Jacques Rancière's Freudian Cause.pdf

8/14/2019 Jacques Rancière's Freudian Cause.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jacques-rancieres-freudian-causepdf 1/30

Jacques Rancière's Freudian CauseAuthor(s): Solange Guénoun and Richard CassidySource: SubStance, Vol. 33, No. 1, Issue 103: Contemporary Thinker Jacques Rancière (2004),pp. 25-53Published by: University of Wisconsin Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3685461 .

Accessed: 11/06/2013 14:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

SubStance.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 155.207.206.79 on Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:40:03 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwisc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3685461?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/3685461?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwisc



JacquesRanci re'sFreudianCause

Solange Guinoun

I believe...thathave ntroducedomethinghatwilloccupyheminds fmen or long ime.-Freud'

What stobedone,whenyouare nvitedotheEcoledePsychanalysesnBrussels, henyouare he uthorf considerableody fwork emonstratingoriginal hought,ndwhenyouannounce rom hebeginninghat ouhave

nocompetenceospeakfrom hepoint fview ofpsychoanalyticheory ?(L'inconscientsthitique,).JacquesRancikre,hus olicitednJanuary000,responds y nventingnewformulaf he nconscious. rrather,ediscoverswhatwas already here,waiting obe described ndnamed, ndwhichwillthereafterecalledJacques ancibre'saesthetic nconscious. his oncept,linked t ts oundationso he nconsciousheorizedyFreud,willnonethelessplaytheroleof nagitator-concept,ver onstitutivef he esthetic enesisburied in psychoanalysis.t is rare and unforeseeablehatan external

circumstancehould hus ecome nessential ilestonen conceptualreation,that noriginal hought,hallengedy omethingoreign-byts other hatispsychoanalysis- hould roduce uch concept. very reatormust e able

to ummon is nterlocutorsntohis wnterrain-in his ase, or ancibre,hatof he esthetic.urther,emust nowhowto eparaterom imself,odistancehimselfrom isownsystemf hought,ndplaywitht, ut t nto fictive

relationshipith nother,na new theoreticalcenography. 2Thisfecund isplacementnto he errainf he ther, hich appens obe

an Ecole dePsychoanalyses,s not rivial.3tsignifiesoth hefundamentalstakes f his ncounter,nd beautifulbsession fJacques ancibre,orwhomalways ndeverywherehe nly hinghat ounts omesback toa single nd

same cause--thatof emancipation nd itspedagogy.In thisparticularconjuncture,'inconscientsthitiqueillfree sfromhe onsensualmage fFreudwho sdivided--on he nehandrevolutionarynhis cience,nd on theother,onformistnhis rtisticastes ndtraditionalnhis esthetictudies. hisbook will substitute or hismage hepowerfulheoreticalictionf Freud

resolutelynddeliberatelylassical, ancibre'sbjectivelly nan ntransigentstrugglegainstllformsfnihilism.4fictionomentedyRancikre'spolemicalFreudianism hatwill

give roughimeo

ontemporaryradical reudianism

? Board fRegents, niversityfWisconsinystem,004 25SubStance 03,Vol.33,no.1,2004







26 SolangeM.Gu~noun

and its llegitimatelaims o correcting reud. n a complex ndoriginal

maneuver hatwilloverturn any oints f onsensus, ancibre ill ransformFreud'smuchdecried causality his obsessive earch or xplanationsndcauses-into a true rump ard, nto symbol f a scientificnd universalrationalism hatwill have welcomedpoetry nd mythology hilenever

renouncinghe deals f ibertyndemancipationhroughnowledge,o matterhowtenuous hese dealsmighte.5

Such is Jacques Rancibre'sFreudian cause-a cause that is not

psychoanalysts'thing, utwhich oncernshem evertheless.6tnot nly ives

them ack the estheticntecedentsf heunconscious iscovered yFreud,but even morefundamentally,tgivesthem radicalreactualization ftheFreudian egacy, way toremobilize t for n aesthetics fpolitics n ademocraticegime.7norder ounderstand he riginalityndthenumerousimplicationsfRancibre'sreudian ause,we wouldhave toconsider llthecitationsfpsychoanalysisnhiswork,whichsbeyond he copeof his rticle,which roposesmainlyopresent 'inconscientsthitique.evertheless,he ewelements

proposedherecan serve as an introduction o the

complicatedrelationshiphatRancibre's orkmaintains ith sychoanalysis,ince ntheonehand trelentlesslyejectsertain undamentalonceptsfpsychoanalysis,andonthe ther,t evalorizesthers, hile ever easingobring sychoanalysisinto lay-without, owever,eferringo t xplicitly.

The CitationofPsychoanalysisn Rancibre'sWork

From he redictable entionfLacan nthe ontextf riticismf deologyinLa legon 'Althusser96)to thepowerful igure fthe esthetic edipusasmadwith nowledge foue avoir ]nL'inconscientsthitique,ot omention

the rodigiousMicheletsOedipusthehistoriannLesnoms e 'histoire1992),Rancikre'shoughtndpsychoanalysisften ravel own the ameroad nanequivocal manner,when theydo not carveout entirely ppositepaths.Nevertheless, hether sing tpolemically rhermeneutically,r simplyimplyingt nhis heoreticalevices ndconcepts,ancibre's ork snotwithout

recourse opsychoanalysis.It s the busive rtwistedses ofpsychoanalysis-inhis aseLacanian-

that rouseRancikre'selentlessrony--unleashed,or xample, gainst ierreBourdieu'smorose cience fmiconnaissanceignorance]262).HereBourdieuis an ndex-nameorny ociologist-kinghoenthronesimselfs the cientistandphysicianf hedenial f elf ngeneral Lephilosophet espauvres,59).Infact erepresentshe ingular ase of universal--hat f ll symptomal

SubStance#103,Vol.33,no. 1,2004







Jacques ancibre'sreudianause 27

reading, bhorred yRancidkre,s exampleofa science hat roceedsby

dispossessinghe ersont laims oenlightenndemancipate.8nother otionprovokes is azor-sharpriticism-theebulousonceptf modemrnity,hereRancibre,lwaysdeadpan, nerringlylaces he Freudian rimalcene, sinthis ilariousumble:

Thisgreathurly-burlyn whicharemingledCartesian cienceandRevolutionaryarricide,heAgeof heMasses ndRomanticrrationalism,the interdictionf representationnd mechanizedtechniquesofrepresentation,heKantianublime ndtheFreudian rimal cene, he

disappearancefthegodsandthe xterminationfEuropean ews.Le

partage,3)

Lacan's ranslationf he reudian rimalcenedoes ittle oclarifyhings,withhis ignifiersf theunsymbolizablebject nd thedeathdrive, hevoiceof heAbsolute ther ronouncinghe nterdictiongainst epresentation,he

revolutionaryurder f he ather Lepartage,3).Rancibre'srank version

encompasses llthoughthat unctionsccordingo the precipice rinciple(Auxbords upolitique,7),and that laysoff hesemelancholy bysses hat

have transformedontemporaryebate n the estheticnto great oncert fmourningndrepentancenmodernisthought ibid., 1).Fundamentalriefsthat e addressesesstopsychoanalysisndtothe etter f ts ext,s tothe oleithaswronglyeenmadetoplay nthesemind-bogglingheoreticalonfusions,

byturningts hermeneuticocation oelucidatert nto nihilisticntropyand melancholyL'inconscientsthitique,2).A melancholyhat ediagnosesinall thedisenchantedontemporariesorwhom rthadheldrevolutionaryhopes, rom ean-Lucodard oJean-Frangoisyotard,heatterfwhommade

melancholynto the ostmodernilment ar xcellenceseeLyotard's oralitispostmodernes).t ittlemattersf orRancilre he olemical se of melancholyarisesmore romtsgeneralmeaningf morose electation, oeful adness,and morbid ixation na lostobject hat ever xisted s such, han romhe

contemporaryndrigorouslinical efinitionf his arcissisticeurosis.Thepoints tomovebeyond his,nd ft s then ecessaryorally reud othe nti-nihilistause,Rancibrecarcelyesitates,nd tagesneof hese ictitiousisputes

he knowshow tofabricate.ikeFreud,hat essimisticoctor f he roublesfthe oul, f ocietyndof ivilization,ancidreasnopatience ith he angs f

melancholy,ith tsnarcissisticachinationsnd ts aralyzingisenchantment.Rancibre'sbsessive ursuitf nymournfulhought,etectedeneath hemost

sophisticatedheoreticalrappings,as the mmediateffectf hrowingightonmany omber ides ofcontemporaryhought,ndpromoting salutarywakefulness. is workputsus onguard against nyslippageofmourningwork-constitutivef anguage ndthought-intohe athologicalmourning

SubStance 03, ol. 3,no. ,2004









JacquesRancibre's reudian ause 29

the rueltyf hework. This s cruel ictionarexcellence,hat s to ayalso

thefictionf hework s cruelty:he rait f he rremediableeworkednthepainofthefamily omance. Here t'snota matter feither ommentingr

interpretinghis ruel able,ut implyfnotingow, ven nthemodeofdenial,

psychoanalysisansometimesunctionsahermeneuticool.However, ancire'smost omplex seofpsychoanalysisrises rom hat

we have alledts tagingr ts omingnto lay tthe ery eart fhis heoretical

apparatus nd hisconcepts.My reading fL'inconscientsthztique ighterveas an ntroductionothis,utmore han nestudywouldbenecessarynorder

to grasp the somewhat equivocal duet between aesthetics andpsychoanalysis,nd toreflectn one of hedifficultiesfRancidre'shinking

ontheunconscious.Adifficultyhat ouldbe summarized ythefollowingquestion:s treally ossible othink concept f n aestheticnconscious,untouched ypsychoanalysis?an one formulaten aesthetic nconsciousthatwouldbe oblivious othepowerfuletroactiveowerof heunconscioustheorized yFreud andpsychoanalysis?ut sn't hispreciselyhe ffortf

thought hatRancibreummons s toundertake,n order o re-situatehe

psychoanalyticalevolutionn tsproper nd egitimate lace, uch s itwasconditionedythe estheticegimef rt? tarting ith reconsiderationf ts

glorious mblem, edipus,with tsnewconcept f symptom, nd with ts

grandiose igurefMoses.

Topresent he encounter etween he aestheticnconscious nd theFreudiannconsciousanencounterf naltogetherewgenre)wouldrequire

awide-ranging ork n numerous ignificantdetails f he extwhere hisencounter akesplace, including he much broaderconjunction etween

psychoanalysis,estheticsndpoliticsn the nsemble fRancibre'seuvre.twouldhavetobeginwith n acknowledgementftheFreudian egacy, or

example hat artwhichRancibreummonsrom reud n the nremittabilityof nearly orror,he nchangeabilityf nguishndhate, he urerejectionfthe ther. hisdoes not onformith he lassical sychologyf hepassions,butharks acktopsychic,nconsciousmechanismshat reudplacedat the

very oundationf ubjectivity,ndwhich ontributeoRancidre'sedefinitionofthe chlos,he turbulences f hemultiple ecoming hat passionof heOne which xcludes. ' ThisFreudian nowledge f rchaic ate ndcruelty,as well as the nalysesn Civilizationnd tsDiscontents,mpregnate ancikre'spolitical eflectionsnAux bords upolitique41).This s a legacy hatmustbe

distinguishedrom hepartRancikreejects, anting opart f t.Towit, he

pathologicalonceptionf hepolitical,hepatheticnessf heupheavals nd

SubStance 03,Vol.33,no.1, 004







30 SolangeM.Gu6noun

breaks f subjectonceiveds a defenselesshild, ndfinally,nythinghat

arisesfrom theological-politicalnterpretationfdemocracy,ounded nparricide r sacrificeibid., 7).BecauseforRancikre,ar romny dramaofthe ymbolic riginal atastrophe, he division fthe rkhthat ounds he

politicalwithdemocracys not foundingacrifice. t s a neutralizationf

anysacrificialody that ouldfind itsexactfable n theend ofOedipus tColonus ibid., 74). A seductive able fthe disappearance f thefather,which roblematizeshe yingf he ubjectothe aw, utwhich emains obedefined.12 urther,twouldbenecessaryoundertaken elaborate nd delicate

work fdisentanglingsychoanalyticalnowledge oncerninghe divisionof he peaking ubjectLacan's parletre )rom heknowledge oncerninghedivision fRancikre'semocraticubject, literarynimal urned sidefromhis natural estination ythepowerofwords, rcaughtnthe rap f heir

equivocal excesses.3Oragain, twouldbenecessary oexplore heradicaldifferencesetween reudian sublimation which emains nachieved ndunachievable ut ndissociableromrives),ndthe sublime prooting that

separationrom

nybody,rom

nydesire nd

anyfantasy,hich

residesver

the rare and unforeseenstagingof the dimos. 14Without ounting heirremediableppositionetweenacan's symbolicastration ndthatmazingliteraryisincorporation herein he xperiencef he democraticeing

only omesnto lay s disruptivenunciation f ny ncorporation. 5tturns

politicalction nto nantagonisticsubjectivation,urnedgainsthe oliticalas the perationfdifferentiationhatnstitutesoliticalollectivesndputsinto ction he galitariannconsistencyrthe perationf dentityhat rings

politics own totheproprietiesf ocialbodiesor thefantasyfthegloriousbodiesof he ommunity Peupleoumultitude, 5).By purely oluntaryand ndividual ct f mancipation,he ubjectmust cquiesce o he eparationofwords ndthings,f elf romelf. his iaexercisingis nunciativeapacity,separated romnynaturalness,nycorporeal osition,where he ubject sdimos ndergoes he rdealofdivision, ithnopromise funity,utalso via

exercisinghe mancipatingower fdivision'swo, f the qualityf his newith nyother ne Auxbords,74).Wecan see how vastwouldbea study f

the taging fpsychoanalysisnRancikre'shoughtn an aesthetics f thepolitical. tthemost, ypresenting'inconscientsthitique,cangive glimpsehere f few f he inks hat reestablished discreetlyut olidlybetweenaesthetics and psychoanalysis, between political thought and

psychoanalysis.The onceptf n aestheticnconsciousoesnot ppear s suchnRancidre's

1996Mallarm,which everthelessncubatest, nd t lso spercolatingeneath

SubStance#03, ol. 3,no. ,2004







Jacques ancibre'sreudianause 31

the urfacenLaparolemuette1998) nd Lachair esmots1998). hemagisterial

essayon the war ofwritings,n theoriginaryontradictionfliterature,necessarily ad to ead to t,with he mplacable ndirrefutableogicofthe

identityf ppositeshat ancibre akes unctiont ll evels f esthetichoughtonart,nd all evels f houghttself.16s a theoreticalutcome,he oncept fthe muteword aRancirian onceptnlikeny ther,hematerializationfa questioningf the estheticdea -in fact equiresnaestheticonsiderationof he nconscious.hus,whenRancibre ust istinguishetween hework fartfrom he egime frepresentation,ndthebeautifulmpty ormromhe

regime f esthetics,ant's heoryf genius ntervenes,efined s hewho sin gnorance fwhathecreates nd ofwhatnature reatesnhim.17hus theunconsciouss dentified ith enthusiasm : The old enthusiasm'sinthe

process f hangingtsname.Henceforthtwillbecalledtheunconscious. '8But t s only nL'inconscientsthitiquehat henecessary utunpredictableleapismade,whenthe rrefutablencounter ith heFreudian nconsciousrequiresnreturnhe onceptualizationf he estheticnconscious.

The conjunctionbetween aestheticunconscious and Freudianunconscious hatnterestsancidreasnothingodo with he sualconjunctionbetween sychoanalysisnd ts thersphilosophy,iterature,esthetics),inceit s a genealogical uestion, return o thetheoreticalndepistemologicalfoundationsfpsychoanalysis,ootedn he esthetic,ndtothe ery onditionsof ossibilityf hese ifferentisciplines.ancireproposesnfact he rcheologyandgenealogy f his onjunction,hich sbuilt ntheruins f he egime f

representationhat asoverthrownt he urn f he ndof he ighteenthentury

and thebeginning fthenineteenthentury,eplacedbya largeand silentrevolutionhathe calls aesthetic. husRancibre ushesback ntime heepistemologicalreak ommonlyituatedtthe ndof henineteenthenturyabreak hat eprefersocharacterizes a revolutionnthepoetical tructuresofknowledge Lesnoms e 'histoire,9-90).

Takinghingsackwards,s is his ustomaryonceptualmove unlesst sdictatedbyhispractice fdissensus), ancibre ssignshimself hetask of

recoveringheunaccounted art fthe estheticnconscious,whichhelpedconstituteheunconsciousheorizedyFreud, s theformer asdeployednnineteenth-centuryrt,iterature,ndphilosophy.e doesnot reathe reudianunconscious as clinicaland metapsychological oncept,which is bothacknowledged nd excluded fromhisfieldof nquiry,utfocuseson thepsychoanalyticalnconsciouss t smanifestednFreud'sestheticnalyses.nfact, ancikreeparates heFreudian heoreticalorpusfrom is aestheticcorpus, romwhichhevery eliberatelyelects few exts.'9hushesketches

SubStance 03,Vol.33,no.1,2004







32 SolangeM.Gu6noun

outa newperceptiveramework here the esthetic, s a newparadigm or

art sthought,ecomes hematrixf he reudian nconscious,he vidence fa thinkingf heunconscious eized nthe ery ffectivityf iteraturendart.Rancibre'sotion f he estheticnconscious, eir o secular houghtntheunconscious rom hilosophy'sery eginnings,onceived s theun-known,the n-thought,henvoluntary,everthelessntroducesrupture,eyond venBaumgarten'sconfusednowledge rKant'ssensibleeterogeneouso dea. 20Ranci~re inds n thewakeof he aesthetic evolution naestheticegime fart ndof he nconscious,onsubstantialitht.The onditionsf his evolution

arepresentednmoredetail nLaparolemuette,amely henecessityohave

... this bsolutizationf rt roclaimedy xalted oung ermanhinkersaround 800:H6l1derlinianission fthepoetas mediator,chlegelianabsolutizationfthe poem fthepoem, Hegeliandentificationftheaesthetic ith hedeploymentf he onceptf heAbsolute,ffirmationbyNovalis f he ntransigencef languagehatsonly oncerned ithitself.Laparole uette,2)

It s essential ohave this rremediableonfusionf art ndphilosophy-

with eligionnd aw,physicsndpolitics-in he amenight f he bsolute.Essentialoo re he complicityf renchevolutionariesndGermanreamers,the oincidence etween silent evolution nFrancewhere nepassesfromthe poetics fBelles ettreso literature,ndthe conceptualbsolutizationsof anguage,iteraturend art nGermanyibid., 3).Thus double evolution,quasi-contemporary-thehilosophical ne of theGermanpost-Kantianromantic-idealistsndthe iteraryne ofFrench omanticovelistsikeBalzacand

Hugo.And na recent

evelopment,orRancibret s even

necessaryo

hark ack othe riginalcene f he esthetic,hich e extractsrom he ifteenthletter fLettresur 'iducationsthitiquee 'homme1795)bySchiller,memberof hat enerationf hinkers/writershoreactedoboth heAufklliirungnd tothe pheavalsf he rench evolution.21hiswould ethe ign f new nflectioninRancibre'shinking,rat eastofthedevelopmentfa latent uestionLepartage,3).Thequestion f play nman's estheticducation, hich an bedetected lready n Lephilosophet sespauvres1983). n 2002,this cene s

deliberatelynvoked s original ounter-sceneoLyotard'saestheticfthesublime, hich emains somewhat olemicalargetnL'inconscientsthitique,where chillersonlymentionednpassing.

Butbetween 998-2001, single oncept-that fthe mute-loquaciousword and ts riginaryontradiction-willbeeployed otake nto ccountart's estheticegime.notherwords, hat eterogeneousnsemble f peech-actsthatmade thehistoryf iteraturendart or wo enturies,swellas the









social ciences-allborn f he estheticevolution,nd,moreprecisely,rom

the cience fthewriter, hoanticipatedll ofthem.As a specificmode ofconnectionetweenhe racticesf modeofvisibilityndthinkabilityf hese

practices-thats to ay, efinitively,n dea of houghttself, estheticss thathistoricnd determinedegimef rt hat verthrewhemimetic-poeticegimeof epresentation46).Basedonthe latonicmythf he nventionfwriting,nitsnotion f he orphanedetter,t mplies certainpartitionf he ensible

[partageu ensible].hisprodigiousheoreticalictionf he mute-loquaciousword and its orphaned etter, ithoutegitimate ather rdetermined

destination,ill nfact econstitutivef hedemocraticegime f heword.Atheoreticaliction hose fficacyndpower renotmeasuredy itherts ealityor ts ruth,utbywhat t nables ne tounderstandnd what t llows obe re-

thought,adicallynotably, he onceptf he estheticnconscious.

TheFreudiannconscious,hich oohasa centuryfveryventfulistory,shouldmake nabstractionf his istoryn ts onfrontationith he heoreticalfictionfthe aesthetic nconscious. n

fact,ancibre as cut toff romts

evolutionnthe wentiethentury,nd has taken t n tsnascent tate,withnocertain uture r assuredpresent,tillnextricablyinked o ts esthetic ast,which asbeenburiednthe ourse f his volution. ut ccordingoRancibre,this esthetic astovertakesndhaunts heFreudian nconscious,which s

predominantlyihilisticn he ontemporaryestheticebate. his emembranceconducted yRancikre ivesbacktotheFreudian nconscious tsnumerousantecedentsnnineteenth-centuryhilosophynd iterature,nd eads ttoa

recognitionfthebreadth f ts debt to theaesthetic.n fact, heFreudianunconscious wes toaestheticstsOedipus, tshermeneuticsnd ts ogic; or

Rancikre,heFreudian edipus s unthinkable ithouthe esthetic edipus,madwith nowledge, ithouthemethod f nterpretationndfictionalizing

of he aradigmnauguratedyCuvier-Balzac,ithwhich sychoanalysiss ncomplete ontinuity,ndfinally,ithouthe inaryogic fdrivesnheritedrom

Hegel's oncept fopposition,orwhich eforesaw ll the asesof hefigure.22Rancikreoes not ayso inexactlyhese erms,utthenumerous arallelshe

establishesetweenHegeland Freud llowthis onclusion. everthelesshereremains he ssential fpsychoanalysis,orRancibre oesnotforgetitherhemedical ndscientificontextnwhich sychoanalysisselaborated, or the

economyfdrives nd the tudy f he ormationsf he nconscious 43).Andherecallshat here anbeneitherpragmatictilization or ontinuityetweenthe estheticnconsciousndthe reudian nconscious45).Thus nL'inconscient

esthitiquesychoanalysisurvivesnchallengeds the nventionf new, on-

SubStance 03,Vol.33,no.1, 004







34 SolangeM.Gudnoun

medical ranch fmedicine nd as anoriginal escriptionf hephenomena f

the nconsciousnd the roublesf he syche.t s a newclinical ield,oundedon anOedipaltheoreticalore, laborated romophocles'sOedipus ex, romwhich reudwillmake universalcomplex a fundamentalassage nthe

psychic tructuringf he hild,with isfailures,euroticrotherwise.3ntheother and,psychoanalysis'linical nd theoreticalieldsrigorouslyimited,farfrom tsoriginal mperialisticntent, r fromts currentmperialism,characterized y itsimmoderate nterventionn theensembleof human

activities.24he ircumscriptionhat ancidreproposess ikewisear romacan'sextensionf he aws of heFreadian nconscious nd tsprocesses o ncludethe nsemble f anguage ndthe ctivities f he ndividual nd the ocial.25

Rancikre's oundaries re far rom acan's inguistic,ogicalortopologicalinterventions,ut lsofar romll he lteriorheoreticalevelopmentsonstituted

by clinical xperience, nd farfrom ontemporaryebates n the fieldof

psychoanalysis.

JacquesRancibre'sAestheticUnconscious

Under hese onditions,ancidre'sonceptf n aestheticnconscious sa thunderbolthat verthrows any oints f onsensus- mong ther,hat fthe pistemologicalbreakroughtboutbythe sychoanalyticalevolutiontthe ndof henineteenthentury,nd that f he pposition etween reud'srevolutionarysychoanalyticalheoryndhis airlyraditionalestheticnalyses.Ina firsteversal,he orgottenestheticartsretroactivelyaised s a concept-

thatof the aesthetic nconscious, nd it acquiresa quasi-mythologicaldimension s the riginalcene, he ondition fpossibilityor sychoanalysis.Ina second eversal, esee thatnmakinghe asefor he estheticegimendforhe estheticnconscioushat sconsubstantialo t,Rancibreimultaneouslymakes he ase for he mancipatingspect f heFreudian nconscious,ndfor n anti-nihilistreud, herebyreatingcommon Freudian ause. Theseareradical eversalsowhichRancibreasaccustomeds, ndwhich ften orceus to review ndre-think

verything.nbothcases,

psychoanalysisillbe

summonedo he errainf he esthetic,ut he estheticillnever e summonedto he errainf sychoanalysis-deliberateissymmetry,ictatedy he atureof he rgument,utwhichmust e taken nto ccountmmediately,norder oavoidanymisunderstanding.26

Inorder odemonstrateowthe sychoanalyticalevolutionsanchorednthe estheticevolution,ancihre ustmake learts onstitutivelements25-32)-to wit, new dea of ragedyndof hought,nd anew ogic, ll ncarnated

SubStance 03,Vol. 3,no.1,2004








byGermanphilosophy's eturnoGreece ndtoOedipus.27 hisrequires

thoughthat othreconnects ith he ncient

tragicquivalencebetween

knowledge ndsuffering26)andemblematizeshenewparadoxical nionbetweenhoughtnd llness,norder omakeOedipus nto hewhoknows ndwho does notknow,whoacts bsolutelyndsuffersbsolutely 27) that is,theherowho ncarnates he dentityfopposites,hedomain f he esthetic

regime. rom hat oint n,psychoanalysisanonlynventtselfat that ointwhere hilosophynd medicinereboth alled nto uestion,norder omake

thoughtnto matterf llness nd llness nto matterf hought. inally,n

order or he igurefOedipustobecome aradigmatic,emust estoreohimhis hermeneuticncestor,he igurefHomer evisedyVico n he ighteenthcentury,hichmakeshim nto poetby the dentityfwhathe wants nddoesnotwant, fwhathe knows nd doesnotknow,whathedoesand doesnot

do, andwhosepoeticworkscharacterizeds theword's ide-steppinghat t

says, with oother ecret hat hatwhich elongs opoetic anguagetself30).Asamajor onceptual roposal, the esthetic nconscious ependson

Rancikre'sotion f he mute-loquaciousord ndon ts woways fmakingthingspeak,tswayof akingnto ccount hedentityf he pposites etweenconsciousndunconscious,etween athosnd ogos33-42).28n the nehand,if neconsidershisdentitys the immanence f he ogosnpathos, s did

Hegel,then ne mustdealwith naesthetic nconscious f heCuvier-Balzacside,where igns re ikehieroglyphics,nscribed nthingsndonbodies-traces f thetruth hatmustbe fictionalizedrmythologizedia complexmachines f omprehension, uch spsychoanalysisrMarxismLepartage,

60).This swhereBalzac decodessociety rom singlehouse,whereHugodescribesnentireivilizationasedupon ts utters,arx educes he conomicorderfrom tsmerchandise,nd Freuddetects he ubject's istoryrom isunconscious ormations.llof hese ermeneuticalracticesre nscribednthesamephilosophical-poeticorizon,haringhe amecognitivemodel,whoseancestorsreCuvier-Balzac.n the ther and, f neconsiders he dentityf

opposites s immanence f he athosnthe ogos, s didSchopenhauerndNietzsche,hen he orrespondingestheticnconsciouswillbeof heZola-

Ibsen side-that of a soliloquizingword,which peaksto no one and saysnothing,fnot mpersonalonditions,nconsciousf heword tself 40), he

powerof nunheard,nonymous ord, owhich ne must ive voice nd a

body.These re the woforms f he esthetic nconscious hat o-existntheaestheticegime- nuncontested,riginalormula,ut regnant ith heoreticalandpolemical mplications,s attested yRancikre'sesthetic edipusandclassicalMoses, uthorizedythis ormula.








36 SolangeM.Gu~noun

Ranciere'sAestheticOedipus

Inhis ntroduction,ancireassigned imselfwoobjectives.hefirst astoprove he xistencef naestheticnconsciouss the ondition fpossibilityfor reud'science.hishe seems ohavedone.The econd oalwas tochallengecertain reudian retensionsoa universal pistemology,ince, ccordingo

Rancikre,reudhad llegitimatelyombined

...inthe ame ffirmationfuniversality,hreehings:generalendencyof he uman syche,determinedictional aterial,nd dramaticchemaimposedsexemplary.othe uestions raised:what llows reud o ffirmthis dequationndtomake t thecenter fhisdemonstration?r, nanotherorm:hatbout he ramaticniversalityf he edipus toryandthe chema f evelationeployedy ophocles?15-17,my mphasis)

To bemoreprecise, reudwritesnThenterpretationf reams,Theplayisnothing ther han progressiveevelation ndvery droitlyalculated-

comparableo psychoanalysis-ofhe act hat edipushimselfs themurderer

ofLaos,but lsothe on of hevictimnd ofJocasta 228,my mphasis).Thecomparison adebyFreud ere, arenthetically,etween he rogress

of cure nd themodeofrevealinghe ecret f ophocles's ragedy,s not hat

meaningful. e obviously annotdescribe ither hepreciseunfolding f

Sophocles's lotor that f cure, xceptmetaphorically.odrawfromhis,s

Rancikreoes,the xemplarynd universal ognitivechema f he ure satthe east xcessive,ndthisnterpretation,hich annot earbitrary,emainsdifficultounderstand.ence he etour iaclassicalragedynorder o hallengetheuniversalityf thecognitivechemaofOedipal psychoanalysis r ofSophoclean psychoanalysiswhere reud ndSophocles eem ooverlap),smore ifficultoustify,f ne cknowledgeshat reud ever laimed niversalityfor hiskindofdramaticognitivemodel.One entireequenceentitledThedefault f a subject nfactmakesa detour hrough wo classicalOedipusstories-those of Corneille nd Voltaire-inordertoestablish, ightly,hehistoricityf hemadOedipus, nd tosupport hehypothesisf naesthetic

revolutionhatmadethis ossible, herebyreparinghewayfor he reudianOedipus.But ophocles's edipus,who s inked othenew deaof ragedyf

H6lderlin, egel, ndNietzsche,ndwhoprepares hewayfor heFreudian

Oedipus, s ess dramaticognitivechema hat he ncarnationf he athosfknowledge nd the dentityfoppositesdefined yRancibre. llofwhich sdefendable,utwithoutmplicationsor he ritiquef universalmodelof hecure hat s never laimed obesuch, ithern ts heoryr tspractice.

SubStance 03, ol. 3, o.1, 004








Freud'sreturn oSophocles,hisprogressiveranslation f theOedipal

tragedynto complex,sbasedonthencestuous-parricidalontentf he lay,which emakes nto universal, hich s neitheronfirmedordeniedbytheclassical edipus tories,sRancikreimselfcknowledges:Of hedifficultiesCorneillend Voltaire ad nadapting ophocles, opoint anbe raised gainstthe niversalityf heOedipus omplex 20).Thepower f heOedipal egend,of his ictional aterialomposed f ncestuous esires ndparricide,erhapswouldcorrespondoa general endencyfthehumanpsyche,inked othe

psychologyf he hild. onsequently,hiswouldrepresenthe nly egitimateepistemic niversal hatpsychoanalysismight laim.29he incestuous ndparracidicspects f heOedipus omplexhus scape riticism,eforeecomingpolemical nd theoreticaltakesnthe econdpart.3?

FreudianCausalityand Rancibre's reudianCause

It s mpossibleogo nto etail ere n Rancibre'snterpretationsfFreud's

aestheticexts, hichwouldrequiremore han nestudy. he texts voked rstudiedbyRancibrewerepublishedbyFreudbetweenThe nterpretationfDreams1900) ndL'inquiItantetrangett1919), efore he onstitutionf heFreudian edipusas a fundamentalomplex fpsychoanalysis.3'heir hoiceis justifiablefromRancibre'sperspective,which is that of thebirthof

psychoanalysis,ooted nthe estheticegime. n theother and, t smoredifficulto ustifyhe ystematicettingside of pecificassages nFreudonaesthetics, speciallywhenoneseekstoredefine hisnotion,ndwhenfor

Freud he esthetic oes not lways pring rom he lassicaldoctrinef thebeautiful. orFreud,the aesthetic s defined bove all in terms f theeconomic work of redistributionnd intra-psychicquilibrium, hus

inseparablerom he leasure rinciple,s canbeseen nhisreadingfAristotle's

catharsis --notmentionedn L'inconscientsthitique,hichnonetheless

presentstselfsFreud's eturnoAristotle.32urther,reud efineshis eglecteddomainof esthetics s a theoryf he ualities foursensibility, hichhecalls

L'inquiltantetranget,nd ikewise efines he

positionf he aesthete

based on thepleasuretaken nhisown psychic ctivity,istinct rom hesublimation f he rtist.33llof hiss set sidebyRanci&re.

Rancibre's olemicalFreudianisms two-pronged:n the one hand,acriticismf he esthetic ermeneuticsracticedyLouisMarin ndGeorgesDidi-Huberman,mong thers;nthe ther,riticismfLyotard'saestheticsof he ublime. nboth ases, his oesnotproceed rom critique roundednthe exts f hese hilosophersnd theoreticiansf heaesthetic.34ather,ythe








38 SolangeM.Gu~noun

elaborationf hefiguref n anti-nihilistreud pposedtothehermeneutics

that hey ractice anoriginalndpolemical igureonstitutedystematicallyfrom ne sequenceto the next n L'inconscientsthetique.hus, nhis Lescorrectionse Freud, Freud'sfirststake s to contributeo the dea ofunconscioushought, nd his contributions avethe bjective fblockinganypassage othe chopenhauer-Nietzscheersionf he estheticnconscious(51). nhis Des divers sagesdud~tail,we see Freud perate

... determinedhoicen he onfigurationf he estheticnconscious.eprivilegeshe irstorm f hemuteword-that f he ymptom,hich sthe race f a history.e values t above tsother orm,he nonymousvoice f he nconscious,nfeltife. nd his ppositioneadshim oharkback oward he ldrepresentativeogic...(57)

Finally,n Une m~decine ontre'autre, ancikretresses ow for reud,

... theambiguityfhisrapportwith heaestheticnconscious ursts:facedwith hisnihilism, ith his adical dentiyf thepathosnd thelogos,which claims to date from hetimeofIbsen,StrindbergndWagnerism--the inal truthof the morality of the aesthetic

unconscious-henfact omes ack o he ositionfCorneillendVoltairefacedwith heOedipalmadness. eseeks oreestablishgainsthis athosa solid causalsequence feventsnd a positive irtuepringingromknowledge.70-71)

ThusFreud esistshenihilisticendenciesfFrench-styleiteraturef heunconscious,nconscious fheredityndrace, f he aw nd mad fact f ife.35Thephysicianreudwhoconfrontssychic roblemsnhisdaily linicalracticeinfact as no tolerance or hese iteraryorms f pathologies fthinking,

which risefrom heSchopenhauer-Nietzschearadigm. hushisaestheticstudiesmanifestpolemical nd theoreticaltake hatmakehim correct hefictions fJensen'sGravida,fHoffmann'sL'Homme eSable, nd Ibsen's

Romersholmnd The ady f he ea. n his corrections,reud lways, ccordingtoRancibre,eeks to connect the ncestuous lement o a good plotofcausalityand of ulpability,ccordingo logic fknowledges iberation. 36Thus n hisstudy,Dilires etrivesdans a Gravida'deJensen1907),Freudwrites hat e wouldhavehadnothingo ay fJensenadpresentediswork s

a psychiatrictudy, oexactwerehisdescriptionsfpsychic henomena172).Buthe is disappointedby thefrivolityfJensen,who does nottakehis

knowledge eriously,homakes un fhishero's aydreams,nd claims nlytheprerogativesfhis implenovelisticfantasy. t east uch s hisreply oFreud's uestions, odoubt nnoyed ythe atter'sretensionsoknowmorethan e about isnovelisticnventions.his evaluationf he work f antasywill hen e onthe rder f de-sublimation,notionhat ancibreorrowsfrom he reudian oxa.

SubStance 03, ol. 3,no. , 004








Thus thefamous iographizationffiction,o much riticizednFreud,

wouldbedictatedythe ery acthat heseworks onot ufficientlyransformtheir iographicalontent. ndfar romeing aught gain nthe after-effectsofrepresentation,heFreudian ermeneuticprings rom polemical tancethat enounceshe onfusionsetween real nd fiction s well s the omantic

irreversibilityf he eal ndthemaginary.reud,more oherenthan isradicalreaderswho claim ocorrectim,wouldhavehadamore ccurateense f he

historicityfforms,incehe alreadyknewhow todistinguishetween he

regimef epresentationndthe regimef he esthetic. ewouldneitherhave lethimselfe caught p inthat ague critique frepresentation orlured nto thefoggy rgumentationf a radicalFreudianism la Lyotard,claiming,ather,he anti-representativeutonomyf rt nd tsfunctionallyheterogeneousature,tsvalue s witness othe ction fforces hat obeyondthe ubjectnd wrest imfrom imself 77).

This nterpretationfFreudian ausality,he bject f o much riticism,thus erves irstf llthe reudiannd Rancidrianolemicalnti-nihilistause.

Further,hose f reud'scorrectionsin he ausalist-Aristotelianense),hosenbyRancibretress he ncestuous lementsnthedramas ffemale haracters,such s RebeccaWest r bsen'sady f he ea,withhe ncestuousather-daughterrelationship,hereby isplacing hemother-sonne,and at thesametime

minimizinghe uestion fparricide, hich lso facilitates ancibre'suttingintoparentheses he tudies n Hamlet rDostoyevskyndParricide. ut thecastrationnxietynthemale charactersuch s Gravida's orbert anold orthe tudent athanaclnHoffmann's'Hommee able,oupledwith he nxiety

ofparricide,ndicate he castratingather, nd, nthe aseofLeonardodaVinci,he homosexual elationshipothe ather 62). Anotherather igureinL'inconscientsthitiquehatwecannot tudy ere sthat fthe patriarchf

psychoanalysis 62),of he Founder, ndof he fatherfpsychoanalysisidentifiedith he ablets f he aw(10), aised p byhisdisciples,aithfulndunfaithful,nd from homRancibreistances imself.) feminist eadingfFreud's orrectionsightnsist n Freud's eafness ot nly o he ncientirensand to

Schopenhauer's riginarybyss,but also hisblindness otheMino-

Mycenean eminineontinent,hich ewouldonlydiscoverater,nd suchstudywouldbringo ighthe uestionf matricide ndthe ravages f he

mother-daughterelationship. hus, n Rancidre'swork,thequestionof

parricide lways isappears,etween he ncestuous athernd the astratingfather nlinked o ncest,boutwhomFreudmakes he orrectionsaisedbyRancibre.disappearancehatwill ome nto lay nRancibre'snterpretationfFreud's tudy fMichelangelo'soses.








40 SolangeM.Gu6noun

Rancibre'sClassical Moses

Freud'sstudyofMichelangelo's oses, ssential o thepolemicalandtheoreticalrgument,epresentsancibre'shoice f nAristoteliannterpretationofFreud'shermeneutics.t allows us tosee,ifsomewhat ummarily,ow

psychoanalysissput nto ction nRancibre'shought,p tothepoint fnon-

rapportbetweenhe sychoanalyticalnconsciousnd he estheticnconscious,where he reudian auseandtheRancikrianause nexorably art ompany.

Thequestionf astration,theoreticalndpolemicaltake,urfacesnseveralplaces n thedemonstration.s a centralonceptnFreud's onceptionf hecreativerocess,t snever ebated. n the ther and,t sused asa polemicalconcept,withRancibre pposingthe llegitimatese ofcastrationn thehermeneuticalracticesf epresentativesf adical reudianism.ccordingoRancibre, ouisMarinorGeorgesDidi-Huberman ocuson thesignificantdetail ofa painting s a partialobject, detachedfrom ll logicof the

representativerder owhich hese lassical orks

elong,nd

theyheorizen

unconscious fpaintinghat ontraststhefiguraleneath he igurativer thevisualbeneath hevisible. utwith uch

...readingfpaintingnd tsunconsciousreud, or ispart, asnothingto do. Andno more owith ll these eadsofMedusa, epresentativefcastration,hat o many ontemporaryommentatorsxert hemselvesto detectnevery eadofHolophernusrJohnheBaptist...60)

Theubiquity f castrationermeneuticnfact nlydeservesRancibre's

icy rony. isplacedinto hecontemporaryontextvokedbyRancibre,hechildish astrationnxietysonthe ther andrecognizeds thenerve f heFreudian ermeneutic,s a source f reationlways inked o subjectnd his

history that f he rtist rtheneurotic. sRancikreuccinctlyummarizes,tis for reud he last ause of reation,ndpasses throughhemediation fthe rganizing antasy,f he ompromisehat llows he rtist'sibido,more rlessrepresentedyhishero, oescaperepressionnd tosublimatetselfnthework,tthe ost f nscribingts nigmahere 52-53).ublimation,derivation

ofthe aim ofthedrives, emains or reud n 1917oneofthefour ossiblefortunesf hedrives,longwith epression,urningackon the odyproper,andreversalnto the ontrary.heartists impenitentarcissus,ossessingmysteriousift, capacity osublimate, ouldtherebyucceed npartiallyescaping epressionndcastration.very reativerocesswould bedeployedbetweentwoirreducible oles-between originaryastrationnxiety ndsublimation-withhe euvrebeing he esult f his till oorly-understood

SubStance 03, ol. 3, o.1,2004







Jacquesancibre'sreudianause 41

process.But above allitwouldimply nact-the creativewillof form,he

eventual esselfor he nigma hat he euvre emains,oth or ts reatorndfor hepublic.

Therelationshipastration/sublimationnFreudian pistemologysthus

doubly osedand nvoked. nthe nehand, reud riticizesrtists ho do nottake eriously heknowledgen their antasies,nd who includetoomanybiographicallements,o that he orm f heir ork oes not ufficientlyhowthenecessaryeparation etween astrationnxietyt thebeginningf the

process,ndthe euvre,tthe ndof he rocess, hich hould rase lltraces fit. On the otherhand,thisFreudian inkbetweencastrationnxiety ndsublimations called intoquestion n Rancikre'snterpretationfFreud'sMichelangelo'soses,whichheuses to criticize arin nd Didi-Huberman.norder ocriticizeheirmethodf nalyzingetails, ancidreeliberatelynvokesthisnon-analyticaltudyyFreud. ince his snotnconsequential,omethingelsemust ededucedfromt.nfact,reud irstublishedMosesanonymouslyin1914, nddid not legitimizehisnon-analyticalffspring ntil enyearslater.37urther, e invokestheexplicitly on-analyticalmodel of Morelli-Lermolieff,hich s close tothe paradigm f research fcauses -a keyparadigmnthe econstitutionf processtartingith hose races efinedyCarloGinzburg- imilaroRancibre'saradigmf he estheticnconsciousnthe ein fCuvier-Balzac.

TheFreudiannterpretationf he tatue fMoses sbased nfact n detailsthat aveheretoforeot een aken nto ccount... that]oncern he ositionf

theright and andtheposition fthe woTablets, nditruns ounter o allpreviousnterpretationsMoses, 3).Thushe magines scene hat ookplacebefore he cenerepresented,econstitutedased ontraces,ut lso basedon

previous extshat adnoted he amedetails, ithoutnterpretinghem shedid. nfact,reuddismisses he iblicalpisode nwhich nangryMoses hurlstheTablets f heLaw, ubstitutingMoses who masters is nger ndpain norder o save them. reud ttributesothe rtist his acrilege,the ibertyocorrecthe acredgesture, lthough e s not ertain bout t, ndwondersf

this nterpretations not,rather, isown (ibid.,122).According oFreud,Michelangeloreworkedhemotiff he roken abletsf he aw...he makesthis nger...be nhibitedn tsprocessto become an action. n so doing,heintroducesnto he igurefMoses omethingewandsuperhuman. llof hephysical xpressionf he tone earswitness o thehighest sychic rowessattainable ya human:the tiflingf ne's wn assionor he ood f nd nthenameof mission owhich nehasconsecratedimself ibid.,118-119,my

SubStance#03,Vol. 3,no.1,2004







42 SolangeM.Gu~noun

emphasis). or it spreciselyecauseof hemtheTablets] hat e stifled is

anger; t s inorder o save them hathe mastered ispassion. Thus Freudrelates his riumphfwilltoa renouncingfdrives,nthenameof missionthat oesbeyondMoses-in this ase, omethingelatedotheTablets.notherwords, reuddoesnot eparateMoses,hero f classicalcene, superiorothehistoricalrtraditionaloses, rom oses n he ervicef mission. e makeshim iterallyndfigurativelyhe earer f omethingowhichhe sthefirstobe subjected-the chiseled etters-writing-which ranscendshim.Therenunciationfdrives hat e ncarnatess anassumption otof n ideal of

self whichwould till enarcissisticallyed), ut f mission, hich equiressublimation. voluntaryutpainful ct, nuprooting ifficultor nangrytemperament,novercomingf corn or n ignorant opulation-psychiceffortshat earwitness ohissuperhumanapacity, hose source s bothnhim ndbeyondhim.A

However,Rancikreoes not voke his imension fMoses'smission. emakeshim rational erowhotriumphsirst verhimself-over hat therMoses, servant f jealousGod, whose reason merges ictorious rom

struggle verreligious athos. ot to smashtheTablets s togo beyond he

religious,omake ne's wn aw, obecomemaster f ne's elfndthe niverse,to ffirmsovereigntyhat s not hared.An I from hich heneo-stoicdealmakes Corneillian ero; quasi-Cartesian,bsolute I revisitedyMichelFoucault,whoseoeuvre but henwhich euvre rewetalkingbout?)wouldbearwitnessoreason. ancikre akes hisnto classical cene f he riumphofwill ver motions,llustratingn action r anactingharacter,nkeeping

withAristotelian imesis. emakest nto symbolf he riumphf eason,findividual mancipation,nrelatedo ny aw, o ny ausethat re-existedhisact.

ThismetamorphosisfMoses nto rational,classical ero,with oothercausebuthimself,ouldhavebeendictatednpart ythe olemical ecessityfcontrastingimwith hat rchaic-visagedther ound nLyotard'sestheticsftheSublime.39ancibrenfact ontrastshe ublimationfMoses'sanger n

Michelangelo's oses to Lyotard's frappedu sublime -the effect fthe

unseeablefaceofGod,whichplacesthe pectatorntheposition fMosesstanding efore heburning ush, pathosdentified ith hevery owerofGod who calls Moses (76).Rancibre efusesosuccumb o the error fanysuchholyOther-master,od, rotherwise,hohas the ffectf enderinghevoice mute ndparalyzinghereason,whostupefiesndoverwhelms.40eemphaticallyefuses obesubjectedothe ower f his ther,othese rchaicforces,othis eligious athoshat s more ppropriateo nfans hocannot









speak han o nemancipatediterarynimal,rainedo eparate ody ndself,

anduniquely efined yhiscapacity or peech.And ikeFreud nL'dphimeredestinde,hotakes ssue with hemelancholyoet'swithdrawalwhenfacedwith he act fdeath, ancidreefusesooin he ostmodemoncertfmourning,fiercelyefusingoassimilate hepolitical ndphilosophicalo the clinicalscene.

ButRancibre'slassical oses sequally ictatedymore heoreticaltakes-those f eadingublimationetachedromrives,savoluntaryct hatmpliesneithercastrationnor sacrifice, ollowingtheexample of the literary

disincorporationf he oliticalubjects demos.n sodoing,Rancikreightlysketchesheportraitf natheist,ationalistreud, uthecutshimoff romwhatmakeshim pecific- he uestionf heaw, fwriting,nd of he acrificeofdrives hat hese equire. reud's ationalist,cientificnd atheistdeal snot

pure onsciousness,ut eason'sictatorshipver he rives,ndthe onfrontationwith limit, hich enerallyscastration.heresnosuperhuman oseswithouttheTablets ftheLaw,withoutwriting, ithout cause. Thusone cannotfollow othe nd the nivocal

eadingfMoses as classical

ero, onformingo

the egimef epresentation.Freud's ermeneuticroject,uch s itpresentstself,rises atherrom he

two ontradictoryaradigmshat ancibre astaughtstoconsiders dentical:onthe nehand, he estheticegimend tsunconscious f heCuvier-Balzacstyle, ithtsmethod f nquiryounded n the mportancef insignificantdetails.On the ther and, he egime frepresentation,hich assesviaan

account, re-writingfMoses as a classical cene.We must hen peakof

Freud's Aristotelianesthetics ith he ontradictoryoexistencef he woregimes. dmittedly,reud svery arefulorespecthenorms f reationndof nterpretationelongingothe rt f heRenaissance, hich equire eadingthis culptures illustrationftheuniversal haracterf scene, igorouslyencoded.Andheaskshimselfhemeaningf his rthat etailnrelationothebiblicalreferentited, o thepapal and Romanpolitical ontext, nd to theconstraintsf rtisticatronage.ut his classicalcene ndthe ictiont ecounts

by rationally rganizing he ction, re carried ya text, ya theoretical

writinghat ttemptsorelate t omore nalytical uestions. or xample, henecessityounderstandhework ut lso to mplicateneselfn t, ince theaffectivetate,he sychiconstellationhat avethe rtisthemotivatingowerof reation,hould ereproduced ithin s (Moses, 8). fFreuddoes notharkback oMichelangelo'sriginaryantasy,elated ohis hildhoodr ohisfamilyhistory,heresneverthelessnanalysisf he rtist'sreativeelf,f hework ssublimationfhis nger oward n rasciblenddemanding atron,mirroring








44 SolangeM.Gu~noun

Moses's ublimation.urther,heres the nitiativefFreud hehermeneut,he

researcherlaMorelli-Lermolieff,ho seeks ounderstandhe ffectsf ffectsonhimselfythis nigmatic ork,ndwho concludes n a note f hegreatestincertitudesto tsnterpretation.dmittedly,reudmakes hemute tonepeak,andhedeciphersts nigma romcraps, herebycorrecting biblical cene.He fictionalizes new Moses, a fiction hat does not entirely overhis

interpretationf hework s a classical cene. nsodoing, edelivers text,writinghat oes notknow ll that t ays, nd a knowledgehats gnorantf

itself,ndthatMoses ndMonotheismill ater hed ight pon.Awritinghatinscribes isstorys reader-interpreter,ut lso as scientistmplicatednhis

subject.reuditerallyayswith ispersonin rder o ccede othis nowledge,andherecognizes hat omethingontinueso eludehim, ince t first e isashamed of hisllegitimate,on-analyticalhild, lbeit love child. This

elusive hingastodopreciselyithwriting,ith he etterndthe nconscious,whichhediscovered,ndwhich nscribes ispersonal tyle ponthe ciencethat e nvented.

Butwith formidableheoreticalkill, ancibre'slassicalAristotelianismcuts hisMosesoff romhe uestionfwritingthe ablets), hich s for reudthe uestionf he ather:n the nehand, eescapes he onsensualssociationbetween powers frepresentationndpowers ffathersnd theirastratinglaw, s inDeleuze,for xample.4 n the ther and,f netakes heperspectiveof n tAristotelianesthetics,s havedone,Ranciretakes he rrant,rphanedletter, ithno egitimateather,s a sign f democraticystem. rom ithersideweseeaMoses-Freud ho sdetached romhe uestionf he atherwhichnonethelessemains entralopsychoanalyticallaboration),nd whostagessublimation ithoutastrationr sublime ithout od,not ven he sublimeGod ofMoses ndMonotheism.

One mightwonder f the desire to makeMichelangelo's oses nto an

exclusivelylassical cene ndtherebyoradicallyeparate ublimationndcastration-ifhis esireo correct reud-isnot ictatedy will oreactualizetheFreudian egacyby turningMichelangelo'soses gainst he scientific

mythf hemurder f he athernTotemndTaboo, rittent the ametime.nFreud'sMichelangelo'soseswe do notnfact indny astratingrguilt-forminginterdictions,ndMoses's ublimatingct sseparated romnyprimal cene,fromnyoriginaryndfoundingmurder ftheprimal ather,uchas Freudhad ust heorizednTotemndTaboo,inishednSeptember913. sthis discreetRancidrian ayto touch nthe uestion f he disappearance f hefatherwithoutealing itht-- disappearanceot obe onfusedithhatfOedipusorthat f astration,utwhich arks ack othe bsence f ny orpse rtomb









at the ndofOedipustColonus?t s mportanto understand hatRancibre

meansbythedisappearancef he ather,f t snot sLacanunderstandst-aquestionf ublimationinked owriting.f nesrereads he 914Michelangelo'sMosesn ight f he1939Moses ndMonotheism,heformernfact sbearer ftwo sublimes. One manifestublime-thatofMoses's heroic ndpsychicprowess,nrenouncingngernthename f causethat oesbeyond im.Anda latent ublime-that f he sublime od signifiedythewritingnd ettersof he abletsf he aw,detached romny father,romny ody rpresence,

from nyrepresentation,ut whichwill onlybe elaborated nMoses andMonotheism.43There emainsneunavoidable uestion or he estheticegimend the

unconscioushat sconsubstantial itht- that f heirelationshipowritingand todemocracy,fate arriedythe tatus f he etter,onceivedmythicallyandphilosophicallys anorphaned etter, ithnolegitimateather or nydeterminedestinee,with tsuncertainirculationnd tsfloatingignifier.44Separated rom hefather utdefiningtselfnrelationshipohim.Rancibre's

classicalMosesgives sign f his uestion,nd canbe readas a stagingf hefableof the disappearance ofthefather,n a democratic egime,which

paradoxicallyringsbout returno he egimef epresentation,reud's eturntoAristotle,ogoodfiction,etached romny ruth ranyreality.45

On theShoresof Freud

In L'inconscientsthitique,ancikre's reudiancause brings ntoplaypsychoanalysisnd ts undamentaloncepts ithoutlwayswantingrbeingable to makethis xplicit. he theoretical echanism fthe estheticegimeand ts nconscious,ith ts ontemporaryolemicalmplications,annot endera full ccount f he conomies f ncest-parricide,f astrationndsublimation,automaticallyxcludedfrom uchexplicit bjectivess the tudy fFreud'shermeneuticsf rt eparatedromsychoanalyticheory.orwhatevereason,and nspite fRancibre'slleged ncompetencenpsychoanalyticalheory,is

effectivese ofpsychoanalysisnhis nterpretationfFreud's esthetictudieshas apowerfulffect.tfostersnunexpected,bjectivelliance, arkingacktobefore hepsychoanalyticalnd aestheticevolution,nder he uspices fAristotlend the egime f epresentation,oncerninghat mute tone hat s

Michelangelo's oses.Aselectiveolidarityhatmpliesnaestheticoundationtopsychoanalysis,reactualizationf ts ationalistnduniversalistdeas,whichwill ave tfrom he ethal,ontemporaryihilismhat vershadowst.This tthe isk f osingts nconscious,ot o muchts sychic eality,incets ody f








46 SolangeM.Gu6noun

drivessalways cknowledgedyRancibre,ut s an anchor n anguage nd a

linkage f he ubjectoa law.The ublimeMoses'sustgrip n theTabletsf heLaw- that tone esturehatmakes reud peak nhis ext-cannotbe educedtosilence, rom hemetapsychologicaloint fview. t can be set sidebyanaestheticnterpretation,ither re-orpost-analytical.ut n that ase, t saestheticshat uns risk-that fbeinghauntednreturnypsychoanalysis.That s tosay, y tsfableofthe disappearance fthefather, hich snotwithoutracesn heiterarynimal,otwithoutts rphaned,rrant,nprotectedletters,mpotentndsubjectoall kinds f buse-forexample t thehandsof

illegitimate doptivefathers,uch as those identified ere withradicalFreudianism.

The somewhatforced heoreticallliancewitha classical Moses putspsychoanalysisnto lay tthe eart fRancikre'soliticalndaesthetichought.But boveall tpoints othe olemical imensionfRancihre'shought,eaf o

anyvoice comingfrom he burning ush, and blindto any inhibitingmachinations f theOther. o understand heextent fthis, ne mustread

L'inconscientsthitiquen ight f he heses eveloped nLepartageu ensible,in ight f hediagnosis e makes fpostmodern elancholy,ndthe emediesheproposes.Beginning ith heoreticalverinvestmentnwordsthathavebecomeemptyncontemporaryndpolitical ebate, uchas representation,modern,riting,etter,fiction,ublime,utwhichRancikreakesback to theirclassical ources ndradicalizes,norder ogivethem healthiernd morefruitfulsage.Thushegivesthem ewtheoreticalodies, omposedofnew

philosophical nd politicalfables, eeking o bring hemto therescue of

psychoanalysis,hreatenedynihilisticoom. aradoxically,n odoing, ancikresucceedsn howcasingsychoanalysis'sniversal ndemancipatingognitivecontributions.46hus he makes a commoncause with Freudthe doctor-

symptomologist,ith ocomplaisanceor he eductionsf he riginal byss,itsdeadlyvoluptuousness,tsmelancholy leasures.This then s Rancibre'sFreudianause, hat ntense ndproductiveffortf houghthat akes im utofmourning utmakeshim ntransigentoward ny mpossiblemourning,anddetached rom

nypathos,hichs

always ikelyoend

badlyThusL'inconscientsthitiqueomesfrom a longway, ompared otherestofRancikre's euvre. t proposes,undeniably,n originalperceptiveframeworkhat llowsfor differentelationshipetween sychoanalysisnditsfoundingmyths.ts theoreticalcenographytages nagiledance aroundtheFreudian orpus, nthe hores fFreud, killfullyvoiding he bysses freflectionnd the heoreticalhasms hat reconstantlypening pbeneath tsfeet. utno doubtweneedmore han nedance norder ocalm he piritsnd









the urbulencesf he reudianext,hus ut ff romts etters,acking father,

but lsoa mother -separatedromtsmedical ndmetapsychologicalatrix.Thisfirstncountereverthelessemainsmemorable,ndbeginsts egendarydestiny. t calls forthothers; one imagines another scene where the

psychoanalyticalevolutionnd tsnewmythologyfdrives ill ome odisturbwith ertinentuestions silent utgrandioseaestheticevolution ndsomeof tsfoundingmyths,ikePlato'smuteword ndBalzac's ntiquarianhop. tcallsfor newmise-en-sc~ne,fictionalisagreementetweenpsychoanalysisand aesthetics, hichhis imewouldrestoren dissensualmode he ssumed

equality f hese wofields fknowledge,norder ofinally iveformo theirlivelyontradiction.

UniversityfConnecticutTranslatedyRichard assidy

Notes1. From letter,atedMay 8th, 911,oLudwig inswanger,nSouvenirsur igmundreud

(1956), eprintednDiscours,arcours...,allimard,001, .9. CitedbyPaul-Laurent

AssounnFreudtWittgenstein,uadrige/P.U.F.,996, .314.2. We re alkingere boutRancikre'srivileged ethodology.ee,forxample,ux ordsde a politique,14).Themetaphorf he stage nd ts se nRancibre'sork till eedstobeexplored. ee,fromhis erspective,hentroductionoRancibre's ork yMichelCampionnActa abula. evuen ignees arutionsn hIorieittiraire,hewebsite or abula.Theoriese aFictionittiraire,eptember00030072002): ttp://www.fabula.org/revue/cr/17.php.

3. All themore ignificantiven hathe Plea for eaching sychoanalysisresentedyDidierCromphouttthe ltats-G~ndrauxe la Psychanalysen Paris nJuly 000bearswitnessothe amepedagogicalndepistemiconcernss those xposed eren

Rancibre'sext. ee http://www.etasgeneraux-psychanalyse.net/archives/texte2564. Rancibre,ho sremobilizinghe nti-nihilistreudianegacy,oesnot hink,s doesJacques errida,hat hepsychoanalyticevolutionsstill ocome. SeeDerrida's tatsd'flmee apsychanalyse.'impossibleu-deli 'une ouveraineruautd,.10,where eshowsboth heproximityndthe rreducibleifferenceetweenNietzsche's ndFreud'sconceptionsf cruelty --theormereeing rueltys withoutimit ropposablelimit,nd thereforeithoutnd nd withoutpposite, hile he attereescrueltyswithoutimit ut notwithoutpposable imit,nd therefore ithout nd butnot

withoutpposite.5. Thisphilosophicalraditionf he ritiquefFreudianausality,romWittgensteino

Heidegger,s wellknown.ee,forxample,aul-Laurentssoun's reudtWittgenstein,forWittgenstein'srgument,ndPaola Marrati-Guinoun'sPensiede l'treetmaladiepsychique,nLesCahiershilosophiquese trasbourgVol. ,Strasbourg:SHS,1996, p.83-97) or heHeideggerianrgument.

6. The quivocal lay nthe omonymyetween ancibre'sFreudianause ndJacques-AlainMiller's ssociationnd ournal,oth alled La CauseFreudiennet onElcole, sallmine.

7. Democraticge, here,n he ense efinedyRancibrenhis Postface o heAmericaneditionfLephilosophet espauvres1998).TextnFrenchommunicatedy he uthor.

8. Ofcourse,t s theAlthuserrianntertexthatstargetedhroughout,s theparadigm











irreconcilableith ristotle,hoknew othingboutt.See DenisGuinoun's e heatreest-il

dcessaire?,here edistinguisheshree egimesf the heatre-he ntique,he

classical,nd the omanticFreudian)-hat renotunrelatedo the hreegesof rt sdefined yRancibre,othofwhich rrive t thenotion f play thatRanciere asdevelopedately rom chiller.

20. Weknow hathe reudiannconsciouss ntendeds adepartureromny hilosophyantedatingt, hatt s divided etween conscientialismhatmakes onsciencendpsychedentical,hatmakes heunconsciousomethingon-psychic,ndmakes hatphilosophy ealingwith theunconscious omethingndefinable,mystical,ndintangible.ote hat ancibre'sestheticnconsciousscapes oth f hese hilosophicalpositionsriticizedyFreud,ince e hows hathe estheticevolutionightlympliesa philosophyhatsheterogeneousith tself-athinkingy omethinghat oesnot

think, knowinghat oes notknow, word hat oes notknowwhat t s saying-verymuch iketheunconsciousheorizedyFreud,with heoneexceptionhat orFreud,he ource f his nconscioussalways ased n exual rives. hemostkepticalcritiquesf his onceptionf he reudiannconscious,senactednRancikre'sriting,will notbe long nreading t as themostrecent ersion fthat epistemologicalincompatibilityetween hilosophyndpsychoanalysis.

21. In TheAesthetic evolution nd ItsOutcomes. mplotmentsfAutonomyndHeteronymy p. 134-135, ancibremakes fragmentromchiller's 5th etternLettersur 'ducationsthitiquee 'hommento hematrixf llthoughtn art nd ife orthe ast wo enturies:...man lays nly here here n the ull cceptancef heword

he sman, ndhe sonly ompletelyman here here e s atplay .. This ffirmation... paradoxically .. serves s thefoundation.. for hatwhole edifice f thefine-artsndforhat f hemore ifficultrt f iving inLeroux 992, 21; mphasisdded).

22.SeeEmileJalley'sConcept 'opposition, ictionnairee apsychanalyse.ncyclopaediaUniversalis,lbinMichel, 997, 35-558.

23.Freud oesnot laim he niversalityf he ramatic,ognitivechematafOedipusexbut, ather,hat f tsmythical,arricidal-incestaterial. neneedonly ead he agesthat ollowwhere reudhighlightshehistoricityfthetreatmentftheseOedipalmaterials,y omparingedipusex ndHamlet,ndby elatinghese ifferenceso heevolution f hehuman ntellect228).

24. From hebeginning,he application fpsychoanalysiso thefield f estheticsasbeen nscribedna largernsemble,escribedyFreud n L'Intirite apsychanalyse(1913), ontemporaryoMichelangelo'soses.Psychoanalysiss infactnterestednpsychology,n the cience f anguage,nphilosophy,nbiology,n thehistoryf

evolution,nthehistoryfcivilization,naesthetics,nsociology,and] npedagogy.Thesenon-medicalisciplinesreof nterestopsychoanalysisor hewitness heybear opsychic rocesseshat re argelyunconscious.

25. See also DavidPanagia, Dissenting ords: Conversation ithJacques ancibre,Diacritics0.22001), 13-126.

26.Which sprecisely hatRancikreouldhaveusunderstandy hedefensive ode f

denial hatnauguratesisdiscourse ndseeks odelineate he imits fhis nquiry.This s notduetoany ackofcompetencenpsychoanalyticheory,ancibreeing sequaltothe ask sany ther.t s incompetencehatmust eunderstoodnthe ensethatforpsychoanalysts,t is onlybywayofthe couch, yclinicalpractice,hatpsychoanalyticheorizinganbe authorized.

27.See ElieDuring,L'esth6tique,nr6gimenstable 2001),neof he ery ew ccountsfRancire's ook. eealsomy wn ccountLire 'inconscientsthitiqueeJacquesancibreinCahiershilosophiquesforthcoming).

28. See the ebateurroundinghis ssue f aParole uettenHorlieu-X3etrimester,000).29.Toaffirmhat heFreudian nconsciouss nscribedponthe ame pistemicorizon








50 SolangeM.Gu~noun

as theaesthetic nconscious iverges rom he well-knownuropean ntellectualhistoriesf thenineteenthenturyhatwould inscribe reud ntheextensionsfGermandealism ndRomanticism.ee, orxample,reudndOedipus, herein eter .Rodnytskyasts he asttwocenturies,rom chilleroFreudby wayofH61derlin,Kleist, egel,NietzschendHeidegger,n he ole f he ageofOedipus. Each f hesefigures ouldhaveraised he ophocleanero othe tatusfhermeneuticalaradigmfor elf-knowledge-whereabermaslassifiedsychoanalysis.

30.For detailedeadingf he lassical edipal exts,eeChristianiet, edipenmonarchie.Tragddiet hdorieuridiquel'flgelassique1994). rangois gnault,nLadoctrinenouie.ixlegonsuth&atrelassiquefrangais1996) ffersreadingf lassical heatrehats nformedbybothAristotlendpsychoanalysis.

31.TheOedipus omplex ecame fundamentalonceptnly etween 920-1925,hen

Freud heorizedt as thenucleus oncept fneuroses. It s incumbentponeveryhuman eingoresolveheOedipus omplex. o fail t his ask s tobecome neurotic.Psychoanalysisastaught s, ncreasingly,oappreciatehefundamentalmportanceofthis omplex,nd we cansaythatwhat eparates dversaries nd partisans fpsychoanalysiss the mportancehat he atter ttach o thisfact Threessays nsexuality,ditor's ote, 920). nthe nly rticleullyevoted othe oncept,Led~clindu complexe 'Oedipe 1923), reud inks heOedipus omplex efinitivelyo thecastrationomplex.

32. For hedialogue etween reud ndAristotles it splayed ut n the exts,ee P.-L.Assoun, reudt es hilosophes,FreudtAristote, 04-308.

33.For nanalysisf uchntra-psychicleasures,f endopsychicerception,ndof heworkofsublimationhat hesepleasuregiveriseto,seeMarie-Claude ambotte'sPsychanalysetmusique nL'apportreudien,75-787.

34. These mportantameshark ack o a body fwork hatsmuchmore omplex,utthissnot he oint. ee,forxample, eorges idi-Huberman's'Imageuivante.istoirede 'artt empsesfantdmeselonbyWarburg,inuit,002, here eoffersopious xamplesof his mbiguousndcomplexelationoFreud, otablyp,273-306.

35.See Elisabeth oudinesco'sL'inconscientlafrangaise,nHistoiree apsychanalysenFrance,ol.1,181-221).

36.Oragain, Onesingle hingeems o nterestim: ore-establishgood, ausalplot n

thehistory55), to dentifyhe morousntrigueith schema f ausalrationality(56). It ittlematters hetherhe torys real r fictitious.he main hingsthattbeunivocal,hat t counterheromanticnd reversiblendiscernabilityfthe maginaryand therealwith n Aristotelian otivationor ctions ndknowledge ocused nrecognition56).

37.For perspectiventoFreud'smethod freading etails, otreducibleothat fthephysician-criticf artMorelli-Lermolieff,ee Gilbert ascaux, Psychanalysetesth6tiquenL'apportreudien,12-715.

38.TheMoses f1914, hat eroic igureepresentinghe yrannyfreason ver assion,sreminiscentfGoethe's lassicalMoses hat reud newwell.Nevertheless,sJacques

le Rider uggestsnFreud,e 'AcropoleuSinai;Freud esturesowards he ignifierfSinai : Moses s a counter-Zarathustra,he upermanf he rigin-ratherhan hehorizon-of ulture. ewishulturesseen s less superhuman',esssplendid hanGreek ulture,utcreator fthe ssential ultural alues owhich he ivilizedworldmust eturnn times fcrisis. Moses ndMonotheismttestsothepassagefrom thegrand esthetic orld fMichelangelonto hat hhowbare ndyet ublimeworld ftheHebrews n thedesert.

39. eeDolores yotard,ean-Claudeilner,ndGdrardfez, ean-Frangoisyotard.'exercicedudiffrrend,or eadingsfLyotard'shoughtsn the exts.

40.See<< phtmbreestinde inRisultats,ddes,roblimes,33-236.









41.See Deleuze, artlebyt aformuleittdrairenLa chair esmots,79-203.42.SeeLacan, eminaireII, 'ithiquehere edescribes owfor reud, inhuman istory,

recognitionf he unctionf he athers a sublimation,ssentialothe pening pofspirituality213).

43. Forthe omplexways nwhich he heoryfMoses s related opsychoanalysis,eeBrigitteemdrer,es euxMorseeFreud1914- 939). reudtMoi'se: rituresupre .

44.Onthis uestionf he ather'sriting,eeFranroisalmbs,enom,a oi,avoix. reudetMoi;se:rituresupre2.

45. Onemight onder ow his able f he disappearancef he ather sarticulated,rnot,withhe ontemporaryhinkingnd estheticsfdisappearances,questionttestedto n he dialogue etweenheworksfAlainBrossatndJean-Louisiotte nd hoseofRancibre.otably,nLamortissoute.isparitiont pectralit6217-241),nd nDdotte's

El1ments'esthktiqueisparationniste,ignes (May 002), 09-130.46.Tothese niversalontributionsfpsychoanalysisemightddthemannerywhichit nables nanalysisf he antasiesnd desirestworkneveryreativect,whetherconceptual rotherwise,n theconditionfposingnotonly heexistencef theunconsciousn very sychicrocess,ut lsoto he enderingf very hinkingubject.See,for xample,MoniqueDavid-Minard'sesconstructionse 'univerel.sychanalyse,philosophie.

BibliographyAssoun, aul-Laurent.reudtWittgenstein.aris: uadrige/P.U.F.,996.- -. Freud,aphilosophiet es hilosophes.aris: uadrige/P.U.F.,995.Autoure Laparole uetteeJacques ancibre ,orlieu(X), 8 34merimestre000).

Biet hristian.edipenmonarchie.ragddiet hdorieuridique'fgelassique.aris: lincksieck,1994.

Binswanger,udwig. iscours,arcours.aris: allimard,970.Balmbs,rangois.enon, a oi,avoix.reudtMoi'se:crituresupere.Ramonvilleaint-Agne:

Editionsrbs, 997.

Brossat,lain tJean-Louisiotte. amortissoute.isparitiont pectralitd.aris: 'Harmattan,2002.Campion, ichel.Littiraturetpolitique nhttp://www.fabula.org/revue/cr/17.phpept.

2000.Cromphout,idier.Plaidoyerour n nseignemente apsychanalysenEtats-Gtnraux

de aPsychanalyse ,aris,uillet 000,http://www.etatsgeneraux-psychanalyse.net/archives/texte256.html

David-Minard, onique. es onstructionse 'universel.sychanalyse,hilosophie.aris: UF,1997.

Diotte, ean-Louis.Elements'esth~tiqueisparationniste inignes mai 002), 09-130.

Derrida,acques.tats 'dmee apsychanalyse.'impossibleudeli 'une ouveraineruautd.aris:Galilie, 001.During, lie. L'esth~tique,nrigimenstable nCritiquejuin-juillet001), 59-563.Freud, igmund.Le criateurittirairet erave4veill& 1908) nEssais epsychanalyse

appliquie.aris:Gallimard,933.- -. Dlires t aves ansa Gradiva'eJensen1907). ari ddes/Gallimard,949.- -. Dostoievskit eparricidenResultats,dles,robldmesI.Paris: .U.F.,985.- -. L'inquiltantetrangett utresssais.aris: allimard,985Quelques ypes e caractbresigag~spar etravailnalytique1916)








52 SolangeM.Gu6noun

Le Moise eMichel-Ange1914)U'inqui~tante trangetd (1919)

Personnagessychopathiquesla sckne 1905-06),- -. L'interpritationesraves. aris:PUF,1967.- -. L'intbr&telapsychanalyse (1913),nRisultats,ddes,roblEmes. Paris: .U.F.,984,

pp.187-214.- -. L'hommeoi~set emonoth'isme1939). aris: allimard,986.- -. Eph~mbre estinde1915)nRisultats,dles,roblames.aris: .U.F.,995.- -. Ladisparitionucomplexe 'Oedipe (1924),nLa vie exuelle.aris: .U.F.,985.- -. Leroman amilial esndvrosis 1909),nNdvrose,sychoset erversion.aris: .U.F.,

1973.- -. Totemt Tabou 1912-13).Paris:PayotetRivages,2001.

- -. Troisssaisur a thdorieexuelle.r6face m ote1920), aris:Gallimard,987.- -. Un nfantstbattu 1919),nNdvrose,sychoset erversion.aris: .U.F.,973.Godelier,Maurice tJacques assoun.Meurtreupare. acrificee a sexualitc.pproches

anthropologiquest sychanalytiques.trasbourg:rcanes,996.Guinoun, enis. etheitrest-ildcessaire?aris: irc,2002.Guinoun,olange.Lire 'inconscientsthitiqueeJacques ancibre inahiershilosophiques

(Aparaitre).Gu6noun,olange ndJames . Kavanagh,Literature,olitics, esthetics:pproaches

toDemocraticisagreement,ubStance92,ol. 9,no.2,2000, p.3-24.Hassoun, acques.acruautddlancolique.aris: ubier,995.

Jalleymile.Concept'oppositionnDictionnairee apsychanalyse.ncyclopaedianiversalis.Paris:AlbinMichel, 997.Lacan, acques.eSiminaireII.Les sychoses.aris: euil, 981.- -. LeSiminaire II.L'Ethique. aris: euil,1986.Lambotte,arie-Claude.ediscours ilancolique.aris: nthropos/Economica,993.- -. Psychanalysetmusique in'Apportfreudien,aris: arousse-Bordas,998.Lascaux, ilbert.Psychanalyset sth6tiquenL'Apportfreudien.aris: arousse-Bordas,

1998.Lembrer,rigitte.enom,a oi,avoix.reudtMoise:crituresu ire .RamonvilleaintAgne:

Editionsrbs, 997.LeRider,

acques.reud,e

'AcropoleuSinai.

eretourl'Antique

esModernesiennois.aris:P.U.F.,002.

Lyotard,olords,ean-Claudeilner, irardfez. ean-Frangoisyotard.'exerciceduiffrend.Paris: .U.F.,001.

Lyotard,ean-Franlois.oralitisostmodernes.aris:Galilde,993.Marrati-Guinoun,aola. Pens6e e '8tretmaladie sychique inesCahiershilosophiques

deStrasbourg,ome .Strasbourg:SHS,1996.Panagia, avid. Dissenting ords: Conversationith acques ancibrenDiacritics0.

2 (2001)113-126.Question 'EricAlliez Jacques ancir:peuple umultitudesnMultitudes(mai-juin2002).

Rancibre,acques.uxbordsupolitique.aris: aFabrique,998.The horesf olitics.rans.Liz Heron. ondon:Verso, 995]

- -. La chair esmots. aris Galilde, 998.- -. Courtsoyagesupays upeuple.aris: euil, 990. Shortoyageso he and f he eople.

Trans. ames .Swenson. tanford:tanfordP,1995]- -. L'inconscientsthitique.aris:Galilde, 001.- -. Lafable inimatographique.aris:Seuil,2001.- -. Laformen on sprit nLaformeneu.Paris Presses niversitaireseVincennes,

1998.

SubStance 03, ol. 3,no.1,2004








- -. La legon 'Althusser.aris:Gallimard, 974.- -. Lesnoms e 'histoire.aris:Seuil,1992.

- -. Laparole uette.ssai ur es ontradictionse a ittrature.arisHachette,998.- -. Lepartage usensible. aris:La Fabrique, 000.- -. Lephilosophet es auvres.aris: ayard,983.Thehilosophernd is oor.rans. ndrew

Parker.urham: ukeUP, 004]- -. TheAesthetics evolutionnd ItsOutcomes. mplotmentsfAutonomynd

HeteronomynNew eft eview4 March-April002).Rignault,rangois.a doctrinenoule.ix egonsur ethaitrelassiquefrangais.atier,996.Roudinesco,lisabeth.L'inconscientlafrangaisenHistoiree apsychanalusenFrance,

Vol.1.Paris: euil, 986, p.181-221.Rudnytsky,eter .FreudndOedipus. ewYork: olumbia niversityress, 987.

Schiller,riedrich.ettresur 'ducationsthktiquee 'homme.rad. oberteroux.arisAubier,1992.


Documents

Jacques Rancière's Freudian Cause.pdf