Talk:Jacques Lacan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Dylan Evans

Somebody really needs to add information on Dylan Evans. He wrote one of the major textbooks on Lacanian analysis but then abandoned it because he thought the theory was nonsense and the technique ineffective. He became an important critic, a Lacanian turncoat, as it were. Really, anyone vaguely interested in Lacan MUST read his article for a critical perspective, see the link below. I wish I'd known about this when I was studying Evans' Dictionary at university! When I told my lecturers I thought Lacan was talking nonsense they just told me I didn't understand him. Well, it looks like even Evans agrees that Lacan doesn't make sense!

http://www.dylan.org.uk/lacan.pdf

    HypnoSynthesis 12:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Lacan biography is in a rather poor state; I'm tempted to put a clean-up notice on it. In particular, the biographical section fades into nothingness around 1963. The reader would gain the impression that nothing of significance happened after that date: minor mention of EFP, but no Vincennes, no 1974, no Cause Freudienne. It is as though a Lenin biography were to leave him exiled in Zurich and never quite mention that he may have returned to Russia? AllyD 20:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The categories in the links section is an improvement. Since the LS-NLS is an organisation of practising clinicians I've moved the link from 'theory' to 'practise' (though there's plenty of theory there too if that's what you're after). --Peter Owen 17:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks to whoever rationalised my bio bit! Far better there. --Peter Owen 19:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I've just added a basic biographical sketch and career summary which I've edited (and NPOV'd, I hope) from the text I came up with from the page on Lacan on the CFAR site I made (there's now a link to CFAR at the bottom of the page so please have a look. I'm not so sure that it dovetails very neatly with the text just afterwards regarding central theories etc.

Most of the theory presented here at the moment is 'early' Lacan. Lacan is certainly a nightmare to summarise so what is here is a good effort at a very difficult job. There's little or nothing on the later stuff: jouissance, the graph of desire, topology, the borromean clinic etc. I'll see what I can do. But please do give me feedback - I'm an absolute newbie to the wiki world and am no doubt blundering all over the place. --Peter Owen 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Just found the Wikipedia site & very new to all this. I've added links to two long-standing psychoanalytic agencies of the Lacanian world in London: the London Society of the New Lacanian School and The Centre for Freudian Analysis and Research. I'm a member of the LSNLS and a CFAR trainee also. I'll see what I can do about basic biographical data called for below. --Peter Owen 11:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I wonder if this article wouldn't benefit from at least a mention of Lacan's definition of the four discourses? It seems conspicuous in its absence. Any objections to its addition?-S.N. Hillbrand 01:57, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not from me. There seems to be much more discussion of the politics of the psychoanalytic establishment and critics of Lacan than of his work in this article. I submit that it needs a serious expansion. Deleuze 13:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Hm, Buffyg's last edit seems to have moved most of that. Works for me. The article could still use more about Lacan's thought, but this is a good move. Deleuze

I don't think it is a good idea to remove the entire Criticism section and replace it by a single link to another article. The NPOV principle applies to each article separately, so it is violated if the views of the critics are not represented at all in the main article (see also POV fork, Wikinfo).

For this reason, "Criticism of ..." sub-articles are generally frowned upon. To be fair, a few exist (example: Prem Rawat & Criticism of Prem Rawat), but these are cases where the whole article has grown too huge, and the corresponding section is not replaced by a single link, but by a shorter summary together with the link. I suggest reverting to the previous version unless somebody is going to write a decent summary.

There seems to be much more discussion of the politics of the psychoanalytic establishment and critics of Lacan than of his work in this article - that's true, but it is like complaining "Wikipedia has an article on X but nothing on Y although Y is is more important" - where the solution is not to delete the X article but to create an article about Y.

Consider that the article is still lacking the most basic biographical data (we aren't told where he studied and teached, for example). One wouldn't want to use this as a justification to shorten the other sections.

regards, High on a tree 04:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

---

For an article on Lacan, there's an awful lot here about one opinion of Chomsky's. Surely the debate over Lacan's intellectual legitimacy should be described at a higher level of abstraction, rather than taking the form of a lengthy response to just one critical statement. Mporter 02:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Someone should mention the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary; and the graph of desire (maybe include a picture of it?). Maybe also some mention of the Foreclosure of the Father, the Maternal Phallus, Presence and Absence, etc. To be honest, I've never read Lacan, only second hand accounts of his work, and I never really understood those accounts either. But his work sure sounds cool :) -- Simon J Kissane

I deleted the reference to Fashionable Nonsense. Without other mentions of controversy surrounding Lacan's work, it seemed to violate NPOV. And even in a discussion of controversy surrounding Lacan's work, frankly, Sokol doesn't have that much respect.

-- Snowspinner

I very much doubt these two arguments. If you feel that mentioning the Sokal/Bricmont book as the only criticism would do injustice to other critics, then surely the NPOV way would be to mention them too, not to remove criticism altogether. And one can hardly think of something more POV than dismissing a critic as "not having that much" respect - maybe not among Lacan's followers, but obviously he had a lot of respect among many people on one side of this debate.

I can imagine that maybe you fear people from the 'Sokal camp' coming over here to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Critical_Theory and adding 'but many believe this is bogus' to every sentence. I wouldn't appreciate that either, but I don't think it is likely. Give the Sokal camp just this one line and I'm pretty sure edit wars and neutrality warnings can be avoided.

(this discussion also applies to Julia Kristeva and Bruno Latour; as mentioned on Wikipedia:RC_patrol)

regards, High on a tree 04:29, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My issue is largely one of relevence. I have trouble imagining anyone looking for information on Lacan, Kristeva, or Latour being interested in the fact that Sokal comments on them. It's not that Sokal's book doesn't deserve attention - it should be mentioned in postmodernism, and I'm glad that it has as lengthy an entry as it does. It's just that I think that with a topic that comes under as much blanket fire as critical theory, it's important to police the line regarding attention to blanket objections against the whole field. My feeling is that those objections belong on the topmost level of a field - in the most general interest topics. Snowspinner 05:58, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have trouble imagining anyone looking for information on Lacan, Kristeva, or Latour being interested in the fact that Sokal comments on them. Doesn't that just indicate a lack of imagination on your part? That is precisely why I came to the Lacan entry. It's disgraceful the way you critical theory folks attempt to obliterate every trace of criticism of your folk-heroes. Your "feeling" in this case is clearly wrong. 217.43.44.169 18:52, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

With the new additions, the above objection Without other mentions of controversy surrounding Lacan's work, it seemed to violate NPOV by Snowspinner (which I didn't agree with, since it runs contrary to the wiki principle, but which I could understand in a certain way) has become obsolete . Also, I have re-read the chapter on Lacan in Impostures Intellectuelles (Fashionable Nonsense). It doesn't seem to fit the description of blanket objections against the whole field, since it deals very specifically with Lacan's use of terms like Moebius strip, imaginary numbers or Russel's paradox. I have restored the deleted sentence. regards, High on a tree 18:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner's comments aside, the Sokal reference, as with some other references, don't even belong in the article. There is criticism of Lacan's work; there is vituperation of Lacan; the former belongs in the article and needs to be expounded on; the latter is being retained to satisfy the constant gossip-mongering that surrounds most well-known intellectuals, but ought to be reduced further, especially when it comes from people (Sokal etc) who don't fully understand what they are talking about and whose good intentions are misplaced, to say the least. -- Simonides 22:47, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

people who don't fully understand what they are talking about and whose good intentions are misplaced, to say the least - funny that this sounds almost like Sokal and Bricmont talking about Lacan. With the difference that they are a bit more polite and back up their claim by rather detailed analysis of his texts. It is not for wikipedia to take sides in this debate and decide that one of the warring parties consists of stupid fools (as, unfortunately, most people seem to do in this case, one way or the other). I respect your opinion, but there are others too, and it clearly violates the npov principle to demand that the critics should not even be mentioned.

Furthermore: The sentence, which you already watered down, adding counter-criticism and removing the wikilink, is little more than a see also. As I said above, this is a minimalistic version and I can imagine that Sokal fans would like to quote whole paragraphs from the book.

It is beyond me how you can classify Sokal's and Bricmont's book as "gossip" and group them among Lacan's "personal critics". I can't find a single sentence where they attack Lacan as a person or examine his private life.

By the way I am not the same person as 217.43.44.169. I can understand that you are annoyed by his/her rather agressive tone above (you critical theory folks... your folk-heroes). I wholly second the comment made by Rbellin on his/her talk page:

In reference to recent edits on pages including Talk:Jacques Derrida, Talk:Jacques Lacan, and the associated articles: Please refrain from personal hostility and tone down your confrontational, hostile rhetoric on Talk pages and in edit summaries. ...'

however, I also agree with the rest of the comment:

There is a general agreement here to Cite sources rather than using vague attributions like "some say" or "critics believe" in such cases: the critical paragraph you recently added to the Jacques Lacan article was excellent in this regard, so I'd invite more such work, and less hostility. Rbellin 19:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is also quite pov to call Derrida a serious critic and implying that the that critics that 217.43.44.169 added are not serious (I am not very familiar with their criticism, but obviously at least Roudinesco and Chomsky have their credits).

As for substituting missing text by an external link, I think that this is not a good idea (pushing it to the extreme, one could create new articles consisting of an external link only), but I'm not going to argue further on that one.

regards, High on a tree 05:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've started some remarks on Lacan and the political organization of the psychoanalytic community. I'm not particularly satisfied to talk about Vincennes without discussion of the EFP, but it is a start. I've said elsewhere that I don't assign too much credibility to Dosse. I need to pick up the Roudinesco books, but I did feel it necessary to begin by remarking that Roudinesco's criticism of Lacan ought not be taken as dismissive, even if it has been appropriated for such dismissals. There's a lot of reading I'd have to do before remarking on the mathemes or take on so this or that critique of them. I'm concerned that no one has shown much caution about remarking on these, not even alluding to them so much as Sokal. Buffyg 02:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to decide to whom these criticisms are specifically addressed. I'm not always sure when you are speaking to Simonides and when you are speaking to me. Where possible, could you clarify by moving your responses to follow immediately those to which you wish to reply? Buffyg 13:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you referring to me and my 05:45, 22 Oct 2004 posting? It had been written almost entirely before I saw your comments (or edits). So "you" referred to Simonides. (As you are probably aware, there were severe server problems at that time and an outage a few minutes later, which is why my last article edit was not simultaneous with my last post on this page.) I thought this was clear by the indentation, but it was a bit confusing apparently - my apologies. I moved my response before yours as you suggested. regards, High on a tree 14:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your points are well taken, and as you may have noticed, I didn't actually remove all criticism but merely removed the mention of Sokal because, IMO, his type of criticism is in a slightly different category - neither dealing with the work proper nor with the person - but I think if one has to choose, he would fall into the latter as he is not particularly interested in any of the psychoanalytic arguments - Lacan is just one of a few fall guys for his extrapolations. As for Roudinesco, the newly added comments are welcome because she is not merely interested in bringing down Lacan's image; but I put her under the personal category because of the nature of the only criticism mentioned; re: the link, as I wrote, anyone is welcome to add text, I just can't spend much time online at a stretch and the last time I did I used it up adding other sections. -- Simonides 10:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Roudinesco says further:

In 1993 I published a book on Lacan that shocked both my Lacanian friends and the anti-Lacanians. The former reproached me with the crime of lese majesty; the latter, who were even worse, declared that they were furious that I had taken from them the object of their scorn by relating the excesses committed by Lacan, notably when he reduced the time of his sessions to a duration approaching zero. But I did it without ever belittling the man. As an epigraph, I quoted a sentence from Marc Bloch: "All of you who are for Robespierre and who are against him, we beg your mercy: have pity and tell us, simply, who was this Robespierre." (Of What Tomorrow..., p. 185)

I think there is a tendency toward tendentious criticism, in which contributors claim to have taken great thinkers down a notch even if the criticism provided isn't equal to its target as given. This isn't impiety so much as laziness. How does a particular criticism relate to the whole of a body of work? Is the criticism trenchant, trifling, transformative? If you're not going to take this on, leave it at the level of allusion and encourage people to decide for themselves. If you can gloss it reasonably, do, but including the harshest claim with a minimum of context or explication doesn't amount to NPOV. Unresolved contradictions have a sense to them which needs to be understood. This is how I understand the remarks about treating beliefs as objective in the wikipedia guidelines.

In the context of Lacan and Sokal: Is it not possible that Sokal's remark is also valid reflexively in a way that isn't reflexively acknowledged? If so, one must account for it. If Sokal and Bricmont are aware of this, one should mark off the specificity of that insight so that it might be properly appreciated. All we're getting right is some fairly unclear terms of disagreement that don't help people who want to understand the issues. My very preliminary sense is that there is a differend between the latter Miller/Lacan school of mathematical/scientific psychoanalysis and Sokal's view on misappropriation of "science", whereby the product even of a scientific psychoanalysis remains fundamentally different from scientific knowledge and therefore does not admit of the same validation criteria. Simonides is, I suspect, onto something when he says that Sokal isn't interested in "any of the psychoanalytic arguments". I think as well of Derrida's dialogue with Roudinesco, in which he notes his convinction that the Freudian metapsychology was a necessity to obtain for psychoanalysis a freedom from philosophies of consciousness and argues that a thinking of this framework must exceed even their current strategic necessities (Of What Tomorrow..., pp. 172-175), a possibility which he seems to me to regard as linked to psychoanalytic organization and thereby the ability of psychoanalysis to give itself its proper law so that it might have a larger impact on so many other discourses of law and sovereignty which have managed to remain isolated from it. There is a large chunk in here that I can't commit to researching in the short term. I'll gladly elaborate on this if it's not sufficiently clear (as a preliminary venture, that is).

I don't think anyone has said that Derrida or Major (who sadly hasn't yet had a book-length work translated into English as far as I can tell) are serious critics of Lacan whereas Roudinesco or Chomsky are not. What I do note is that Roudinesco's criticisms of Lacan are characterized in an utterly one-sided way that obscures their insights (i.e. is POV in a fashion I resort to calling mediocre journalism: he said, she said). I don't know anything about Chomsky's remark. I will gladly contribute further on Turkle, Dosse, Derrida, and Roudinesco when I've done the research, but I think the observation is that the deployment of these criticisms doesn't lend itself to serious consideration when it evacuates content.

As for my remarks on Roudinesco, this does lead me to believe that the contributions posted from the 217.43.44.169 address are not well researched or considered. I must emphasize that the contribution we're currently discussing has been acknowledged to be the strongest contribution yet from that source. Remarks further indicate a belief that people contributing to "critical theory" author articles are uncritical in approaching their subjects. Whether this does happen or not, the level of generalization is unreasonable and the edits thus far have been reactionary rather than corrective (commending a particular interview as concise doesn't even approach a violation of NPOV as I understand it, yet I find this description removed as "gushing"). I think the contribution to the Lacan article is violent not only in its treatment of Lacan (who is the seeming target) but even more so in its representation of Roudinesco. I've not yet been able to get a reasonable discussion with the contributor on such points, although I have received a stream of petty insults. Buffyg 13:00, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Context for criticism

I think the newly added passages by Buffyg are extremely informative and an excellent guide to popular criticisms levelled against "postmodernism" or "French theory" in general. However, it seems a bit longish and out of place in an article where the "Life" section hasn't even been properly written up yet - perhaps it could be moved to Postmodernism or a similarly generaly article with a link to the explanations here? A similar format might be applied to other articles which need the same context. -- Simonides 01:54, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please note that I have made some changes to the Fashionable Nonsense entry consistent with those made here. I am by no means persuaded that the postmodernism entry (which is in any case as much a cause of unhappiness to me as it stands as the entry on deconstruction -- I do hope to rewrite both substantially). I would almost say that it would be better to split this out into "gossip" and "... but seriously, here's why that's only gossip" sections. I have elsewhere expressed my reservations about what I regard as the substantial lack of scholarship of those who insist upon including seemingly bruising criticisms with both a violent disregard for the context of these remarks and utter disinterest in analyzing (or for that matter, reading) their content as a whole (I wonder how many of these quotes are not simply URLs found by Google -- a tool of often limited validity for scholarly research -- but then quick extracts with subsequent find operations against the matching URLs -- one begins to suspect a genre of pseudo-criticism by simplistic spidering, with which targets of "opposition research" are no doubt all too familiar). People do need to understand why so many of these quotes offered as criticism are highly qualified in their validity, but this is, as you've said, often at the expense of attention to other matters (like the actual content of Lacan's work). Perhaps more to the point, these rebuttals are extremely specific (hence "longish") and need a great deal more research before they can be offered in greater generality (lest one indulge in what one has just declared objectionable). As I am also one of my editors, I will attempt to impose greater concision on what I've already written. Buffyg 02:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Corrección: El artículo Lacan en la versión inglesa de Wikipedia tiene algunos errores, el primero. casi ab initio es considerar a Lacan como un estructuralista, ciertamente que lo fue...pero desde los '50 del s XX hasta mediados de los '60 del pasado siglo, luego fue el mismo Lacan quien encabezó al postestructuralism ,influyendo ( pese a ellos a Foucault, Deleuze -no al usuario colega wikipedista obviamente...ó ¿quizás sí?-, Derrida o Guattari,etc.).

--José.El Argent.

My Spanish isn't particularly good (as in non-existant), but I'll try to answer what I understand of the question. The question is whether Lacan is properly referred to a structuralist or poststructuralist, and that question is badly formed. Lacan constituted the quintessentially structuralist "Gang of Four" with Foucault, Barthes, and Lévi-Strauss. All but Lévi-Strauss are also counted as poststructuralists. Some of the remarks I made in rewriting the poststructuralism article need to be tempered: the distinguishing feature of poststructuralism is the inheritance of various thinkers to structuralism. The "post" doesn't indicate that structuralism is over but that it no longer commands anything like an orthodox following. I'd cite the example of Derrida: Derrida makes a robust effort to say what it is that commends structuralism even as he details inherent limitations in structuralist which are in an internal sense necessary but not strictly so from a wider philosophical perspective. Derrida's response to structuralism identifies this necessity even as he transforms the understanding resulting from, not ultimately discarding structuralism (this being rather equivalent to kicking a ladder out from under oneself) but incorporating it in its historicity into his work. In this sense structuralism remains indispensable to poststructuralism. The attempts to transform structuralism may not at all resemble one another, which is why poststructuralists are bound together by little other than structuralism. Buffyg 12:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

isshoni: err, sorry, i m in no way a contributor to the wikipedia, i sometimes check it out when i want to have an idea on someone, and some links. i must say i found this article...useless: the Work section has about 20 lines on Lacan s ideas, then a paragraph on his 'publications', and from there it s only about intestine wars which are of little, if any, interest to anyone still new to the man. anyway, this is not so much a reproach as a compliment on wikipedia s average level of contributions; as a consumer here maybe i should only say a 'thanks'- i do. and i ll check the 'criticisms' and 'links' sections. thanks again and...keep up the work!

The lack of substantial treatment of his work is why the article has a cleanup tag (at least, that's why I put one there). This should probably be clarified by a todo list or more specific cleanup tag. Buffyg 14:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

De-Turkleification

The article as it exists now, really reads like it should be titled Sherry Turkle's vision of Jacques Lacan :-(. She's perfectly fine to have as one source, but in truth, among major students/writers on Lacan's thought, she's way down the list. I think whoever first wrote this article knew Lacan entirely through her book (which has a definite agenda to push; which is fine, just not NPOV). The whole bit about J.A.Miller being "the man behind the curtain" really shouldn't get more than passing mention; it's a clever conceit, but hard to take that seriously (has anyone read Miller's work since Lacan died?! It's interesting, but certainly it's no Lacan). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:02, 2005 September 8 (UTC)

Pardon me for deleting the double-post, but we heard you the first time. ;-> Turkle is what I had immediately on hand when I did a few edits to the article a while back. My immediate distress was that much of the article went on about what a bad man/scholar Chomsky and others make out Lacan to be (which is something of a groaner in Chomsky's case, given his dismissal of "theory", which I find rather anti-intellectual -- Roudinescou, on the other hand, seemed to me thoroughly misrepresented, while we got an obligatory citation of Sokal and Bricmont by someone who clearly read neither Lacan nor S & B's critics [further groaning]). I was by no means content with the result, which is why there's a cleanup tag (which I acknowledge shamefully neglecting thereafter). Please, please have a go at improvements, including balancing Turkle, who has undoubtedly been given undue influence over the content (the closest thing I have to balancing her out is an effort to make clear via attribution how much of the article comes through her).

I can't explain quite how I managed to dup my paragraph. But thanks for promoting conciseness in my comment :-). I'll try to get around to some cleanup. Time, time. And of course, Lacan is notoriously difficult to get right.

BTW, Buffyg, after I saw your name elsewhere a while back, I followed some links to your personal site, and read the critical letters-to-the-editors about Derrida's obituaries. Those were positively delightful, I must compliment you. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:24, 2005 September 9 (UTC)

I don't think the remark about Miller's editorial function should be heard as Miller using Lacan's seminars to publish his own views in place of Lacan's; the only point I wanted to make is that, despite the attribution of the works to Lacan, Miller's editing was effectively unsupervised after the first seminar and that the attribution of the seminars to Lacan defies the assumptions of most readers. I've asked the Lacanians I know if they was aware of any more specific treatment of the issue, and they weren't aware of the little I knew. Any recommendations for further reading? Buffyg 21:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed chunk of page

In my attempts to rewrite this page, I couldn't decide what to do with the following section. I'm sure there's some content to it, but it's not a debate I'm as familiar with as some of the other sections, and so I can't accurately weigh its importance with relation to the rest of the article. In any case, it's monstrously long, and does very little to establish its context and importance. I've put it here - if someone who knows more about the issues wants to make a judgment on how much of it should return to the argument, so long as the answer is substantially less than was in it before, I won't object. Specifically, if the EFP can be better connected to the "French Left" and if it can be refocused on Lacan instead of Miller - much of this seems interesting, but better suited to another article. Snowspinner 04:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Lacan and the French Left

Turkle and Ferdinand Dosse both claim that Lacan had a hand in the extremely contentious politics surrounding the pioneering psychoanalysis program at the University of Paris VIII at Vincennes. This was a program headed by Serge Leclaire, annexed to the philosophy department headed by Michel Foucault, in which Lacan's daughter taught. At the outset all of the members of the program were also members of the Freudian School of Paris [French acronym EFP, for École Freudienne de Paris]. Lacan was not a member of the program himself, but his son-in-law was. The department suffered from a number of difficulties: one was that Lacan was not himself in charge. Leclaire became exasperated with the program's lack of autonomy, intellectual and institutional, both from Lacan and the philosophy faculty and left the University. The department was to go without a chair for three years. Second, the program had limited degree status. A degree from Vincennes was not initially a clinical qualification to practise psychoanalysis, which caused considerable objection among the students. When Lacan gave a lecture at the University in 1969, in which students interrupted to complain about their lack of qualification through the program and refused to accept his objection that psychoanalytic knowledge was distinct from other forms of knowledge taught by the university and therefore should not be credentialed equally. In addition to his concern about granting clinical authority Lacan was against granting any academic credit for work in the program. Students unhappy with the program's seeming lack of interest in clinical experience left the program to undergo analysis or simply stopped attending lectures. Miller's inclusion in the program was a problem in that his avowed Maoism was in apparent contradiction with his university position given that Maoism set the abolition of the university as a goal. Such contradictory and conflicted attitudes toward authority and education are often taken as the hallmark of Vincennes generally (ironic jokes about a Gaullist strategy to preoccupy the many factions of the French academic left by giving them a university to administer), but this problem seems unusually acute in the psychoanalysis program. Third, Lacan's subsequent involvement in the program, which began in 1974, was regarded as heavy-handed and was a further source of frustration for the clinically included. Lacan was retooling his views of psychoanalysis heavily and was determined to give it a more profoundly scientific character. He declared the previous efforts of the program a failure, appointed himself to a position in the department, and had Miller elevated to the position of chairman. In the same period Luce Irigaray proposed to offer a course on material developing in the wake of her first book on psychoanalysis and feminine sexuality and was rejected. This rejection was perceived as petty antagonism of a critic indicative of a further curtailment of intellectual freedom in a program seemingly shackled to Lacan's agenda. Later decision to grant clinical standing by degrees from the program were taken as signs of outright hypocrisy serving to assure Miller of unreasonable powers in Lacan's name.

In this period the EFP fell apart, sparked in large part by the rise of the parallel organization Confrontations, which René Major helped found with the support of Jacques Derrida. Confrontrations harnessed much of the dissent that emerged in the French psychoanalytic community in response to Lacan's insistence on mathematical aspects of his scientific conception of psychoanalysis. The clinical emphasis of Confrontations drew in those less inclined toward issues they viewed as hermetically theoretical or philosophical. In some respects Confrontations might be taken to be a necessary element of the psychoanalyic community, but the EFP went so far as to remove Denis Vasse, then serving as its vice president, from office for his participation. EFP broken down into factions, and a number of factions otherwise sympathetic to Lacan became restive because of what they viewed Miller's increasing hegemony as dictatorial in ambition. As questions were raised about the democratic nature of the EFP, Lacan became increasingly ill with colon cancer. A letter dissolving the EFP was circulated, affixed to a Lacanian signature whose authority was contested by allegations of a Miller forgery or dictation imposed upon a gravely ill Lacan. The matter splattered headlines everywhere. Louis Althusser showed up to denounce the proceedings of a meeting to found a new organization, the Freudian Cause. It became increasingly difficult to determine whether Lacan was speaking with his own voice or if Miller were appropriating his authority in a bid to consolidate power. Turkle has suggested that many who wished to think themselves loyal to Lacan expressed this in imagining that they were only defying the machinations of a scheming son-in-law.

By the 1960s, Lacan was associated—at least in the public mind—with the far left in France. Echoing this sentiment, "Shortly after the tumultuous events of May 1968, Lacan was accused by the authorities of being a subversive, and directly influencing the events that transpired."

This seems like a pertinent inclusion, and I've seen this sort of thing claimed elsewhere, so there is obviously something to it. But, as a reader, I want to know:

"public mind"? was he a public figure by then?, and in what sense? what public? (intellectuals?, man in the street?, newspaper readers? was psychological practice in the news or just Lacan? who exactly?)

which bit of the "far left"? (anarchists?, Maoists?, trade union?, which bit of the left exactly? or was it his "anti-authoritarian" stance?)

how was he "associated" (did he do something?, say something?, did he belong to some organisation?)

which "authorities accused him? (the university leardership?, the police?, members of a political party?, the president?)

did the authorities give some reason as to how or why he directly influenced events? or was he just one of the "usual suspects"?

If we could briefly address these issues it would make for a much more informative articleMarkAnthonyBoyle 01:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

I'm having a lot of trouble with this section too - I've left most of the critics in, with the exception of Roudinesco, who seems to be primarily criticizing Lacan as a person rather than his work - but most of them direly need expansion. Snowspinner 05:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Felix Guattari's work might be referred to here. Rather than the usual discussion of his better known work with Gilles Deleuze, we might benefit from a section considering Guattari's important extensions and refutations of Lacan. This would help significantly in debates around Lacan's relationship to postmodernism and poststructuralism, particularly as Guattari is often dismissed as a postmodern. Guattari's activism is often overlooked.

This is, I think, an excellent idea. Phil Sandifer 22:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again though, I must note, another continental philosopher gets a brutal "criticism" section, where as analytic philosophers don't have any when critiques from within and without of their own discpline are manifold. --86.140.245.114 19:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Translated from Criticisms of Jacques Lacan

Criticism from Critical Theorists

Criticism was levelled at Jacques Lacan in the essays of Jacques Derrida, who made a considerable critique not only of Lacan's analytic writings, but his structuralist approach as a whole and its various underpinnings. Lacan, like Freud, was also the target of numerous feminist critics, who saw Lacan as carrying on the sexist tradition in psychoanalysis. Other feminist critics, such as Judith Butler and Jane Gallop have offered readings of Lacan's work that opened up new possibilities for feminist theory. It is reasonable to argue that although feminists have taken exception to specific elements of Lacan's work, there are no small number of feminists who are still willing critically to use his work as a resource rather than to dismiss or discredit it as a whole.

There are critics who have been harsh yet still have redeeming comments to make about Lacan and his work. In a 750-page French biography of Lacan (translated into English by Barbara Bray) by Elisabeth Roudinesco, a psychiatric historian, Lacan was portrayed as a megalomaniac and compulsive womanizer who was dishonest when it was expedient. Notable, however, is that Roudinesco has also characterized Lacan as "the last great living master of psychoanalysis" (Roudinesco w/ Derrida, Of What Tomorrow..., p. 167) and further argued:

Lacan is the only heir to Freud who attempted to think the question of a school of psychoanalysis that would be neither a professional corporation, nor a party, nor a sect, nor a bureaucracy. He pushed the reflection on this subject very far, and I can testify to this, having participated in this adventure as a member of the EFP beginning in 1969. (ibid, p. 182)

Criticism from Physical Scientists

Lacan faced harsher criticism from this quarter which has tended to dismiss him and/or his work in a more or less wholesale fashion. François Roustang, in The Lacanian Delusion, called Lacan's output "extravagant" and an "incoherent system of pseudo-scientific gibberish". Lacan was described by Noam Chomsky (who had "met him several times") as "an amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan, though his earlier work, pre-cult, was sensible and I've discussed it in print". [1] In Fashionable Nonsense (1997), authors Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont accused Lacan of abusing scientific concepts.

Defenders of Lacanian theories dispute the validity of such criticism. They point out that both Chomsky and Sokal have explicitly stated that they do not understand Lacan's texts, the former even stating they do not interest him. According to Lacanians, this attitude precludes any valid criticism of his theories. They accuse Chomsky, Sokal and their followers, of wanting to "police the boundaries" of what is science. Chomsky, Sokal, and many other physical scientists, as well as a number of philosophers such as Alan Ryan of Oxford, retort that Lacan's texts cannot be understood in the first place and are irrelevant (if not harmful in their relativism) to the cause of the oppressed and impoverished. This recurring debate is exemplified by the Sokal Affair, which brought it to the attention of a wider public.

Regarding "The case of Chomsky"

This is not an encyclopaedic article about Chomsky's criticism of Lacan, and it utilizes POV in several instances. In all frankness, it is more of a response to Chomsky than a summary of his critique. I do not think this should be included in this article in its current form.

I agree. I would also submit that the "conclusion" is heavily POV. According to my POV, a misguided POV at that. --s

I would also like to state my agreement with the original posting, and with s' addition. Furthermore, it seems that the conclusion is at least partyly unrelated to the encyclopedia topic being dicussed

In agreement with the above statements I have just removed "The case of Chomsky", which I thought was a nice essay, but besides the point for Wikipedia. I have summarized its main points and included in them in the article, which I also structured somewhat. I also added a "see also" section. bastel 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC) This done - how do people feel about removing the NPOV tag?bastel 19:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Done, and removed. Also, minor tidy to syntax and spelling in some parts. --Haemo

I would point out that, according to the article linked to, in the very same sentence in which Chomsky referred to Lacan as a 'charlatan' etc. he went on to qualify this by saying 'though his earlier work, pre-cult, was sensible and I've discussed it in print'. I don't think you can call this 'dismiss[ing] Lacan and his work in a more or less wholesale fashion'. Chomsky's position is therefore misrepresented in the article as it stands, although I agree that this article is not the place for a full-scale discussion of Chomsky-on-Lacan. Lexo 10:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Unconscious

The claim of the text that Freud discovered the unconcious is almost surreal. The idea of the unconcious has been with us for nearly time inmemorial.

It doesn't claim that - it claims that Freud discovered that the unconscious has a linguistic structure ~~

Which is really a claim more associated with Lacan and then ascribed to Freud. Phil Sandifer 21:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Lacan & Laplanche

In re convo with User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters There is, of course, an awful lot to say about Lacan, and I'm not prepared to argue that Laplanche was his most notable analysand or student (or "disciple" for that matter), although I would quibble somewhat with your rankings. I'm not in love with the addition as it now stands, and I'd propose instead to, under the "Career" section, include a line very much like your "Many students of Lacan underwent analysis and bacame psychoanalysts (or did other highly notable things). Foucault, Derrida, Althusser, J.A.Miller, and Irigaray [and Laplanche], for example, all attended Lacan's seminars". It would, I suggest, do a service to the reader to be directed to articles on these thinkers, in the context of Lacan's influence and in relation to each other. Thoughts? Jkelly 17:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid Laplanche isn't even really on my radar as "important disciple of Lacan"; I read over your change a few more times, and each time it seems more out of place. I did see that you did most of the edits to the Laplanche article, so maybe your attachment grew because of that :-).

Still, your proposed modification looks good. Obviously, wikify the various names listed. If Laplanche were just one of a half-dozen important intellectuals listed as attending Lacan's seminars, it kinda doesn't matter whether he would be in my "top six" list. It gives the sense of "many famous people", which is true and notable. And especially since the "disciples" go in so many diverse directions intellectually. Of those I listed, of course, only J.A.Miller and Irigaray were actually analysts. But Foucault, Derrida, and Althusser are certainly "interesting" (and were importantly influenced by Lacan). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Good edit. Jkelly 18:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Real/Imaginary/Symbolic

Much more is needed on these contentious areas - especially on the Real, probably the hardest of the three. I will try to do more soon, but help would be appreciated! Sebastian789 15:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Mathèmes

I'd love to see a well writen list of the most important Lacanian mathemes on this page! Anybody up for it?

knot theory?? any information? MotherFunctor 04:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Return to Freud

I have taken the liberty of moving this entire section further up the page as it is a rather fundamental element to Lacan's thought. Could do with expansion - more to follow. Further, I'm not entirely au fait with Lacan's relation to Foucault and other post-structuralists (except Derrida); a section on the Lacan-Deleuze/Guatarri relationship would also be most fruitful. Sebastian789 15:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This sentence from the introduction to the article:

<<By structuring the options available to any speaking subject in the articulation of his or her desires, the unconscious determines the very fabric of human life as we may come to know it, according to Lacan.>>

makes no sense to me. I can't find a meaning from it in order to make it more readable/transparent. Anyone else? Anonymous

Agree, I think this sentence would confuse more than it would illuminate, particularly in an introductory section. I've added basic stuff about the WAP and the popularity of Lacanian analysis, which seems to fit more with an introduction Tom49 18:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

At the roots of the ethics is desire: analysis' only promise is austere, it is the entrance-into-the-I (in French a play of words between 'l'entrée en je' and 'l'entrée en jeu'). 'I must come to the place where the id was', where the analysand discovers, in its absolute nakedness, the truth of his desire. The end of psychoanalysis entails 'the purification of desire'. This text functions throughout the years as the background of Lacan's work.

Can't make any sense out of this. Can I suggest that you expand this out? I may then be able to reword it so that it scans better.MarkAnthonyBoyle 11:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
And then there is this
Currently:

The whole of Lacan's work can be understood within the context of the intellectual and theoretical legacy of Freud. Lacan himself trained as a psychoanalyst within the IPA - International Psychoanalytical Association. However, he gradually grew disenchanted and developed a radical critique of the way most analysts in the IPA interpreted Freud. He argued that Freud's insights were betrayed by the three major schools of psychoanalysis within the IPA: Ego psychology, Melanie Klein and Object relations theory. See "The Function and Field of Speech and Language in Psychoanalysis" also known as the Report of Rome (Écrits). His "return to Freud" emphasizes a renewed attention to the actual texts of Freud himself and a grasp of the way these texts were developed and modified by the analysts Lacan criticizes , the post-Freudians.

"What such a return to Freud involves for me is not a return of the repressed, but rather taking the antithesis constituted by the phase in the history of the psychoanalytic movement since the death of Freud, showing what psychoanalysis is not, and seeking with you the means of revitalizing that which has continued to sustain it, even in deviation..." - Écrits, "The Freudian Thing".

It should also be stressed that Lacan insisted that his work was not an interpretation but a translation of Freud into structural-linguistic terms. Freud's ideas of "slips of the tongue", jokes etc., Lacan insisted, all emphasized the agency of language in subjective constitution, such that had Freud lived contemporaneously with Lévi-Strauss, Barthes and, principally, had Freud been aware of the work of Saussure, he would have done the same as Saussure did. In this light, Lacan's "return to Freud" could therefore be read as the realisation that the pervading agency of the unconscious is to be understood as intimately tied to the functions and dynamics of language, where the signifier is irremediably divorced from the signified in a chronic but generative tension of lack. It is here that Lacan began his work on "correcting" Freud from within.

In "The Instance of the Letter in the Unconscious, or Reason Since Freud" (Écrits, pp. 161 - 197).) Lacan's principal challenge to Freudian theory is the privilege that it accords to the ego in self-determination. To Lacan "the unconscious is structured like a language". The unconscious, he argued, was not a more primitive or archetypal part of the mind separate from the conscious, linguistic ego, but, rather, a formation every bit as complex and structurally sophisticated as consciousness itself. If the unconscious is structured like a language, then the self is denied any point of reference to which to be 'restored' following trauma or 'identity crisis'. In this way, Lacan's thesis of the structurally dynamic unconscious is also a challenge to the ego psychology that Freud himself opposed.

How about something more like:

Lacan's "return to Freud" emphasizes a renewed attention to the original texts of Freud and a radical critique of Ego psychology, Melanie Klein and Object relations theory. Lacan thought that Freud's ideas of "slips of the tongue", jokes etcetera, all emphasized the agency of language in subjective constitution. "Correcting" Freud from within in the light of Saussure, Lévi-Strauss, and Barthes, Lacan's "return to Freud" could be read as the realisation that the pervading agency of the unconscious is intimately tied to the functions and dynamics of language, where the signifier is irremediably divorced from the signified in a chronic but generative tension of lack. In "The Instance of the Letter in the Unconscious, or Reason Since Freud" (Écrits, pp. 161 - 197).) he argued that "the unconscious is structured like a language"; it was not a primitive or archetypal part of the mind separate from the conscious, linguistic ego, but a formation as complex and structurally sophisticated as consciousness itself. If the unconscious is structured like a language, he claimed, then the self is denied any point of reference to which to be 'restored' following trauma or 'identity crisis'.

MarkAnthonyBoyle 11:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I like your simplification much better, MarkAnthonyBoyle. LotLE×talk 20:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Topology

The article Topology links to this one, from a section called 'Topology in psychoanalysis'; neither this article nor that one gives any idea what use Lacan made of topology. Can anyone provide at least a broad summary? Archelon 16:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

knot theory. Anyone know about Lacan's interest in knot theory? MotherFunctor 04:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll write in "Other Important Topics" a brief page on Topology, I'll need help with the diagrams. Bobbyperou 22:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Biographical information?

I didn't find any reference in this article to his family. Did he have children? Was he married? Who were his parents, and what work did they do? The article seems to be more about Lacanian Theory than Lacan himself. Not that that is a criticism, since he is very much known for his work in psychoanalysis than whether his father was a cab driver, but since this is an article about the person, it needs a bit of background information about him. Thanks. --NightMonkey 07:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'va got a few informations on that. Lacan married twice. He had three children from his first marriage wich ended in divorce (see Un père, written by Sybille Lacan, I don't think the book was translated). He married then Sylvia Bataille, herself precedently married to Georges Bataille. They had a girl, Judith Lacan, now Judith Miller. Pythakos 12:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone provide more specific factual information and a full citation? What was his first wife's name? What dates were they married? When were the three children from that marriage born? I think this information is worth concisely noting (with citation), I just don't know what the facts are. LotLE×talk 20:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Influence?

Can we get a citation for this claim, very near the top? "Lacan's work has had a profound impact on the development of psychoanalysis worldwide (of the 20,000 psychoanalysts in the world today, approximately half are Lacanian)." That just didn't seem right to me -- never heard him mentioned outside of critical theory, and a friend who's been in practice for twenty years was unfamiliar with the name. What's meant by being a "Lacanian"? The APA website gives him 0 hits. As far as medical practice goes, the AMA website gives two hits for Lacan, one of them merely from "Books received." Possibly POV, may need deletion.

He's much bigger in Europe and South America than in the US, so depending on where you're from, that may explain some of it. Also, he's not a psychologist, and the medican profession has mostly cast off Freudianism - I would be quite surprised if he was mentioned by the APA or AMA at all, to be honest. Still, I agree that there needs to be a source for the specific claim about half the 20,000 global psychoanalysts being Lacanian. Deleuze 04:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The World Association of Psychoanalysis claims far fewer members: "The aim of the World Association of Psychoanalysis is to promote the practice and the study of psychoanalysis following the teachings of Jacques Lacan. It was created by Jacques-Alain Miller in February 1992 and today has over a thousand members in Europe, America and Australia." [2] So the figure in the article is inflated by a factor of 10, unless the WAP is a tiny minority of Lacanians? AllyD 20:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

bloodlines, churches, and other inappropriate topics

"Yet, in the aspirations of worldwide expansion, historians, sociologists, and analysts have cautioned that the attempt to transmit psychoanalysis through the bloodline of the daughter – whether of Freud's daughter Anna or Lacan's daughter Judith (to whom Miller is married) – opens serious questions as to its validity, for this has historically resulted in institutionalizations of psychoanalysis in a manner that begins to resemble churches (IPA) and not secular analytic associations." What the hell does this mean? Why is it in the lead of the article? It sounds like the work of somebody with an axe to grind, rather than a good faith editor contributing to an explanation of Lacan. -leigh (φθόγγος) 22:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Desire vs Drive

Can anyone tell me the difference between these two? I am sure I understand desire in the Lacanian sense of the word; however, drive seems to me to be part of desire, which Im sure is wrong. Can anyone clear this up?

Answer Desire vs Drive - The difference between desire and drive is briefly explained in a new section: Desire and Drive. Bobbyperou 20:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Well done Lulu, you have removed nearly all the criticism of Lacan! The whitewash is nearly complete. Not really into NPOV are we?MarkAnthonyBoyle 21:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:MarkAnthonyBoyle your comments here are incivil and you are failing to assume good faith. This is a border line personal attack and I will remind you that wikipedia is not a soapbox. User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters‎ was probably right to remove the criticism you added this morning. I made a post about the sources you used to WP:RS/N. As far as I can see the 3 webpages you used fail the standard of WP:RS & I agree with Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters decision to remove. Until you can provide sources that are up to the standards of WP:V and WP:RS the piece should stay out. I would also ask that you refactor your above comments to User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters--Cailil ^talk 21:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Astonishing. Yes I suppose I was borderline incivil, it was early in the morning when I woke up to find that Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters had deleted criticism with tag lines such as <start at cleanup of unencyclopedic "yo mama so ugly" type "criticisms">, <clean up rambing and personalistic rants> and <rm rant that is cited only to blogs> Sorry if I took his good natured chiding for something else. In the process of his editing he removed the following: (diff) (hist) . . Jacques Lacan‎; 20:19 . . (-436) . . Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Talk | contribs) (start at cleanup of unencyclopedic "yo mama so ugly" type "criticisms" added by anon)

“In psychoanalitic practice charging a full fee for a 5-minute session (varying of the length of the sessions) is considered un-ethical because there are other ways to confront the client with sticking to the same material. In Lacan's biography written by Roudinesco it is told that during sessions Lacan sometimes got his hair cut and received pedicures “(p. 391) .

This reference is a quote from Richard D. Chessick, M.D., Ph.D. (google scholar 212 articles) From a book review A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis: Theory and Technique by Bruce Fink professor of psychology at Duquesne University. The review was published online at The American Journal of Psychiatry, which claims “According to ISI’s Journal Citation Report, The American Journal of Psychiatry has an impact factor of 7.16, which ranks it 2nd among 87 journals in psychiatry. The Journal is 1st among psychiatric publications in total citations, with nearly 30,000 citations per year.”

. Jacques Lacan‎; 20:40 . . (-1,325) . . Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Talk | contribs) (clean up rambing and personalistic rants) In Fashionable Nonsense (1997), Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont accuse Lacan of "superficial erudition" and of abusing scientific concepts he does not understand
Lost the following elucidation: “(e.g., confusing irrational numbers and imaginary numbers). Richard Webster is strongly critical of Lacan's ideas, invoking the phrase "the cult of Lacan." ”

Filip Buekens (Aalst, Belgium, °1959) is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy at Tilburg University. He studied linguistics and philosophy at the universities of Leuven (Belgium) and Cologne (Germany) and obtained his Ph.D. in philosophy in 1991 on the philosophy of language, mind and action of Donald Davidson, on whose work he published two monographs. His current research interests are the interface of semantics and pragmatics, truth-conditional semantics and Gricean reasoning about meaning. He (sometimes) defends a position known as minimalist semantics. He has also published on analytic metaphysics and formal ontologies in medicine, issues in the philosophy of action (attempts, deontic logic) and has written two books on the foundations of analytic philosophy and the nature of reference. He is currently working on a long-term project on the structure, content and value of truth and the metaphysical nature of experiences. Recently he undertook an excursion into psychoanalysis and its role in the history of postmodernist thought. His key publications include: Buekens, F. (1994), 'Externalism, Content, and Causal Histories', in Dialectica 1994 (48), p. 267-286; Buekens, F., W. Ceusters, G. De Moor (1997a), 'TSMI: a CEN/TC51 Standard for Time Specific Problems in Healthcare Informatics and Telematics', in International Journal of Medical Informatics 46 (1997), 87-101; Buekens, F. (1997b), 'A Decision Procedure for Von Wright's OBS-Calculus', in Logique et Analyse 149 (1995), 43-55; Buekens, F. (2001b), 'Essential Indexicality and the Irreducibility of Phenomenal Concepts', in Communication and Cognition 34, 75-97; Buekens, F. (2005b), 'Pourquoi Lacan est-il si obscur?' in M. Borch-Jacobson & J. Van Rillaer (eds.), Livre Noir de la Psychanalyse, Paris: les arenas, 2005, pp. 269-278 (also translated in Italian and Spanish and chinese) Buekens, F. (2005a), 'Compositionality, Abberrant Sentences and Unfamiliar Situations', in Edouard Machery, Markus Werning, and Gerhard Schurz (Eds.), The Compositionality of Meaning and Content. Volume II: Applications to Linguistics, Psychology and Neuroscience. Series: Linguistics & Philosophy, 2, Ontos Verlag, 2005, pp. 83-103

Filip Buekens of Tilburg University has made several studies of Lacan's work and concluded "on the basis of a careful analysis of texts of Lacan, his followers (‘Orthodox Lacanians’) and his interpreters in France and elsewhere (‘Interpreters’), that what they claim and defend is based on fallacious arguments, equivocations, intellectual bluff-poker and a consistent abuse of concepts from other sciences. The result is an intellectual charade."[[3]][[4]]"Lacan is a philosophical charlatan, and not just because he tried to turn a pseudo-science (psychoanalysis) into a ‘science of the subject’."[[5]].

Professor R.C. Tallis claims that he was a psychopath who, "listened to no truths other than those which confirmed his own hypotheses...he projected not only his own theories on madness in women but also his own fantasies and family obsessions". "His lunatic legacy also lives on in places remote from those in which he damaged his patients, colleagues, mistresses, wives, children, publishers, editors, and opponents—in departments of literature whose inmates are even now trying to, or pretending to, make sense of his utterly unfounded, gnomic teachings and inflicting them on baffled students."[[6]]

RC Tallis, MA, MRCP, FRCP, F MedSci, DLitt, was Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. 55 articles on pubmed (PubMed, available via the NCBI Entrez retrieval system, was developed by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) at the National Library of Medicine (NLM), located at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH).) 13 citations on Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Guest speaker at The Royal College of Physicians,

Article is about 5400 words, do you think there may be room for some balance in the interests of NPOV? Or perhaps we should start a POV fork?MarkAnthonyBoyle 13:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Here's an idea that might break the impasse and make all parties happy. How about instead of a criticism section you have a "further reading" section, maybe start it with something like "Lacan's thought has generated a great deal of debate", and then link off to various categories of links like "PostModernism", "Feminism", "Scientific Critiques" etc. If this was combined with an enclopaedic distance throughout the text "Lacan thought...", "Lacan considered..." etc, plus the odd little colorful anecdote illustrating controversy, I for one, would be happy with that. What do the other editors think?MarkAnthonyBoyle 01:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems quite workable, as long as we maintain a focus on WP:NPOV. The tone of your recent simplifying edits has been very good. It's certainly worthwhile to let readers know about the specific debates spawned by Lacan's seminars, of which there are many. On the other hand, repeating someone who says "Lacan was a psychopath" or that his writing is "incoherent gibberish" is a non-productive non-starter (beyond maybe a very short one-liner that we currently have).

Obviously, the thousands of very smart thinkers who have been significantly influenced by Lacan's work have not all been taken in by a simple fraud. He might be wrong, but most of his "followers" (let alone his "in-field critics") haven't been merely awed into belief by a few big words in Lacan. On the other hand, thinker like Guattari or Irigaray who each make rather systematic and profound criticisms of Lacan themselves fall in the same bag of being accused of gibberish by the same generically anti-Pomo types like Sokal or Buekens. It's those who "speak the same language" that it's interesting to present, while the "know nothings" who distrust the tone of Lacan's work are worth minor footnotes at most. LotLE×talk 02:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

MAB & LotLE have been doing a good job of improving the article this week. If this section is also being improved, one of its problems is the sequencing which presents Roustang [7] as a critic "from outside of psychoanalysis, critical theory and the humanities". AllyD 07:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)-fixed, thank youMarkAnthonyBoyle 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a discussion about the truth value of Lacan, we would be here a very long time if we did that. I'm suggesting a way out of this, not another argument. I'm suggesting that someone with good wiki format skills good set up say four or five subject headings (maybe columns, maybe not) where links to off topic (ie not this page) discussions of his work are given adequate space. They might link to, for instance, feminist thinkers who use his ideas one way or another, or to Critical Theory, or to impact in the wider psychological community. For example, you can find your way to Intelligent Design from Darwin. I have about the same opinion of Intelligent Design as I do of Freudianism (a lot of very "smart thinkers" subscribe to all kinds of wacky notions, we call that 'religion'), but people who want to find that stuff can get there from his page. It's just an idea. If you don't like it we'll stick to "criticisms" (or "reactions to his work") or whatever.MarkAnthonyBoyle 07:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The ID analogy seems worthwhile. Of at least some broad religious ideas (I think ID, narrowly, shows mostly bad faith and sophistry). But I concur with MAB that religious is bunk; and that lots of smart people have written eloquent defenses of their religious ideas.

The one point where I'd differ with MAB's idea above is that it is better to incorporate links to additional concepts within the main text flow rather than isolating them as a list of "see also" links. For the most part, we do this now: feminism, post-modernism, Guattari, Sokal, critical theory, etc. are linked within the flow of the article, and readers following those links will find various criticisms of Lacan there. We can do more of that, but maintaining flow is the way to go for a well-reading article. LotLE×talk 20:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)