L’agent en psychanalyse lacanienne : considérations théoriques et épistémologiques

Objectives

The aim of this paper is to conceptualize the term “agent” which appears multiple times throughout Lacan's teaching. The challenge is to produce a coherent theorization of the term in order to properly situate it in the psychoanalytic praxis and to study the influence of North American culturalism on this praxis.

Method

We will examine the evolution of the notion of agent throughout Lacan's teaching. This trajectory begins officially in 1956, then disappears in 1959, only to re-emerge in 1969 in a radically different fashion. It is then a question of specifying what Lacan means by “agent” at each of these periods, and to show how each time he relies on this notion not to conceptualize it as such, but rather to build a dialogue with other psychoanalytic concepts.

Resultants

By following the evolution of the term, we arrive at a conceptualization of the agent as being equivalent to the status of the signifier as such. It is therefore important to distinguish the status of the agent from that of the subject and of the ego, which both seem to not manifest any real activity. The signifier, on the other hand, is that which allows the action to take place. This equivalence is thus implicit yet constant throughout the Lacanian teaching, first as a function in the Oedipal equation and then as an occupation in the theory of discourse.

Discussion

Our hypothesis is that the notions of agent and agency are misused in today's psychoanalytic writings. This is due to an American culturalist influence on one hand, but mostly to a hasty interdisciplinarity, which attempts to link psychoanalysis with other disciplines without taking the necessary time to redefine the concepts at hand. Agency is the perfect example: it is defined by cognitive and social sciences and then reused as such by some analysts without redefining it, which leads to a theoretic confusion between the subject and the agent.

Conclusion

A thorough conceptualization of the agent within the field of psychoanalysis allows us to avoid theoretic confusions due to an interdisciplinarity that doesn’t take the time to redefine concepts. It is therefore important to establish a dialogue between psychoanalysis and other disciplines without it losing its particularities.