Lacan, the Discourse of the Analyst, and Practical Lack

Lacanian psychoanalytic theory occupies a central place in the Western tradition of the what philosopher Paul Ricœur called the "hermeneutics of suspicion," a mode of interpretation that seeks to uncover hidden structures of power, desire, and ideology beneath the surface of human experience. Jacques Lacan’s theoretical innovations, particularly his emphasis on language, the symbolic order, and the unconscious as structured like a language, align closely with the goals of what he called “the discourse of the analyst,” one of the four discourses he posited in his later seminars, specifically in The Other Side of Psychoanalysis. This discourse, according to Lacan, seeks to disrupt the subject’s attachment to the imaginary and facilitate access to the unconscious truth structured within the symbolic order.

While Lacanian theory exemplifies the radical interpretive spirit of the hermeneutics of suspicion, its shortcomings lie in its overemphasis on abstraction and its insufficient grounding in embodied care (see my "Let Us Not Forget the Clinic"), which risks undermining its practical value in clinical and ethical contexts. Critiques of Lacanian psychoanalysis by figures such as Jean Laplanche, François Roustang, Jacques-Alain Miller, Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen, and Elisabeth Roudinesco highlight these tensions and raise important questions about its theoretical and practical implications.

Lacan and the Discourse of the Analyst

Lacan's "discourse of the analyst" represents a mode of engagement that challenges entrenched power structures and subverts the hierarchical “discourse of the master.” Rooted in the revolutionary insights of the masters of suspicion—Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and later thinkers like Foucault, Derrida, and Lacan himself—this discourse interrogates hidden mechanisms of power, ideology, and repression. It destabilizes established certainties, confronts repressed truths, and enables subjects to grapple with the unconscious forces and symbolic structures shaping their desires and suffering.

At its core, the discourse of the analyst reimagines desire as a relational and dynamic force shaped by the symbolic order, the Other, and the inherent limitations of language. Lacan’s assertion that “man’s desire is the desire of the Other” encapsulates this idea, emphasizing that human desires are mediated through relationships, cultural symbols, and unconscious structures. In Écrits (1966), particularly in “The Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire,” Lacan explores how desire operates as a perpetual lack, arising from the gaps in language and the subject’s alienation within the symbolic order. This understanding reframes human nature as contingent and open-ended, challenging essentialist notions that have historically underpinned hierarchical systems of power.

The discourse of the analyst also relies on the enigmatic position of the analyst themselves, often likened to the objet a (the elusive object-cause of desire). Rather than providing definitive answers or imposing authority, the analyst’s interventions provoke the subject to question the sources of their suffering, the unconscious forces driving their actions, and the ideological fantasies sustaining their position in the symbolic order. This process aims to foster individual transformation by encouraging the subject to assume responsibility for their desires and reconfigure their relationship to the Other and the symbolic order.

However, the strengths of the analyst’s discourse are also its limitations. While it offers a powerful framework for exposing unconscious structures and destabilizing oppressive narratives, it can neglect the embodied and relational dimensions of care. Lacan’s clinical practice, characterized by techniques such as scansion (abruptly ending analytic sessions) and the analyst’s detached stance, has been critiqued for prioritizing theoretical abstraction over the patient’s immediate emotional needs. Critics such as François Roustang in The Lacanian Delusion argue that this approach risks alienating the analysand and reducing psychoanalysis to an intellectual exercise, undermining the ethical imperatives of care and empathy.

Despite these shortcomings, the discourse of the analyst provides a critical lens through which to view Lacan’s broader theoretical contributions. By reimagining desire as relational and emphasizing the symbolic order’s role in shaping subjectivity, Lacan offers profound insights into the nature of human experience and the mechanisms of repression and power. Yet, these strengths must be balanced with a commitment to the relational and affective aspects of psychoanalytic care, ensuring that the discourse of the analyst remains not only a tool for critique but also a means of fostering genuine transformation and connection.

Jean Laplanche: Divergence on the Other and Seduction

Jean Laplanche, while initially influenced by Lacan, ultimately moved away from Lacanian psychoanalysis, developing his own theoretical framework in opposition to Lacan’s ideas. Laplanche’s critiques center not on Lacan’s clinical practice but on his theoretical assumptions, particularly the centrality of the concept of the Other and the role of language in structuring subjectivity. Laplanche’s General Theory of Seduction offers an alternative psychoanalytic paradigm, emphasizing the enigmatic messages transmitted from the caregiver to the infant, which implant unconscious material in the subject. This framework challenges Lacan’s emphasis on symbolic structures by foregrounding the pre-linguistic and affective dimensions of human experience. By prioritizing the role of primal seduction and its impact on the unconscious, Laplanche offers a more embodied and relational understanding of psychoanalysis that contrasts with Lacan’s more oedipal and abstract focus on language and the symbolic order.

François Roustang: The Cult of Lacan and Neglect of Care

François Roustang’s The Lacanian Delusion (1990) presents one of the most scathing critiques of Lacanian psychoanalysis, accusing it of promoting obscurantism and fostering a cult-like atmosphere. Roustang argues that Lacan’s theoretical brilliance often comes at the expense of practical therapeutic care, with his clinical methods prioritizing intellectual abstraction over the needs of the patient. This critique aligns with broader concerns about the detachment of Lacanian psychoanalysis from embodied care and relational engagement.

One of Roustang’s key criticisms centers on Lacan’s use of highly technical and obscure language, which, according to Roustang, created barriers between psychoanalysis and both practitioners and patients. This reliance on dense, jargon-heavy terminology, Roustang claims, prioritized theoretical complexity over the clarity necessary for meaningful therapeutic engagement. For example, Lacan’s dense reinterpretations of Freudian concepts, such as the mirror stage or the Real, often left even seasoned practitioners unclear on how to apply these ideas in a clinical setting. Roustang saw this as a deliberate obfuscation that elevated Lacan’s intellectual authority at the expense of patient care.

Roustang also critiques Lacan’s clinical methods, particularly his practice of scansion, where analytic sessions were abruptly ended at seemingly arbitrary moments. Lacan justified this approach as a technique to disrupt the analysand’s thought patterns and invite new insights. However, Roustang viewed this as a dismissive and even authoritarian practice that neglected the patient’s emotional needs and undermined the therapeutic alliance. By devaluing the patient’s experience, Lacanian practice often became a space for the analyst to display theoretical mastery rather than attend to the specific needs of the analysand.

Another of Roustang’s criticisms focuses on the cult-like atmosphere Lacan fostered within his École Freudienne de Paris. Roustang accuses Lacan of creating a hierarchical structure that discouraged critical engagement and demanded unquestioning loyalty from his followers. For example, Lacan’s self-proclaimed role as a “master” within the psychoanalytic community established rituals of supervision where dissent was often suppressed. This dynamic, Roustang argues, replicated the authoritarian structures Lacan purportedly sought to critique in Freudian psychoanalysis.

Finally, Roustang critiques Lacan for neglecting the relational and affective dimensions of psychoanalytic care. By prioritizing abstract theoretical constructs, Lacanian practice failed to address the patient’s immediate emotional and psychological needs. Lacan’s insistence that the analyst remain a detached, enigmatic figure—meant to prevent transference distortions—was seen by Roustang as a cold and impersonal therapeutic style that alienated patients. This lack of empathy and relational engagement, Roustang argues, undermined the foundational aim of psychoanalysis: to provide care and understanding for the patient’s suffering.

Jacques-Alain Miller: Institutional Orthodoxy

Jacques-Alain Miller, one of Lacan’s closest disciples and the principal interpreter of his work, has played a central role in institutionalizing Lacanian psychoanalysis. However, Miller’s stewardship has been a source of controversy within psychoanalytic circles. Critics argue that Miller’s efforts to systematize and institutionalize Lacanian theory have led to rigidity and orthodoxy, replicating some of the very issues that Lacan sought to critique in Freudian psychoanalysis. While Miller’s work has ensured the continued relevance of Lacanian thought, it has also highlighted the tension between innovation and institutionalization, raising questions about whether Lacanian psychoanalysis can remain dynamic and responsive to clinical realities.

Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen: The Problem of Speculation

In The Freudian Subject and other works, Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen critiques Lacanian psychoanalysis as overly speculative and disconnected from empirical clinical practice. He challenges Lacan’s reworking of Freud, particularly his emphasis on the symbolic order and the primacy of language, arguing that these theoretical constructs often lack grounding in clinical evidence. Borch-Jacobsen’s critiques underscore the limitations of Lacanian theory as a practical therapeutic framework, questioning its ability to address the embodied and affective dimensions of the analytic encounter. His work calls for a psychoanalysis that is more empirically grounded and attentive to the lived realities of patients.

Elisabeth Roudinesco: Authoritarian Structures

Elisabeth Roudinesco, a historian of psychoanalysis and sometimes defender of Lacanian thought, has also critiqued its institutional and ethical shortcomings. In her histories of psychoanalysis, Roudinesco highlights the authoritarian structures of Lacan’s École Freudienne de Paris, which she argues lacked democratic accountability and transparency. While she acknowledges Lacan’s intellectual contributions, Roudinesco’s critiques reflect broader concerns about the power dynamics within Lacanian institutions and their impact on the accessibility and inclusivity of psychoanalytic practice.

Derrida’s Critiques: Lacan and the Disturbing Origins of Psychoanalysis

Derrida’s engagement with Lacanian psychoanalysis offers a nuanced critique, particularly in relation to the foundational assumptions of psychoanalysis and its implications for the ethics of care.

In my work, Disturbing Psychoanalytic Origins, I argue that Derrida, particularly in The Post Card, and most notably in his essay on Lacan, “Le facteur de la vérité” (“The Postman of Truth” or "The Truth Factor"), "deconstructs" key psychoanalytic concepts and challenges Lacan’s reliance on structuralist binaries, such as the distinctions between the symbolic, the imaginary, and the Real. Derrida critiques Lacan’s presumption of stable oppositions within these categories, exposing their inherent instability and the undecidability that underpins their conceptual boundaries. By doing so, Derrida not only reveals the limitations of Lacan’s structuralism but also invites a reconsideration of psychoanalytic theory as a more fluid and open-ended discourse, unbound by rigid binaries.

In Disturbing Psychoanalytic Origins, I expand on Derrida's interrogation of the metaphysical commitments underlying Lacan’s theory, particularly the privileging of language as the primary structuring force of subjectivity. By exposing the instability and undecidability at the heart of Lacanian concepts, Derrida points to the limits of Lacanian theory’s claims to universality and its neglect of the singularity of subjective experience.

Derrida’s critique also highlights the ethical dimension of psychoanalysis, emphasizing the need for an approach that is attuned to the vulnerability and uniqueness of the patient. In contrast to Lacan’s emphasis on the symbolic order, Derrida’s deconstruction suggests a more fluid and responsive ethics of care, one that resists rigid theoretical frameworks in favor of an openness to the Other’s singularity. This critique aligns with my ethics of cyborgian care, which prioritizes the relational and embodied dimensions of care over abstract theoretical constructs.

Feminist Critiques: The Actual Phallic Function

Feminist critiques of Lacanian psychoanalysis have long pointed to its problematic treatment of gender and sexuality, particularly its reliance on the phallus as the central organizing signifier of desire. In my 1998 paper on Lacan and Lars von Trier, I explore what I term “the actual phallic function,” critiquing Lacan’s theoretical abstraction of the phallus and its implications for gendered subjectivity. Lacan’s insistence on the phallus as a symbolic function often obscures the material and embodied realities of gendered experience, reducing complex dynamics of power and desire to a single, monolithic structure.

Feminist theorists such as Luce Irigaray and Julia Kristeva have similarly critiqued Lacanian psychoanalysis for its implicit reinforcement of patriarchal norms. Irigaray, for instance, challenges Lacan’s conception of woman as “not all” within the symbolic order, arguing that it marginalizes feminine subjectivity and perpetuates a logic of exclusion. Kristeva’s work, while engaging with Lacan’s insights, also highlights the limitations of his framework in accounting for the maternal and pre-symbolic dimensions of subjectivity. These critiques underscore the need for a psychoanalytic approach that moves beyond the androcentric and overly abstract theory of the symbolic function of the phallus to engage with the lived realities of gendered and embodied existence.

Lacan, Embodied Care, and Mitsein

From the perspective of my ethics of embodied care and my ontology of mitsein (being-with), Lacanian theory represents both a profound insight and a significant betrayal. On the one hand, its emphasis on the relational nature of subjectivity—as always mediated by the symbolic and the Other—aligns with the interdependent ontology of mitsein. Lacan’s recognition of the subject’s constitutive lack and the role of the Other in shaping desire resonates with the ethical imperative to acknowledge vulnerability and interconnection.

On the other hand, Lacan’s approach often neglects the embodied and affective dimensions of Mitsein, which is central to care. By privileging the symbolic over the material and relational, Lacanian theory risks reinforcing the very alienation it seeks to critique. It risks finding-creating what it has theorized is at the foundation of humanity.

Derrida critiques psychoanalysis for "finding" what it has already posited as its "foundation" when he reflects, “Psychoanalysis, supposedly, is found. When one believes one finds it, it is psychoanalysis itself, supposedly, that finds itself. When it finds, supposedly, it finds itself/is found—something” (The Post Card).

In failing to ground its insights in the lived realities of care, Lacanian theory betrays the ethical demands of mitsein and the ethical demands of a practice founded on the alleviation of suffering. The Undecidable Unconscious, in contrast, attempts to be an approach to psychoanalysis that is not only intellectually rigorous but also relationally and affectively attuned--or, in other words, faithful to its founding ethics of care.

Conclusion

Lacanian theory and practice stand as a powerful example of the hermeneutics of suspicion, offering profound tools for uncovering the hidden forces shaping subjectivity and culture. However, critiques by figures such as Derrida, Laplanche, Roustang, Borch-Jacobsen, Roudinesco, Irigaray, and Kristeva, reveal its limitations in addressing the embodied and relational dimensions of psychoanalytic care. From the perspective of cyborgian care and mitsein, Lacanian psychoanalysis must move beyond its theoretical brilliance to embrace the ethical and practical demands of embodied care. Only by integrating these dimensions can it fully embody the transformative potential of the discourse of the analyst, fulfilling its promise to liberate and heal in a way that is both intellectually and ethically grounded.