{"id":852,"date":"2021-06-12T04:57:34","date_gmt":"2021-06-12T04:57:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/symptom\/?page_id=852"},"modified":"2021-06-12T20:20:39","modified_gmt":"2021-06-12T20:20:39","slug":"docile-to-trans-by-jacques-alain-miller","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/symptom\/docile-to-trans-by-jacques-alain-miller\/","title":{"rendered":"Docile to Trans by Jacques-Alain Miller"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”815″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/lacan1.htm”][vc_single_image image=”440″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/symptom\/”][vc_single_image image=”854″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center”][vc_custom_heading text=”DOCILE TO TRANS” font_container=”tag:h2|font_size:45|text_align:center|color:%2311004f” google_fonts=”font_family:Forum%3Aregular|font_style:400%20regular%3A400%3Anormal”][vc_custom_heading text=”By Jacques-Alain Miller” font_container=”tag:h6|font_size:35|text_align:center|color:%23000000″ google_fonts=”font_family:Forum%3Aregular|font_style:400%20regular%3A400%3Anormal”][vc_custom_heading text=”” font_container=”tag:h2|font_size:20|text_align:center|color:%2311004f” google_fonts=”font_family:Forum%3Aregular|font_style:400%20regular%3A400%3Anormal”][vc_empty_space height=”30″][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n

The storm has broken. The trans crisis is upon us. Trans people are in a trance (let’s get that\u00a0one out of the way, it was to be expected) while among the psy community, protrans and\u00a0anti-trans grapple with each other with all the gusto of Big-Endians and LittleEndians in\u00a0Gulliver\u2019s Travels.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

I\u2019m joking.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Rightly so\u2014and yet, how inappropriate it is to joke, to laugh and to mock when the\u00a0stakes in this war of ideas could not be more serious and when what is at stake is\u00a0nothing less than our civilisation and its famous malaise, or discontent, diagnosed by\u00a0Freud at the very beginning of the 1930s of the last century? Is the satirical mode\u00a0suitable for such a serious subject? Certainly not. So, I will make amends. I will not be\u00a0caught again.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

I wrote \u201cWar of ideas\u201d. This is the title of Eug\u00e9nie Basti\u00e9’s latest book. It came back to me\u00a0unexpectedly. I don’t think the word \u201ctrans\u201d appears in it a single time. The book ends on\u00a0the current state of radical feminism and the war of the sexes. Given that this pretty\u00a0young mother is also the savviest of journalists, it’s safe to say that the outbreak of the\u00a0French trans crisis came after the book was written. Let’s find the date of the book\u2019s\u00a0launch, and we’ll know that, three months earlier, this crisis was not yet perceptible to a\u00a0media eye as sharp as Eug\u00e9nie B’s.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Let’s see. I pre-ordered La guerre des id\u00e9es. Enqu\u00eate au c\u0153ur de l’intelligentsia fran\u00e7aise through Amazon and it was delivered on the 11th of March. So, at the beginning of this year, trans had not yet entered what the author\u2014this auteur, auteure, autrice\u2014calls \u201cthe public debate\u201d. It was invisible, or invisibilised, to use a word dear to decolonials and\u00a0other wokes. Or perhaps we were all, not authors of any persuasion, but ostriches?<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Another play on words! A repeat offender! Incorrigible! I plead guilty. But with\u00a0extenuating circumstances: a difficult childhood, an addiction to signifiers, pernicious\u00a0influences. I cannot go any further into the trans question without pleading my case.<\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

The pro domo plea<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

From a very young age, I liked to play with and on names and words. For example, I used\u00a0to call my younger brother, G\u00e9rard, G\u00e9raldine. He didn’t become a transsexual, and\u00a0nowadays he sports a beard on all the television channels. I’ve been reading since I was\u00a0very young, and what were my first favourite books? Jules Verne’s Journey to the Center\u00a0of the Earth and Edgar Allan Po\u00eb’s The Golden Scarab, both stories of a secret message to\u00a0be deciphered. I loved Rabelais lists, Moli\u00e8re\u2019s farces, Voltaire\u2019s antics, Hugo\u2019s litanies,\u00a0Alphonse Allais\u2019s absurdities (but not Camus’s \u201cphilosophy of the absurd\u201d), Gide’s Les\u00a0Caves du Vatican (but not Les nourritures terrestres), the Surrealists\u2019 \u2018exquisite corpse\u2019,\u00a0and Queneau and Co.\u2019s \u201cexercises in style\u201d.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

When I knew Latin, I read the classics, of course, but secretly cherished the satires of\u00a0Juvenal. Not being a Hellenist (my father had demanded that I learn Spanish, because \u201cso\u00a0widespread in the world\u201d), I read Lucian of Samosate only in French. I never missed the\u00a0spoonerisms of \u201cL’Album de la Comtesse\u201d in Le Canard encha\u00een\u00e9. I read Freud’s book on\u00a0the Witz very early on.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

So I was not very serious. I respected no one but the great writers, the great\u00a0philosophers, the great artists, the great warriors and statesmen, or rather state\u00a0personalities, poets and mathematicians. I had even conceived, like Stendhal, an\u00a0\u201centhusiasm\u201d for mathematics; perhaps it came to me also from \u201cmy horror for\u00a0hypocrisy\u201d.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Then, at the age of twenty, I had the misfortune to fall into the clutches of a 63-year-old\u00a0doctor, psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, known as the white wolf for being a black sheep\u00a0[mouton noir]. Over time he became a br\u00e9bis galeuse\u00b9\u2014transition! He lived in a dark, low-ceilinged mezzanine, a den, a real lair, in a building in the 7th arrondissement where Isidore Ducasse’s banker had lived, which makes it the only place in Paris where we are sure that Lautr\u00e9amont actually visited. Dr Lacan, for it is him I am talking about, made a big deal of the fact. He told me about it the first time he received me in his office, whose cramped conditions made any ‘social distancing’ between bodies impossible and forced an oppressive proximity.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

This irregular, non-standard character did not hide his game. My Stendhalian horror of\u00a0hypocrisy could find nothing to reproach him for. He was a devil in open view, who\u00a0ostensibly mocked everything, that is, everything that was not him and not his cause. In the age of benevolence, he was not shy about saying to his Seminar, \u201cI have no good\u00a0intentions\u201d. On the one occasion when he spoke on French television, prime time, he said,\u00a0referring to the analyst as a saint: \u201cNot giving a damn for distributive justice [\u2026] is where\u00a0he most often started from\u201d.\u00b2\u00a0 He went so far as to boast in public, shortly before his death, that he had spent his life \u201cbeing the Other in spite of the law\u201d. To make matters worse for me, he not only sheltered me under his wing, his black wing, his demonic wing, but I became his relative: he granted me the hand of one of his daughters, the one who had the devil’s beauty, so to speak, and whom he had named Judith, playing his cards close to his chest: the man who would enjoy her had to know that he would pay for it with a fate worthy of Holofernes.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

How did he catch me? By putting in my hands Gottlob Frege’s Foundations of Arithmetic, Die Grunlagen der Arithmetik, 1884, a logistic elaboration of the concept of number\u00a0(according to him, arithmetic was based on logic.) Three years earlier, Lacan had himself\u00a0done his utmost to demonstrate to his followers the similarity between the dynamic\u00a0genesis of Frege’s sequence of natural integers (0, 1, 2, 3, etc.) and the unfolding of what\u00a0he called a signifying chain. \u201cThey only hindered me\u201d, he said, \u201clet’s see if you can do\u00a0better\u201d. My simple presentation earned me a triumph among the psychoanalysts, his\u00a0disciples, and at the same time aroused much jealousy on their part: \u201cBut how did he do\u00a0it? And to think that he is not even in analysis!\u201d And I wasn’t even the \u2018son-in-law’ yet,\u00a0although a discreet romance had developed between myself and Judith.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Philippe Sollers, a prince of Letters who had just begun to follow Lacan’s Seminar,\u00a0\u201ccharming, young and trailing all hearts behind him\u201d, asked me for my text for his review\u00a0Tel Quel. I had the nerve to refuse him, wanting to reserve it for the first issue,\u00a0mimeographed at the \u00c9cole normale, of Cahiers pour l’analyse, which I had just founded\u00a0with three friends, Grosrichard, Milner and Regnault. A fourth, on the other hand,\u00a0Bouveresse, a member of the same Cercle d’\u00e9pist\u00e9mologie, was still fulminating twenty\u00a0years later, now a professor at the Coll\u00e8ge de France, against the nerve I had had to\u00a0Lacanise Frege, who was sacrosanct for the logicians. As for Derrida, my philosophy tutor, he\u00a0pouted: he judged my demonstration to be abstruse (he was not very well versed in\u00a0mathematical logic). Strangely enough, through channels I don’t know, my little expos\u00e9 entitled \u201cSuture\u201d became a classic for film studies in the United States (?).<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

This was how the world wagged at the time when the strict structuralism of Roman\u00a0Jakobson and Claude L\u00e9vi-Strauss was becoming an intellectual epidemic in and around\u00a0Paris. The episode made my reputation as a precocious genius of Lacanian studies. I was\u00a0forever pinned like a butterfly on the album of the Parisian intelligentsia: Papilio lacanor\u00a0perinde ac cadaver. This is how I found myself at the mercy of Jacques Marie Emile Lacan,\u00a0a great sinner of men before the Eternal.<\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

Fifty years after the fact, it is time for MeToo to confess. Horresco referens, it’s awful to\u00a0say, but I was, for years, a victim of unspeakable and incessant abuse of authority by my\u00a0father-in-law, in both public and private, constituting a true crime of moral and spiritual\u00a0incest. I gave in to something stronger than myself. I even consented\u2014Shame! as Ad\u00e8le\u00a0Haenel would say\u2014to take some pleasure in it, a certain pleasure. I remained divided\u00a0forever.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

The monster having passed away forty years ago, the lawsuits I would come to initiate\u00a0would only have a symbolic but nevertheless decisive impact on healing the wounds in\u00a0my soul and repairing the damage done to my self-esteem.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

I reserve for the judicial authorities the details of the testimony I am giving. But I want it\u00a0to be known: just like the dust of which he was made that spoke through the mouth of\u00a0Saint-Juste, braving persecution and death, do not forget, dear reader, that it is a proud victim, \u00b3 \u00a0a proud victim, who speaks to you through mine. \u201cBut I defy them to wrest\u00a0from me the independent life I gave myself before the centuries and the heavens\u201d.<\/h4>\n

Let’s go back to our trans people. They are victims. Like me.<\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

The trans revolt<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>It seems that the current directors of the \u00c9cole de la Cause freudienne\u2014which was once\u00a0brought to the baptismal font by me and mine before being adopted by Lacan\u2014had a\u00a0good nose for it, since they invited the famous trans Paul B. Preciado, darling of the woke\u00a0media, to speak at the \u00c9cole’s 2019 Annual Conference in the Grand Amphitheatre at the\u00a0Palais des Congr\u00e8s in Paris. Preciado accepted graciously.<\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

Why this unprecedented invitation, which startled the psy community? The trans crisis\u00a0was not yet upon us, but it could be anticipated. Indeed, if we take an overview of things,\u00a0if we look back and take the long view of the process that has culminated today, in\u00a0France, in the trans revolt, what do we see?<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Let us say it quickly. We must remember that the sick, our patients, all those suffering\u00a0souls who used to present themselves to be taken care of by healers\u2014whoever they\u00a0were: nurses, doctors, pharmacists, surgeons, dentists, acupuncturists, osteopaths,\u00a0physiotherapists, psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists, and even psychopomps,\u00a0not to mention the bonesetters, fortune-tellers, witches, so deeply scrutinized in the past\u00a0by a Jeanne Favret-Saada, then a Lacanian, in a memorable study, marabouts, healers,\u00a0spell-casters, and so on, without forgetting the rest of us, not least psychoanalysts,\u00a0Lacanian and others\u2014this mass therefore of seekers of care were kept stupefied before\u00a0\u201cpower-knowledge\u201d (Foucault) of dispensers of care. Their only right was to remain\u00a0silent, except with the psy, of course, and other charlatans of all kinds.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

A new paradigm emerged after WW2. Day after day, year after year, governments of the\u00a0left, governments of the right, governments of the centre, whispered to them, these\u00a0oppressed ones: \u201cSpeak up! Don’t let them do it to you! You have rights. Just because you\u00a0are sick, you are no less a citizen. Do as everyone else does: complain! make them\u00a0accountable! get yourself reimbursed! get yourself compensation! The health\u00a0dictatorship is over! Make way for the health democracy!\u201d<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

\u201cWhat do you think happened?\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>\u201cWhat do you think happened? The people complied: they revolted. The \u201ctrans\u201d and their\u00a0allies got the message loud and clear, and they are now pushing it to its ultimate\u00a0consequences. Often, to rise up, you need some encouragement or even an injunction\u00a0from above, from the Great Headquarters. Example: the Chinese Cultural Revolution. It\u00a0was Chairman Mao’s directives that led to the formation of gangs of Red Guard across\u00a0that vast country, creating havoc throughout society.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

In France, the public authorities did their best to dismantle the ancient \u201csubject supposed to know\u201d that governed the medical order. What is happening? The S\u00b2K finds himself cast off with the dregs,4<\/sup> discredited, lacerated, wrung out, tortured, down on his knees, with a dunce’s cap upon his head, dragged through the streets amid jeering, thrown out of the window. He falls like Humpty Dumpty to the foot of the wall behind which the suffering population had been penned up, and there he is, Humpty, in a thousand pieces. The wall in turn collapses. The prisoners are having a ball. Everywhere it is the Night of August the 4th, the end of the medical and healthcare practitioner\u2019s privilege.5<\/sup>\u00a0And order went plop!, which in the past, and not so long ago, prevailed with difficulty in matters of arse.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Humpty Dumpty<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.<\/h4>\n

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.<\/h4>\n

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men<\/h4>\n

Couldn\u2019t put Humpty together again.<\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

Respect and kindness<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>In affairs of the arse, that is to say, in the field of sexuality if you prefer to speak like a\u00a0stiff, it\u2019s now a big mess. Now everything is upside down. Butler and her Maenads have\u00a0made an impossible shambles of it all. I roasted Eric Marty for a good three hours, but I\u00a0didn’t get to the bottom of the mysteries of gender. The Mysteries of Pompeii is a mere\u00a0trifle by comparison. In short, they can be summed up as follows: \u201cThe phallus, I tell you.\u00a0\u201cPhalle, you will guide our steps\u201d, as Zimmerwald once did. But gender? No need for a\u00a0compass. Everyone is losing their bearings. No longer fooled by anything, people are\u00a0wandering. It’s the night in which all the cats are grey, as in Schelling’s Absolute mocked\u00a0by Hegel. Nevertheless, everyone is talking about it. Everyone has an idea. Gender is\u00a0nowadays a matter of course for the \u201ccontemporary subject\u201d.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

My grandson, the last of the Millers, the youngest heir to the name, 16 years old, an\u00a0environmental activist, a fan of mathematical physics and In Search of Lost Time, lectures\u00a0me on gender. He has trans friends in his class. Half a century ago, I was in the same high\u00a0school, at the same age, and there were no trans people among us, at most one or two\u00a0dandies who were a bit androgynous around the edges and who dandied around to\u00a0amuse the gallery. We were all boys. No girls, no trans people. My generation still wore\u00a0smocks at elementary school. We wrote with a dip pen, a ballpoint was not allowed. It\u00a0was the Middle Ages.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

My grandson: \u201cYou mustn\u2019t say, Jacques-Alain, that he has become a girl. It’s upsetting for him. No, he is a girl\u201d. I reply, \u201cAnd when your big, well-coiffed friend tells you he’s a girl, what do you do?\u201d \u201cI accept what he says with respect and kindness\u201d, he says. End of story. \u201cNo pasaran?\u201d6 <\/sup>Well they han pasado, they well and truly have passed. \u201cE pur si muove!\u201d7 <\/sup>The phrase is apocryphal, it means: In spite of all the inquisitions, all the demonstrations, gender is turning! Of it one can make neither head nor tale. But no problem. The less clear it is, the better it works. And it sweeps everything along in its path.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

MGTOW<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

National public health policy since 1945 has paved the way for the trans revolt. A\u00a0chronology can be reconstructed, step by step. Before going into the causes of the event,\u00a0let us not dismiss the facts\u2014unlike Jean-Jacques in his Discourse on the Origin and\u00a0Foundations of Inequality among Mankind. This is, I think, the book I reread most in my\u00a0adolescence, between the ages of 14 and 18. The title re-emerged during my analysis, in\u00a0a dream, in the form: \u201c… on the inequality between men and women\u201d. The unconscious had\u00a0interpreted me. This was an occasion for he who I was to laugh inexhaustibly, followed\u00a0by the recognition in him of a machismo hidden behind a bias towards my mother. In\u00a0fact, in my childhood, when my father made my mother cry, who suffered from his\u00a0compulsive Don Juanism\u2014which he kept like Swann until his death at the age of 93\u2014I\u00a0definitely took her part. I was his mother\u2019s little white knight.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

The male chivalric fantasy has since been pinned down and classified. White Knight has\u00a0recently become a term used to stigmatise the saviours of women in distress, and all\u00a0those who declare themselves to be supporters of gender equality in order to cede all\u00a0privileges to women. It is not clinicians who have isolated the phenomenon, but male\u00a0militants, defenders of a virility they believe to be under threat by the progress of\u00a0feminism. They are grouped in the masculinist movement MGTOW, for Men Going Their\u00a0Own Way.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

The word ‘Way’ carries a lot of weight. We remember Sinatra crooning My Way. There is\u00a0also the American idiomatic expression, \u201cMy way or the highway\u201d. It translates as: \u201cTake it or\u00a0leave it\u201d, \u201cYou do as I say or get out\u201d, etc. The expression became the title of a song\u00a0by a so-called pimp-rock band. MGTOW is in a way the Tao of macho men.\u00a0The pimps’ band is called Limp Bizkit, and I learn by Googling that the name is a\u00a0distortion of Limp Biscuit. Highly suggestive. For a pimp, having a limp biscuit probably\u00a0means horror, unemployment, shame. So the name is apotropaic: you ward off the curse\u00a0by the mere fact of assuming it with pride. This is what the gays did with the insult\u00a0\u201cqueer\u201d.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

There’s more: while consulting The Urban Dictionary, from the reading of which I always derive a surplus-enjoyment because of the extraordinary inventiveness of American street talk, I came across the expression Penis biscuit, which refers to a certain practice involving the foreskin. Go and see for yourself, because, as they used to do in the old days in order to veil obscenities, I couldn’t reproduce the definition without translating it into Latin, and since my kh\u00e2gne is now a long way behind me,8 <\/sup>I don’t have the vocabulary I need right now.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

However, it is enough to follow mgtow.com, the website responsible for disseminating\u00a0the philosophy of the movement and its main activities, to verify that it does indeed, as\u00a0Wikipedia says, cultivate a misogynistic, anti-feminist and hateful ideology. We do not\u00a0yet have the equivalent here in France.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

I can only think of Zemmour’s speech, which could pass for the prefiguration of such a\u00a0movement, or rather for the expression of the desire for it to exist. But the French\u00a0polemicist remains a timid masculinist, who is far from showing women the same\u00a0loathing he has for minorities of colour\u2014in a well-argued polemic, it must be admitted\u00a0\u2014 who, in his eyes, infest the country and are leading it to ruin. He sees the French\u00a0Muslims as future dominants, and he makes the kafir majority tremble by predicting that\u00a0they will inexorably become a minority. What is noticeable is that his rhetoric is\u00a0modelled on that of those de-colonials, genderqueers and woke people whom he vows to\u00a0demonise. He simply reverses it. That’s the way of the age: the same structure of thought\u00a0is imposed on everyone, on you, on me. It’s the spirit of the age, the Zeitgeist.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

The axiom of supremacy<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

If I dwell on MGTOW, it is because we see at work in this movement, and as if for all eyes\u00a0to see, several of the constitutive axioms of the paradigm shift of the new times. The\u00a0word is Kuhn’s, the idea owes a lot to Foucault, who is himself indebted to Koyr\u00e9, I won’t\u00a0go back any further.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

What is the initial notion of this paradigm shift? Let us say by hypothesis that it is\u00a0distributive injustice. This very old notion here takes the form of what I will call the\u00a0axiom of supremacy. It is understood that society is structured from top to bottom by a\u00a0matrix of domination, domination being an asymmetrical relation between two powers\u00a0of opposite sign (binarism!). With MGTOW, it is not capitalists and proletarians, nor the\u00a0elites and the people, nor Franks and Gauls, what have you, it is simply women and men.\u00a0According to MGTOW, it is women who hold the upper hand in society. Society is run for\u00a0their exclusive benefit, and to the detriment of men. They have the desire and the\u00a0intention to cheat, despoil and castrate men (Lacan, let’s admit it, sometimes went in\u00a0this direction, but I won’t say that without a pinch of salt).<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

As soon as we decide to count them, the evidence of female supremacy is innumerable:\u00a0in divorces or separations, the courts regularly favour the second sex; on the strength of\u00a0the faith accorded to women’s words, men see themselves groundlessly accused of\u00a0harassment, incest and rape, while there is no one to redeem the affronted male\u00a0innocence. Everything conspires to depreciate, ridicule and drive out masculine values.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

At home, one Alain Jupp\u00e9\u2014well-named by antiphrasis\u2014has suffered for years for\u00a0having once proclaimed, when he was Prime Minister: \u201cI am straight in my boots\u201d. I had\u00a0the opportunity to tell him one day in his office at Bordeaux City Hall\u2014where I had come\u00a0to ask for his help in countering the undertakings of a senior member of his party who\u00a0saw the fact that there was no state diploma in psychoanalysis as a ‘legal vacuum’ that\u00a0had to be filled\u2014that the times no longer allowed a politician to play the proud man by\u00a0talking about his boots and his ‘standing straight’ like an erect phallus, the Name-of-theFather having long since disappeared from the ballot paper to be replaced by the Desire\u00a0of the Mother. A few years later, the psychoanalyst-journalist Michel Schneider, although\u00a0a rabid anti-Lacanian, was to excellently baptise the metaphorical signifier with an\u00a0Orwellian nickname: Big Mother.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

In Macron, four years ago, France was to elect a mama’s boy of the finest water, married very clearly beyond Oedipus.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

The separation axiom<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Does this mean that, from now on, everything will be benevolent, gentle, tender, in a word, delivered with care?9\u00a0<\/sup> This English word encompasses prudence, awareness, being mindful of things, becoming cognisant of something, the attention given to the execution of a task, providing a living being with the means to perpetuate itself in being, etc.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Does this mean that we will get out of the supremacist logic by peaceful and legal means,\u00a0by diplomacy and transaction, by long debate, drawn out discussion or by negotiating\u00a0with the dominant ones?<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

It has happened. Think of the ‘Velvet Revolution’ of 1989 in Czechoslovakia, the\u00a0Sametov\u00e0 revoluce. Or the smooth exit from apartheid in South Africa, for which Nelson\u00a0Mandela and the formerly dominant white minority leader, Frederik De Klerk, were\u00a0jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993. Going further back in time, the American\u00a0civil rights movement in the 1960s had the protest song, We Shall Overcome, as its war\u00a0song, but its inspiration was no less non-violent, humanistic and universalist, as\u00a0manifested in the \u2018negro spiritual\u2019 Kumbaya, my Lord, a call for God to come back\u00a0(kumbaya is a corruption of come back) to help those concerned, to meet their needs, in\u00a0short, to take care.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

This used to exist, but that was before the paradigm shift. Since then, the second axiom,\u00a0which I would qualify as separation, has irresistibly imposed itself. What does it say? It\u00a0says things like this: \u201cThou shalt not have friendly relations with the other side. Thou\u00a0shalt go thy own way. Thou shalt not make pacts. Thou shalt not love thy neighbour as\u00a0thyself, but thy fellow man. Thou shalt love the same as thyself. Thou shalt flee from the\u00a0other like Satan. Those who are alike shall come together. Let no one enter here who is\u00a0not alike\u201d.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

If I wanted to please my Argentinian friends, I would say that this is the Per\u00f3n axiom.\u00a0Indeed, among the great principles enunciated by Evita’s husband was this one: \u201cNo hay\u00a0nada mejor para un peronista qu\u00e9 otro peronista\u201d.\u00b9\u00ba What proper noun could be assigned to the axiom of supremacy? No Marxist name. No, it could be the Gobineau axiom.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

In the grip of the separation axiom, many MGTOW members go so far as to refrain from\u00a0sexual commerce with the opposite sex, in order to avoid exposing themselves to the\u00a0unpleasantness that awaits those who collaborate with the enemy, particularly those\u00a0false allegations with which the #Metoo vixens are familiar.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Alice Coffin’s Lesbian Genius, which caused almost all of the country’s enlightened\u00a0opinion to gag last fall, is just MGTOW in reverse: WGTOW, so to speak. Nothing but\u00a0classic.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

Soon, retiring to a hideous kingdom,<\/h4>\n

The Woman will have Gomorrah and the Man will have Sodom,<\/h4>\n

And, casting an irritated glance at each other from afar,<\/h4>\n

Both sexes will die separately.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

Vigny already had in his own way this concept of the \u201cmonosexual\u201d in which Foucault, in\u00a0the last years of his life, placed all his hopes for happiness, and from which he drew his\u00a0joy of living, as demonstrated by Eric Marty in Le Sexe des Modernes. Alice Coffin has had\u00a0the merit of lending her voice to what has been whispered about since time immemorial\u00a0in the most respectable and established lesbian circles. What’s new is that what was\u00a0once whispered in the ears of girlfriends is now being shouted out in public and over the\u00a0airwaves. Why this new tolerance for intolerance? Because we live under the axiom of\u00a0separation.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

And when Tartuffe and Tartuffa recriminate, crying out: \u201cMy God, let us be spared the\u00a0disgusting tastes of these dykes!\u201d What can we say to them, except: \u201cZap, T and T, zap, for\u00a0God’s sake, if it revolts you so much! Keep to yourselves!\u201d<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Valerie Solanas said it all back in 1967 in the SCUM Manifesto: \u201cLife in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there\u00a0remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the\u00a0government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy\u00a0the male sex\u201d. And bang! And bang! And bang! She fires three shots at Andy Warhol,\u00a0poor guy. He almost died, and lived his life in terror of Solanas. She had to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and serve three years in prison. She died in San Francisco in In San Francisco, her play Up Your Ass, which she had given to Warhol as a\u00a0manuscript, was first performed in 2000. According to the Village Voice, she vowed to\u00a0wipe all men off the face of the earth. Norman Mailer called her the Robespierre of\u00a0feminism (see Wikipedia).<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

At this stage, Solanas or MGTOW, everything is still simple. It’s the war of the sexes,\u00a0known since the dawn of time, only heated up, with live ammunition (there are no\u00a0reports of MGTOW murders yet, but that will come soon).\u00a0This incandescence reflects the irresistible rise of the desire for segregation, to call it\u00a0that. To parody Sully, suprematism and separatism are the two breasts of segregation. It\u00a0rolls us in its wave, all of us, the pros, the cons, the neutrals, the right, the left and the\u00a0rest.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

A new thrill<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Hugo wrote of Baudelaire to Baudelaire that he had created \u201ca new thrill\u201d. That’s it.\u00a0With the entry on the scene of the trans person, an often colourful character in our\u00a0human comedy\u2014Balzac’s trans person? Of course, in the guise of the androgynous\u00a0Seraphitus-Seraphita\u2014 a new thrill passes through civilisation.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

What trans people bring is disorder [trouble]. Not disorder in gender, which is\u00a0intrinsically confused, but disorder, a skirmish, in the immemorial war of the sexes.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Before trans people, the monster was the hermaphrodite. He too disturbed sexual public\u00a0order. But hermaphroditism is only a matter of organs. A hermaphrodite is a biological\u00a0case, a rare one at that. Androgyny, on the other hand, is a creature of myth, a matter of\u00a0look and lifestyle. An androgynous person is someone whose appearance does not allow\u00a0you to determine to which sex he or she belongs. This was already the case in ancient\u00a0Greece or Rome: see Luc Brisson’s Le sexe incertain. It is not as such a sexual identity\u00a0disorder. Trans is something else again.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

The prosopopeia of trans<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Like Voltaire, Foucault liked to play the ventriloquist. In his books, he willingly gave the\u00a0floor to fictitious interlocutors, opponents. He would invent arguments for them,\u00a0compose speeches for them, and then abandon his belly voice to resume his throat voice\u00a0in order to answer in his own name to his puppets. He uses the technique, if I remember\u00a0correctly, from the end of the History of Madness on. Well, how would a trans activist of\u00a0today\u2014an editor, for example, of one of these well-made sites that have been flourishing\u00a0on the Internet for the past two years, Vivre Trans or Seronet\u2014take me to task if, by\u00a0chance, my conversation with Eric Marty were to come to his attention? It’s up to me to\u00a0invent it.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

My imaginary trans interlocutor would say something like:<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

\u201cNeither Marty, nor you, nor Butler, are trans. You talk about trans people. Trans people\u00a0are the objects of your chatter, just as they have, for a long time now, been the objects of\u00a0medical discourse, psychiatric discourse and psychoanalytic discourse. Well, that’s all\u00a0over. A shift in forces has taken place, on a scale that you cannot imagine, one that is\u00a0likely to upset culture and civilisation, so that just as once the Bastille was taken, trans\u00a0people have now taken the floor [pris la parole], just as Michel de Certeau (S.J.) used to\u00a0say about May ’68. From now on, trans people will talk about trans people, we will talk\u00a0about trans people to trans people, we will talk about trans people to non-trans people,\u00a0who have a lot to learn and a lot to make up for. Who more than a trans person is\u00a0qualified to talk about trans people?\u201d<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

He or she would continue: \u201cDespite what a vain people might think and desire, there will\u00a0be no turning back. The Genie will not fit back in the bottle. That is the way it is. In the\u00a0future you will have to reckon with us, with our words, with our sensibility, with our\u00a0demands and our hopes, with our sufferings as we express them with our words and not\u00a0with yours, which, between us, stink of something rancid. You are no longer raw, you are\u00a0cooked, you are no longer credible. One plays the epistemologist, Marty, a professor of\u00a0literature, the other plays the clinician, Miller, a graduate in philosophy. Your\u00a0epistemology, like your clinic, is nothing more than waste products of an outdated and\u00a0exhausted ideology, reflecting structures of patriarchal and heterosexual domination\u00a0that are forever out of date. We are no longer the prisoners, the helpless hostages of your\u00a0detestable \u2018power-knowledge.\u2019 The words that are our own are not intended to feed your\u00a0critical nit-picking. What you proudly call your \u201cclinic\u201d is nothing but a \u201chuman zoo\u201d,\u00a0worthy of those where, in the days of the colonies, you exhibited the unfortunates that\u00a0you ruthlessly tore away from their free and wild life, so much more civilised than yours,\u00a0to make of them foreigners in their own country, natives, and finally circus freaks\u201d.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Conclusion: \u201cYou have only one thing to do: shut up. And then, once you have repented,you will go to the school of the trans, where you will finally learn who we are, which you\u00a0have no idea about. You will learn in what terms to address us, and with what ears to\u00a0listen to us. You will lose the habit of speaking for us. And you will turn your tongue\u00a0seven times in your mouth before contradicting us, because who knows better than us\u00a0what our experience is and what it feels like to be trans?\u201d<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

\u00a0\u201cHow well did I descend?\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

\u201cHow well did I descend?\u201d C\u00e9cile Sorel’s sentence, uttered one evening in the 1930s, has\u00a0passed into common usage. She had left the Com\u00e9die-Fran\u00e7aise for the Casino de Paris,\u00a0where, in her debut performance as vedette, she aimed this remark at Mistinguett\u2014the\u00a0presiding star of the music-hall with \u201cthe most beautiful legs in the world\u201d\u2014who was\u00a0watching her jealously from the wings. Sorel had just coolly descended the Casino\u2019s\u00a0grand Dorian staircase, which according to Google \u201chas broken more than one ankle and\u00a0ended more than one light dancer\u2019s career\u201d.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

And I \u2013 did I play the trans without a false note, without twisting my light dancer\u2019s ankle?\u00a0Seeing as it is by dancing that it is suitable to write, isn\u2019t it, as both Nietzsche and, later, my\u00a0dear friend Severo Sarduy said, the Cuban darling of Fran\u00e7ois Wahl, editor of Lacan at Seuil,\u00a0who was a faithful friend of mine before the dissolution of the \u00c9cole Freudienne in 1981.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

If I were Mistinguett now, and I if had to evaluate JAM’s performance as a trans\u00a0ventriloquist, I wouldn’t give him such good marks. Would a real trans say that the words\u00a0of a psy \u201cstink of something rancid\u201d? Yes, it\u2019s a fact that many do stink. Where the wind\u00a0that Lacan blew on psychiatry and psychoanalysis did not sweep away the miasma, it\u00a0does not smell good, as Deleuze and Guattari said nastily about the analyst’s consulting\u00a0room. But you have to be familiar with the place, as I am and as Guattari once was, to\u00a0allow yourself such profanity. It seems to me that a real trans person would not say it in\u00a0these terms. They\u2019d be more polite.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Preciado enters the scene<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

The only proof of this is the height of vision and rigour\u2014a rigour which is admittedly a\u00a0little stiff for my liking\u2014with which Paul B. Preciado (FtoM) addressed the audience\u00a0gathered for the 49th Study Days of the \u00c9cole de la Cause Freudienne. He made a\u00a0commendable effort to re-educate us, and to persuade us that psychoanalysis could only\u00a0survive if we took him and his friends as our guides and abandoned our reverence for a\u00a0patriarchy that had long since died and been buried without us even noticing. That was\u00a0just under two years ago. Preciado was so pleased with himself, if not with us, that he\u00a0immediately turned his lecture into a book, under a title inspired by Kafka: Can the\u00a0Monster Speak. Report to an Academy of Psychoanalysts,\u00b9\u00b9 a book under the patronage of Judith Butler, the dedicatee, which was welcomed by Olivier Nora at the prestigious Grasset publishing house that he directs.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Preciado can certainly be reproached for having gone beyond the mutually agreed time\u00a0of half an hour for his lecture, which shortened the half hour intended for the improvised\u00a0conversation he was due to have on stage with two analysts delegated to him by the\u00a0School. The exchange lasted only eight minutes, against the clock. However, during this\u00a0brief moment that he conceded in fine, he was truly encouraging for the profession: \u201cI\u00a0think that you will be able to keep your place and the place that you have historically\u00a0invented, as long as you will be able to enter into dialogue with and be in relation to the\u00a0present, with the contemporary political radicalness\u201d. A courteous invitation to an\u00a0aggiornamento. The carrot after the stick. I think as you do: the profession is a metro\u00a0behind.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Your monster speech, the stick, you have read it. A resounding, militant, impassioned\u00a0harangue. You spoke to us as a master, an imprecator, almost as a prophet. However, our\u00a0colleague Ansermet, one of the two members of the ECF charged with debating with you,\u00a0a Lacanian psychoanalyst, professor of child psychiatry in I don’t know how many\u00a0university and hospital departments and services in Switzerland, author of I don’t know\u00a0how many books, and the only foreign member of the French Ethics Committee, was able\u00a0to welcome your manifesto with warmth and equanimity: \u201cPaul, thank you. Well, we\u00a0knew you had something to tell us!\u201d<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

That you published your lecture afterwards without mentioning the concluding\u00a0exchange with Ansermet at all, that you let the sympathetic press present you as\u00a0persecuted, cursed and booed by an audience of snarling fools, I can understand (I can\u00a0act Swiss too, in my spare time, just as Ansermet can act French very well when he\u00a0wants). You have an audience of your own, and you mustn’t disarm them too much by\u00a0telling them that you were received by attentive practitioners who were not in the least\u00a0aggressive towards you. The audience appreciated the goodwill you showed in accepting\u00a0our invitation, and warmly applauded your eloquence. There were two or three hostile\u00a0shouts, that’s right, while your listeners numbered three and a half thousand. And don’t tell\u00a0me that each person sees what they want to see: the Journ\u00e9es of the ECF are always\u00a0filmed.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

So you cheated, Preciado. I’d say it would be fair enough if we were at war. But we’re\u00a0not, even though it would fit you like a glove if we were, because you need Bugbears and\u00a0Bogeymen to animate your trans troupe, which is not all trans at all, but the walking\u00a0wing of a community that is creating itself precisely by moving forward in a forced\u00a0march.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

I knew those hopes, too. And the barbudos, there weren\u2019t not many of them when they\u00a0brought down the dictator, Batista, in Cuba and installed the Castro family in power,\u00a0which is still there today, 1959-2021. So, anything is possible.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

A dizzying demography<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

You know, Preciado, that we, as analysts and psychiatrists, meet trans people by\u00a0whatever name they are called, more often than not, especially now that their numbers\u00a0are increasing, in accordance with the sacerdotal wording of the Pentateuch: \u201cBe fruitful\u00a0and multiply\u201d, from the verbs parah and rabah (Genesis, I, 28). I will tell you straight\u00a0away that on this point my knowledge is new and comes from a recent article in the\u00a0Nouvelle Revue th\u00e9ologique, by Father Maurice Gilbert (S.J.), former rector of the\u00a0Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

He notes in this regard that a rabbinic tradition holds that the injunctions given in\u00a0Genesis I:28 are addressed only to men, in other words, not to women. How on earth did\u00a0they intend to \u201cmultiply\u201d? I don’t know any more. It\u2019s a riddle wrapped in a mystery.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

A homily, whether by Basil or Gregory of Nyssa, adds to this binomial expression a third\u00a0injunction: \u201cAnd fill the earth\u201d. It cannot be said that the Jews benefited from these\u00a0recommendations. And even if they are sometimes credited with having a stranglehold\u00a0on the world, this is only a drop in the ocean\u2014there are only 14 million of them, while\u00a0Muslims number 1.6 billion, and will be nearly 3 billion in 2050, making them the equal\u00a0of Christians, who number 2 billion or so today. At the same time, Jews will have grown\u00a0by only 2 million. My figures are from 2010, but the source is reliable (the Pew Research\u00a0Center).<\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

A \u201cpeculiar intertwining\u201d, as Foucault would have said.\u00b9\u00b2 As the demographics of the small \u201cchosen people\u201d decline, \u201cthe trans population\u201d are taking over and seem set to \u201cfill the earth\u201d. All the indicators point in the same direction: more and more people in the world feel and say they are trans. In France, we don’t count them\u2014not yet. Nevertheless, estimates were made in 2011, which give the figure of 15,000 people identifying themselves as transgender. In the US, on the other hand, they are counting and counting. Five years ago, the US trans population stood at 1.4 million adults, or 0.6% of the adult population. Five years earlier, in 2011, the figure was less than half that, at 0.3%, or 700,000 people (I’m using the figures given in a 2016 New York Times article).<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

To get an idea of what such a growth rate represents, let us compare, for example, the French population. Knowing that the rate of increase of the latter is 0.4%, the curve representing the Napierian logarithm of 2 allows us to know that in France, at a constant\u00a0rate, the population would take 173 years to double, whereas the doubling of the transAmerican population, for which we have reliable and detailed data, is carried out, as we\u00a0have seen, in only five years.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Hence the widespread feeling in the uninformed public of an \u201cinvasion\u201d, an \u201cepidemic\u201d,\u00a0and the pernicious thesis recently spread in the French media by a certain bourgeois\u00a0academic authority, according to which there would be \u201ctoo many\u201d transgenders. This is\u00a0a biopolitical value judgement, formulated in a cookie-cutter way, devoid of any\u00a0scientific basis, and expressing a prejudice in an offensive form.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Does this mean that we should give the trans avant-garde a free pass on its often\u00a0triumphalist discourse? It suggests, to paraphrase Aragon,\u00b9\u00b3 that trans is the future of man and of woman\u2014of every which one of us, whomsoever.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

The trans person is nowadays often described as a hero of the new times for having\u00a0brought down the ancient patriarchy and its odious stereotypes in order to open up the\u00a0radiant path of gender autonomy for humanity. The non-trans, on the other hand,\u00a0appears as a shameful, inhibited or neurotic trans, denying through cowardice, stupidity\u00a0and transphobia, the becoming-trans that would be the vocation of every human being.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Surfing on the demographic euphoria generated by the exponential growth in the\u00a0number of trans people, the actual reality of which we have seen above, the leaders of\u00a0the trans emancipation movement now tend to make statements that sometimes take\u00a0the form of what could be described as trans suprematism.<\/h4>\n

One caveat<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

I will say a word that will hurt: it is Schw\u00e4rmerei. The word is Kantian. It is\u00a0untranslatable. It is variously rendered: enthusiasm or spiritual exaltation, fanaticism,\u00a0divagation, extravagance, or illuminism. Let us come down to earth. Perhaps the\u00a0following data will be more acceptable to trans leaders when it comes from one of their\u00a0own and not from a psychiatrist or a professor of psychopathology. Let’s read for\u00a0example what Claire L. wrote (MtoF) on her blog at mobilisnoo.org in 2018: \u201cThe reason\u00a0we feel the need to keep count of trans people is primarily because this population is at a\u00a0much higher risk of suicide than the rest of the population, and they require special\u00a0medication and, in some cases, surgery\u201d. She adds: \u201cCompared to cisgender adults,\u00a0transgender adults are more than 3 to 6 times more likely to contemplate suicide,\u00a0attempt suicide\u201d. Finally, in the interests of good public health management, she\u00a0recommends \u201ca conservative estimate of the number of people affected. This volumetry\u00a0[would also allow] adequate administrative measures to be taken so as to be able to\u00a0manage, within a reasonable timeframe, the civil status changes necessary for a normal\u00a0life for transgender people\u201d. This is a salutary reminder that not everything is rosy in the\u00a0land of trans people, and that before being activists of the trans cause, they are simply\u00a0people who are more fragile than others, more threatened, and who suffer more.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

The capture of hysterics<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

How can practitioners who come from Freud refuse to listen to trans when they express the desire to be listened to, which is not always the case? It is well known that Freud in his time knew how to listen to these hysterical women whom the most attentive doctors considered to be simulators and comedians. Charcot exhibited them in his little theatre at his department at the Salp\u00eatri\u00e8re. Freud witnessed this, going to train with him from October 1885 to February 1886. In the little rue Le Goff, in the Latin Quarter\u2014where, until the age of twelve, Sartre, Poulou of Words,14<\/sup>\u00a0spent his childhood\u2014a plaque at the\u00a0H\u00f4tel du Br\u00e9sil commemorates the stay of the young Austrian scholarship holder.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Back home, Freud did not emulate Charcot. He did not open a Viennese theatre of hysteria. He\u00a0received these women\u2014and a few no less hysterical men too\u2014and began to\u00a0listen to them one by one, in his little consulting room, which has since become a place of\u00a0historical interest. When he arrived quivering to meet the discoverer of the unconscious,\u00a0in 1921, the young Andr\u00e9 Breton was horribly disappointed to discover \u201ca house of\u00a0mediocre appearance\u201d, patients \u201cof the most vulgar sort\u201d, and a practitioner whose\u00a0modest figure of a \u201cwell-ordered bourgeois\u201d had nothing Dionysian about it (see Lacan,\u00a0\u00c9crits, p. 536). Let’s be fair: thirty years later, Breton piteously disavowed the account he\u00a0had given of his visit, whose blindness he blamed on \u201ca regrettable sacrifice to the Dada\u00a0spirit\u201d.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

For it was indeed from this place, which did not look like much, that a movement was to start that would gradually spread throughout the West and radically change the mores of our societies. It is in fact, to the introduction of a new character in the human comedy, the psychoanalyst\u2014the very opposite of the \u201cMaster\u201d, of whom one particular photo of Charcot gives a caricatured representation, not unlike a painting in the Bouville museum in Nausea\u2014the psychoanalyst and his practice of listening\u2014which has nothing in common with the judicial practice of confession any more than with the religious practice of confession, with all due respect to Foucault of The Will to Know\u2014that we owe\u00a0the disappearance from the entire surface of the globe of those great \u201chysterical\u00a0epidemics\u201d, as psychiatrists called them, which made the headlines in the 19th century.\u00a0One of them, in 1857, the famous demonic possession of Morzine, a small Savoyard\u00a0village, was once the subject of a thesis in the Department of Psychoanalysis, which I was\u00a0once the director of at Paris 8.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

However, in Freud’s time there were no militant groups or lobbies dedicated to the emancipation of hysterics, to their empowerment. These women came to him each their own volition, on their own account, and he welcomed them one by one, face to face, and then he invented a practice in which they reclined. It wasn’t exactly \u201cArise ye prisoners of starvation! Arise ye wretched of the earth!\u201d15<\/sup>\u00a0None of the phenomena that characterise\u00a0groups or masses, \u201ccrowds\u201d as Gustave Le Bon called them, interfered. This is not to say\u00a0that Freud thought these phenomena were outside the field he had opened up. He was to\u00a0structure them in metapsychological terms in his Massenpsychologie of 1921\u2014which Lacan\u00a0taught us to read in 1964, in his Seminar on The Four Fundamental Concepts of\u00a0Psychoanalysis. Later, during the events of May 1968, Lacan opened up a new path with\u00a0his invention of the discourse of the Master as the other side or reverse of\u00a0psychoanalysis, from which stems his idea that \u201cthe unconscious is politics\u201d, a very\u00a0enlightening formula that has been little understood.<\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Lacan praises Freud for being \u201cdocile to the hysteric\u201d. I would like to be able to\u00a0congratulate the practitioners of today for being \u201cdocile to trans\u201d. But is this the case?<\/h4>\n

To be continued<\/strong><\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

Translated by Philip Dravers, Pamela King and Peggy Papada<\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

____________________________________________________________________________<\/strong><\/p>\n

1 TN: A French variant of black sheep.<\/p>\n

2 TN: Jacques Lacan, Television: A Challenge to the Psychoanalytic Establishment, (London & New York: Norton, 1990) p. 16.<\/p>\n

3 TN: In English in the original.<\/p>\n

4 TN. S3 (sujet suppos\u00e9 savoir), S\u00b2K (subject supposed to know)<\/p>\n

5 TN. Cf. the Night of the 4th of August 1789, and the abolition of feudal law in France on that day.<\/p>\n

6 TN: \u201cThey shall not pass\u201d, answered in the next sentence meaning \u201cthey have passed\u201d.<\/p>\n

7 TN: \u201cAnd yet it moves\u201d, a phrase attributed to Galileo.<\/p>\n

8 TN: An induction course in French universities, officially known as the classe pr\u00e9paratoires litt\u00e9raire.<\/p>\n

9 TN: In English in the original.<\/p>\n

10 TN: \u201cThere is nothing better for a Peronist than another Peronist\u201d.<\/p>\n

11 TN: Due to be published by Fitzcarraldo Editions on the June 2021 and by semiotext(e) in August.<\/p>\n

12 TN: The phrase (\u201ccurieux entrecroisement\u201d in French) appears in the opening paragraph of the Archeology of Knowledge, and again in the first paragraph of his \u201cResponse to the Circle of Epistemology\u201d, in the section on \u201cHistory and Discontinuity\u201d.<\/p>\n

13 T.N. Cf. an axiom from Louis Aragon\u2019s La Fou d\u2019Elsa: \u201cL\u2019avenir de l\u2019homme est la femme\u201d, \u2019\u201cThe future of man is woman\u201d. Here JAM is playing on the homophony that exists in French between the word for is \u2018est\u2019 and the word for and \u2018et\u2019.<\/p>\n

14 TN: Jean-Paul Sartre\u2019s Autobiography.<\/p>\n

15 TN: Lyrics from \u201cThe International\u201d, song of the international workers movement.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”815″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/lacan1.htm”][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”815″ alignment=”center” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/lacan1.htm”][vc_single_image image=”440″ img_size=”full” onclick=”custom_link” link=”https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/symptom\/”][vc_single_image image=”854″ img_size=”medium” alignment=”center”][vc_custom_heading text=”DOCILE TO TRANS” font_container=”tag:h2|font_size:45|text_align:center|color:%2311004f” google_fonts=”font_family:Forum%3Aregular|font_style:400%20regular%3A400%3Anormal”][vc_custom_heading text=”By Jacques-Alain Miller” font_container=”tag:h6|font_size:35|text_align:center|color:%23000000″ google_fonts=”font_family:Forum%3Aregular|font_style:400%20regular%3A400%3Anormal”][vc_custom_heading text=”” font_container=”tag:h2|font_size:20|text_align:center|color:%2311004f” google_fonts=”font_family:Forum%3Aregular|font_style:400%20regular%3A400%3Anormal”][vc_empty_space height=”30″][vc_column_text] [\u2026]<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-852","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/symptom\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/852","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/symptom\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/symptom\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/symptom\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/symptom\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=852"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/symptom\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/852\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":874,"href":"https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/symptom\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/852\/revisions\/874"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lacan.com\/symptom\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=852"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}