{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02453430258973194, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003634711494775102, 'mean_word_length': 4.983695652173913, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Grand Protester: Lacan on the Scientific Status of Psychoanalysis

Jacques Lacan is among the last original thinkers within the psychoanalytic movement, despite the fact that he was officially expelled from it. Indeed, this is the paradox which has led to a highly documented study of his expulsion, which, intriguingly, complements and corroborates Lacan’s own very painful report on the matter (see Turkle 1981 and Lacan 1978, opening pages). Lacan was the last member of the movement to be concerned enough with the scientific status of psychoanalysis even if this called for possible radical reforms and he consequently was brave enough to suggest certain modifications to fundamental theoretical tenets. That Lacan’s writings constitute a challenge to his reader is well-known. His obscure and highly metaphysical language is excused-not by everyone-on the ground that he showed real concern with real issues. We propose to restate his ideas through their transformations in a more palatable manner, by explicating his problems and his modes of attack. As to his problems they are two. The one is philosophical: is psychoanalysis scientific? The other is clinical: what service does the psychoanalyst offer the analysand? The two, of course, are closely related. But the trouble with comprehending Lacan about them is double or perhaps triple. First there are different criteria of what makes a theory scientific, and Lacan had a choice between them. Second, he changed his views about both scientific method and the content of psychoanalysis. Third, commentators often read texts in manners which grant their wish to agree with these texts. For our part, we will present the various views on scientific method and the various views of Lacan both on method and on psychoanalysis. We leave the question of agreement with his views open and are content with sharing his concern. His concern vis-h-vis his reader-and thereby vis-~-vis our reader too-was to clear misconception, misunderstanding and misrepresentation particularly by the haughty reader, who is, at times, so pleased with his understanding of the poor text (or analysand), that the task of altering his understanding is Herculean.