between man and woman might thus, like this comment, be designed as freeing a man he had put on femininity paradoxical to have adorned the sign of the female orgasm as a narcissistic membership. The loss of the phallus today that God gave him before, while exempting him, castration would be beneficial, it opens the way towards the realization of a woman rather than what is just trying to enjoy an imaginary object. When this occurs enjoyment in doing so it gives it another phallus stronger if we can say, because it is specific to this couple, and not the fact of a universal meaning he would to represent. This Lacanian perspective of the evolution of sex ratio opens up many ways.

course there are some mourning to do with the current revisions of the report. Lacan says for example that in 63 man must do his mourning for the castration he seeks to produce in women and that is their own concern, as lack at home is not at this level, and it is not enough that he has for the castrated phallus. No longer having the phallus as established a priori by the mere fact of being a man, he must conquer. A woman was also in mourning to do, because Nor is it more a priori the phallus, the object of desire, she has to conquer this desire is the price it pays to be no longer be forwarded with dot. One way might be easier to open an additional report, which effectively binds both sexes and not just a sex object and as the supplementary report. A woman is naturally subject in all its accomplishments, but we also know that it also be the object of desire, and thus its enjoyment is at stake in the report. From there she can enjoy the Other, and from there only. This includes castration for man, but also gives it back again a phallus.

sexuality in psychoanalysis should now be addressed also from the impasse of sex and not only through the Name of the Father of Oedipus, who founded a subject. Of course the deadlock for each subject is made to its mode of use and its signifiers, it is quite another thing to consider also the point of view of the stalemate that exists for everyone this impasse that the speeches of Civilizations have symbolized, hidden, and also produced, which is a real discourse excludes while building it. Sex does not report, then mainly expected him to do, and everything in the speech is set to hide the central fact. The discourse tends to supply this defect by establishing a stand-in report, but in doing so it increases the defect report, and it perpetuates. Years, decades perhaps, that will be needed to pass this knowledge in the real, but it will be ignored. Nothing serious can be advanced on this issue in psychoanalysis, can we think, without going there. The fundamental question is whether psychoanalysis is or is not able to move over there

Certainly more can be done by reading an analysis of Oedipal sexuality, but it is only valid if it does not stop there, if not the whole basis of the sex ratio. We are not beyond the Oedipus complex because we see how it remains central, but we're at that Oedipus is not everything. Each is tested in her love life with failure to report the opposite sex, according to the Oedipus concludes that there is falling short of its share and blames the other. Castration that everyone encounters in the sexual act is referred to his own failure, his lack of being at the height of what is to be the phallus for a man and a woman to be. This defect is readable by the Oedipus complex, but does not summarize it. Castration is the real prize of all in sex, like lack of enjoyment that would unite them, that translated into the unconscious body of subtraction as the Genesis.

That's what today is revealed when the ban on sexual pleasure has ceased, when the whole system which has supported the deconstruct present when this proved not so fragile that it seemed tough, as useful as it seemed bad, also luring it seemed necessary. And behind this prohibition appears a point of impossible, in which all are compelled, in fact, since it is the relationship between the two sexes is something that is not written in the law of the speech, which is written nowhere and probably will not do, and which therefore is to write to each and ever, which explains why some succeed and many give up.