| Abstract [eng] |
This study focuses on the transformations of the concept of the symptom in the works of Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan, and its relation with the interpretation. Within the humanities, the term psychoanalytic symptom is situated either within theories of signs or theories of interpretation. In the first case, the psychoanalytic symptom becomes a sign, comparable to the medical symptom and other signs of the conjectural paradigm (C. Ginzburg). In the second case, it becomes an object of interpretation, whose meaning can be deciphered (J. Habermas, P. Ricœur). The study aims to analyze the evolution of the psychoanalytic symptom in order to reexamine it within the frameworks of the theories of signs and the theories of interpretation. The study distinguishes four models of the psychoanalytic symptom – the model of Joseph Breuer and Freud, Freud’s own model, Lacan’s early model, and Lacan’s late model – and conceptualises their transformations in relation to the medical symptom. (i) The model of Breuer and Freud introduces a new approach to understanding and treating somatic symptoms. However, it retains cause/effect relations (the mechanic causality) inherent to the medical concept of the symptom. (ii) A division between medical and psychoanalytic concepts of the symptom becomes evident in Freud’s model, which is characterized by relational causality, the interpretation of associations, and the convergence of interpretative and therapeutic procedures. (iii) The study demonstrates that Lacan’s early model of symptom develops Freud’s conception by distinguishing the symptom’s relation with „non-sense“ (non-sens) and its integration into a structure of meaning. This allows not only to show a difference between the hermeneutic (J. Habermas) and the psychoanalytic (S. Žižek) approaches to interpretation, but also to rethink the symptom in light of Lacan’s concept of „the sinthome“ (le sinthome). (iv) The study further shows that the concept of psychoanalytic symptom as sinthome offers an alternative to the Freud’s solution to the problem of non-sense and treatment: following interpretation, analysand must alter his (her) relationship with the symptom as non-sense—rather than reinterpreting it—in order to integrate it as a part of the self. The outcomes of the study unveil the characteristics of a psychoanalytic symptom as an autonomous type of sign, its ambiguous relation with interpretation in the development of Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis, and its broader context within medicine, theories of signs, and theories of interpretation. This study lays the groundwork for future research, particularly into what occurs when the concept of the psychoanalytic symptom is applied beyond the individual psychē, for example, in cultural studies (S. Žižek), literary theory (J. Kristeva), visual studies (G. Didi-Huberman), and other fields. |
