Addressed to psychoanalysts and philosophers on the relationship between psychoanalysis and philosophy—raised the question of après-coup, one of the most overlooked, complex, and controversial of Freudian concepts, originally referred to as Nachtrãglickheit. A concept for which no satisfying translation has ever been found in any language. A concept which has been revisited on psychoanalytic ground over the last decades by Jean Laplanche and more recently Sergio Benvenuto. The concept—as recouped by Jacques Lacan around the notion of retroactivity—revealeda critical theoretical potential capable of upsetting all of what has been constructed in psychoanalysis around the idea of a linear one-directional timeframe from the past to the future, and has proven to be crucial to the most relevant questions within psychoanalytic theorising. The history of Nachtrãglickheit, as considered by diverse authors, shows how the very meaning of psychoanalysis is at stake.
By bringing to the forefront the question of après-coup, Webster and Coelen have reconstructed significant moments in the history, interpretations, and re-readings of the concept, concerning the role played by various authors after Freud. At the same time, they have opened the question on the reactions of the so-called psychoanalytic establishment with respect to this concept; in particular, they make a critical reference to an article on this topic by Jonathan House published in the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association in 2018, with the subsequent publication of House’s response and Webster and Coehlen’s further reply, as well as Patricia Gherovici’s clarification. As a result, we decided to open a special section on our website for the debate surrounding après-coup.
Taking advantage of this special section, we publish here a 1989 conversation on Après-coup between J.-B. Pontalis and Sergio Benvenuto.
Abstract
The author stresses the extent to which analytic literature represses the issue of money and how its significance to the analytical relationship ought instead to be analyzed. Starting from a widespread fantasy among analysands, where the analyst is felt to be a prostitute, the author expands upon the limits of the analytical setting, which has been suffering from a sort of phobia of the gift since the days of Freud. To the concept of psychoanalysis “of the answering” by the analytical establishment, the author opposes a more living concept of “psychoanalysis of the questioning”.
Abstract
The author stresses the extent to which analytic literature represses the issue of money and how its significance to the analytical relationship ought instead to be analyzed. Starting from a widespread fantasy among analysands, where the analyst is felt to be a prostitute, the author expands upon the limits of the analytical setting, which has been suffering from a sort of phobia of the gift since the days of Freud. To the concept of psychoanalysis “of the answering” by the analytical establishment, the author opposes a more living concept of “psychoanalysis of the questioning”.
Abstract
The author stresses the extent to which analytic literature represses the issue of money and how its significance to the analytical relationship ought instead to be analyzed. Starting from a widespread fantasy among analysands, where the analyst is felt to be a prostitute, the author expands upon the limits of the analytical setting, which has been suffering from a sort of phobia of the gift since the days of Freud. To the concept of psychoanalysis “of the answering” by the analytical establishment, the author opposes a more living concept of “psychoanalysis of the questioning”.