Editing Jacques Lacan (section)

==Criticism==
===Theory of psychoanalysis===
[[Social psychologist]], psychoanalyst, and [[humanistic]] [[philosopher]] [[Erich Fromm]] rejected Lacan's view on psychonalysis whereby "true psychoanalysis is founded on the relation between man and talk [''parole''],"<ref name=autres>{{cite book |last=Lacan|first=Jacques |date=2001 |title=Autres Ecrits |language=French|trans-title=Other Writings|publisher=[[Seuil]] |isbn= 978-2020486477}}</ref> and denounced the reduction of analysis to "a pure and simple exchange of words," arguing that the relation is instead about an "exchange of signs." Fromm supports "clarity and unambiguity" in the communication with others (''autrui'') and opposes the Lacanian "wordplay [that] is associated with the provision of meaning."<ref>Onfray, Michel: "Erich Fromm et la psychanalyse humaniste" ("Erich Fromm and the humanist psychoanalysis"). Conference held in the [[Université populaire de Caen]], transmitted on ''[[France Culture]]'', 16 August 2011</ref> Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalyst [[Élisabeth Roudinesco]], in her biography of Lacan, writes that some writings of her subject were "incomprehensible" also to [[Maurice Merleau-Ponty]],<ref name=vie>{{cite book |last= Roudinesco|first=Élisabeth|author-link= Élisabeth Roudinesco|date=1993 |title=Jacques Lacan: Esquisse d'une vie, histoire d'un système de pensée|language=French|trans-title=Sketch of a life, history of a system of thought|publisher=[[Fayard]] |isbn= 978-2213031460}}</ref>{{rp|206}} [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]],<ref name=vie/>{{rp|305}} and [[Martin Heidegger]].<ref name=vie/>{{rp|306}}

Former Lacan student [[Didier Anzieu]], in a 1967 article titled "Against Lacan," described him as a "danger" because he kept his students tied to an "unending dependence on an idol, a logic, or a language," by holding out the promise of "fundamental truths" to be revealed "but always at some further point ...and only to those who continued to travel with him." According to [[Sherry Turkle]], these attitudes are "representative of how most members of the [[École Freudienne de Paris|Association]] talk about Lacan."{{efn|When the French Society of Psychoanalysis requested official recognition from and affiliation with the ''Association Psychanalytique Internationale'' ([[International Psychoanalytical Association]]) in 1959, the API demanded the sidelining of Jacques Lacan as a didactician. Two currents of the ''[[Société Française de Psychanalyse]]'' (French Society of Psychoanalysis) then stood opposed at each other: one, which became the majority in the SFP in November 1963, was led by Daniel Lagache, and others, while a second current, which became the minority, brought together the supporters of Jacques Lacan.}}<ref>{{cite book |last=Turkle |first=Sherry |date=1978 |url=https://www.scribd.com/document/228963082/Psychoanalytic-Politics-Freud-s-French-Revolution-Sherry-Turkle |access-date=October 24, 2023 |author-link=Sherry Turkle |title=Psychoanalytic Politics: Freud's French Revolution |publisher=Basic Books |isbn=978-0465066070 |archive-date=2 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231102081400/https://www.scribd.com/document/228963082/Psychoanalytic-Politics-Freud-s-French-Revolution-Sherry-Turkle |url-status=live }}</ref>

By 1977, Lacan was declaring that he was not "too keen" (French: ''pas chaud-chaud'') to claim that "when one practices psychoanalysis, one knows where one goes," stating that "psychoanalysis, like every other human activity, undoubtedly participates in abuse. One does as if one knows something."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lacan |first1=Jacques |date=1977 |title=Ouverture de la section clinique |language=French |url=http://www.gnipl.fr/Recherche_Lacan/wp-content/uploads/1977%20LACAN%20OUVERTURE%20A%20LA%20SECTION%20CLINIQUE.pdf |access-date=29 October 2023 |trans-title=Opening of the clinical section |journal=Ornicar? |issue=9 |pages=7–24 |archive-date=29 October 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231029193731/http://www.gnipl.fr/Recherche_Lacan/wp-content/uploads/1977%20LACAN%20OUVERTURE%20A%20LA%20SECTION%20CLINIQUE.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

Lacan's [[charismatic authority]] has been linked to the many conflicts among his followers and in the analytic schools he was involved with.<ref>Jacqueline Rose, ''On Not Being Able To Sleep: Psychoanalysis and the Modern World'' (London 2003) p. 176</ref> His intellectual style has also come in for much criticism. Eclectic in his use of sources,<ref>Philip Hill, ''Lacan for Beginners'' (London 1997) p. 8</ref> Lacan has been seen as concealing his own thought behind the apparent explication of that of others.{{r|n=Roudinesco 1997|p=46}} Thus, his "return to Freud" was called by [[Malcolm Bowie]] "a complete pattern of dissenting assent to the ideas of Freud {{Nowrap|. . .}} Lacan's argument is conducted on Freud's behalf and, at the same time, against him".<ref>Malcolm Bowie, ''Lacan'' (London 1991) pp. 6–7</ref> Bowie has also suggested that Lacan suffered from both a love of [[system]] and a deep-seated opposition to all forms of system.<ref>Adam Phillips, ''On Flirtation'' (London, 1996), pp. 161–2.</ref>

===Therapeutic practice===
Lacan, in his psychoanalytic practice, came to hold sessions of diminishing duration.<ref>{{cite book |last=Borch-Jacobsen |first=Mikkel |author-link=Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen|date= 2005 |editor-last=Meyer|editor-first=Catherine|title=Le livre noir de la psychanalyse|language=French|trans-title=The black boom of Psychoanalysis |publisher=Les Arènes|pages=228–323|trans-chapter=A Zero Theory|chapter=Une Théorie Zéro|isbn=978-2912485885}}</ref> Eventually, Lacan's student relates, they often lasted no more than five minutes, held sometimes with Lacan standing in the typically open door of the room.{{efn|Godin relates, without criticizing this, that Lacan would often read ''[[Le Figaro]]'' throughout a session, "turning the pages noisily" and sometimes exclaiming 'this is insane!' at what he was reading. And he'd never give change if the client did not have the exact amount of money for the session.}} According to Godin, Lacan sometimes struck patients, once literally kicking out a female patient.<ref name=standing>{{cite book |last=Godin|first=Jean-Guy |date=2001 |title=Jacques Lacan, 5, rue de Lille|language=French|trans-title=Jacques Lacan, 5, Lille street|publisher=[[Seuil]] |isbn= 978-2020121606}}</ref>{{rp|82}} Author and Lacanian psychoanalyst [[Jacques-Alain Miller]] asserts that "[Lacan]'s morality derives from a superior cynicism."<ref name=cynic>{{cite journal |last1=Onfray|first1=Michel|author-link1=Michel Onfray |last2= Miller|first2=Jacques-Alain |author-link2= Jacques-Alain Miller|date=2010 |title=En finir avec Freud |language=French|trans-title=To be done with Freud|journal=Philosophie Magazine|issue=36 |pages=10–15|url=|quote=Sa morale relève d'un cynisme supérieur.}}</ref>

Lacan was criticised for being aggressive with his clients, often physically hitting them, sometimes sleeping with them,<ref name=anti/>{{rp|304}}{{efn|In her biography, Roudinesco clarifies that this would happen "always away from the place where the analysis was taking place."}} and charging "exorbitant amounts of money" for each session.<ref>{{cite book |last=Rey|first=Pierre |date=2016 |orig-date=1st pub. 1988 |title=Une saison chez Lacan|language=French|trans-title=A season at Lacan's|publisher=Éditions Points|isbn= 978-2020121606}}</ref>{{efn|Rey, who was ''[[Marie Claire]]'' editor, relates that in order to be able to meet the prices of Lacan, for whom he constantly felt "gratitude," abandoned journalism and started writing best-sellers.}} [[Jean Laplanche]] argued that Lacan could have "harmed" some of his clients.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=André|first1=Jacques|date=2012|title=Hommage à Jean Laplanche|journal=Le Carnet Psy|volume=6|issue=164|pages=58–61|language=French|url=https://www.cairn.info/revue-le-carnet-psy-2012-6-page-58.htm|access-date=29 October 2023|quote=[Lacan] avait pu nuire à certains de ses analysants.|archive-date=29 October 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231029193729/https://www.cairn.info/revue-le-carnet-psy-2012-6-page-58.htm|url-status=live}}</ref>

Others have been more forceful still, describing him as "The Shrink from Hell"<ref name=stu>{{cite web|date=7 April 2018|last=Jeffries|first=Stuart|title=The selfish shrink: life with Jacques Lacan|website=[[The Spectator|The Spectator Australia]]|access-date=31 October 2023|url-access=subscription|url=https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/04/the-selfish-shrink-life-with-jacques-lacan/|archive-date=31 October 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231031191737/https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/04/the-selfish-shrink-life-with-jacques-lacan/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=tallis>{{cite web|last1=Tallis|first1=Raymond|title=The Shrink from Hell|url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/the-shrink-from-hell/159376.article|website=[[Times Higher Education]]|access-date=31 October 2023|date=31 October 1997|archive-date=20 October 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231020231914/https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/the-shrink-from-hell/159376.article|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=dick>{{cite web|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/jacques-lacan-was-sort-of-a-dick-323/|last1=Wolters|first1=Eugene|title=French Philosopher Jacques Lacan Was Sort of a Dick|website=[[Vice (magazine)|Vice]]|access-date=31 October 2023|date=8 October 2014|archive-date=31 October 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231031191737/https://www.vice.com/en/article/4w75en/jacques-lacan-was-sort-of-a-dick-323|url-status=live}}</ref> and listing the many associates —from lovers and family to colleagues, patients, and editors— who were left damaged in his wake.

===Feminist criticism===
Many feminist thinkers have criticized Lacan's thought. American philosopher [[Cynthia Willett]] accuses Lacan for portraying the mother less as a "loving," "nurturing" presence in the infant's world, but rather as a "whore" who abandons the child to a "higher bidder for her affections,"<ref>{{cite book |last=Willett |first=Cynthia |date=1998|author-link=Cynthia Willett |title=Maternal Ethics and Other Slave Moralities|publisher=[[Routledge]] |isbn=978-0415912105}}</ref> while [[Judith Butler]], philosopher and [[gender studies]] scholar, reworks these notions as "gender performativity."<ref>{{cite book |last= Butler |first=Judith |date=2006|author-link=Judith Butler|title=Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity|publisher=[[Routledge]] |isbn=978-0415389556}}</ref>

[[Psycholinguistics|Psycholinguist]] and [[Cultural studies|cultural theorist]] [[Luce Irigaray]] "ridicules" through "mimicry and exaggeration" these representations of femininity posited as natural and proper by Lacan.<ref>{{cite book |last= Irigaray|first=Luce |date=1985|author-link=Luce Irigaray|title=Speculum of the Other Woman|publisher=[[Cornell University]] Press |isbn= 978-0801493300}}</ref> Irigaray accuses Lacan of perpetuating [[Phallocentrism|phallocentric]] mastery in philosophical and psychoanalytic discourse.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Irigaray|first1=Luce |date=2011 |title=Cosi Fan Tutti|journal=Continental Aesthetics Reader}}</ref>{{efn|Irigaray too has been criticized by Sokal & Bricmont for ostensibly misusing scientific terminology in her work. Among their points of criticism, are the interest Irigaray claims Einstein had in "accelerations without electromagnetic re-equilibrations", her confusing [[special relativity]] for [[general relativity]], and her claim (Irigaray, ''To Speak is Never Neutral'', 2017) that Einstein's [[mass–energy equivalence]] equation is a "sexed equation" since "it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us".}}

Others have echoed this accusation, seeing Lacan as trapped in the very [[phallocentric]] mastery his language ostensibly sought to undermine.<ref>[[Jacqueline Rose]], "Introduction – II", in Juliet Mitchell and Jacqueline Rose, ''Feminine Sexuality'' (New York 1982) p. 56</ref> The result, [[Castoriadis]] would maintain, was to make all thought depend upon Lacan himself, and thus to stifle the capacity for independent thought among all those around him.{{r|n=Roudinesco 1997|p=386}}

In an interview with anthropologist James Hunt, Sylvia Lacan said of her late husband: "He was a man who worked tremendously hard. Tremendously intelligent. He was...what is called, well, a domestic tyrant... But he was worth the trouble. I have absolutely no reproaches to make against him. Just the contrary. But it was not possible to be a wife, a mother to my children, and an actress at the same time."<ref>{{Cite web|last=Hunt|first=Jamer Kennedy|date=1995|title=Absence to presence: The life history of Sylvia [Bataille] Lacan (France)|url=https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/16832/9610654.PDF?sequence=1&isAllowed=y|access-date=24 October 2020|website=Rice Digital Scholarship|archive-date=15 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220215011545/https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/16832/9610654.PDF?sequence=1&isAllowed=y|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Mathematics in psychoanalysis===
In their work ''[[Fashionable Nonsense]]'' (1997), through which their stated intention was to show that "famous intellectuals" abuse scientific terminology and concepts,{{r|n=Fashionable Nonsense|p=x}} professors of [[Physics]] [[Alan Sokal]] and [[Jean Bricmont]] examine Lacan's frequent references to [[Mathematics]]. They are highly critical of his use of terms from [[mathematical]] fields, accusing him of "superficial erudition", of abusing scientific concepts that he does not understand, and of producing statements that are "[[not even wrong]]."{{r|n=Fashionable Nonsense|r={{cite book | last1=Sokal | first1=Alan |author-link=Alan Sokal |last2=Bricmont |first2=Jean |author2-link=Jean Bricmont | title=[[Fashionable Nonsense|Fashionable nonsense: postmodern intellectuals' abuse of science]] | publisher=Picador USA | publication-place=New York | year=1998 | isbn=0-312-20407-8 | oclc=39605994}}|p=21|q=[Lacan] mixes [the terms] up arbitrarily and without paying attention to their meaning.}}

In a seminar held in 1959, he confuses the [[irrational number]]s with the [[imaginary number]]s, despite claiming to be "precise."{{efn|Lacan is quoted defining "human life" as a "[[calculus]] in which zero is irrational."}} A year later, the mathematical "calculations" he presents in another seminar are assessed as "pure fantasies."{{r|n=Fashionable Nonsense|p=25-26}}

Sokal and Bricmont find Lacan to be "fond" of [[topology]], in which, though, they see Lacan committing serious errors. He uses technical terms erroneously, e.g. "[[Topological space|space]]", "[[Bounded set (topological vector space)|bounded]]", "[[Closed set|closed]]", and even "topology" itself, and posits claims about a literal and not just symbolic or even [[metaphor]]ical relation of topological mathematics with [[neurosis]].{{efn|E.g. Lacan states: "[The] [[torus]] really exists and it is exactly the structure of the [[Neurosis|neurotic]]. It is not an [[analogy|analogon]]; it is not even an [[abstraction]], because an abstraction is some sort of diminution of reality, and I think [the torus] is reality itself." Lacan (1970)}}{{r|n=Fashionable Nonsense|p=18-21}}<ref>{{cite book |last=Lacan |first=Jacques |date= 1 May 1970 |editor-last1= Macksey|editor-first1=Richard |editor-last2= Donato |editor-first2=Eugenio |title=The Languages of Criticism & the Sciences of Man: the Structuralist Controversy|publisher=[[Johns Hopkins University]] Press|pages=186–200 |chapter=Of structure as an inmixing of an otherwise prerequisite to any subject whatsoever|isbn=978-0801810473}}</ref>

In the book's preface, the authors state they shall not enter into the debate over the purely psychoanalytic part of Lacan's work.{{r|n=Fashionable Nonsense|p=17}} Nonetheless, after presenting their case, they comment that "Lacan never explains the relevance of his mathematical concepts for psychoanalysis," stating that "the link with psychoanalysis is not supported by any argument." Equally meaningless they find his "famous formulae of sexuation" offered in support for the maxim "There are no sexual relations." Considering the "cryptic writings," the "play on words" and "fractured syntax", as well as the "reverent exegesis" accorded to Lacan's work by "disciples", they point out a similarity to religiosity.{{efn|They end posing the rhetorical question whether we are "dealing with a new religion."}}{{r|n=Fashionable Nonsense|p=31-37}}

===Incomprehensibility===
Several critics have dismissed Lacan's work wholesale. French philosopher {{ill|François Roustang|fr}} called it an "incoherent system of [[pseudo-scientific]] gibberish", and quoted [[linguist]] [[Noam Chomsky]]'s opinion that Lacan was an "amusing and perfectly self-conscious [[charlatan]]".<ref name=roustang>{{cite book |url=http://bactra.org/reviews/lacanian-delusion/ |last=Roustang |first=François |date=1986 |title=Lacan, de l'équivoque à l'impasse |language=French |trans-title=Lacan, from ambiguity to dead end |publisher=[[Les Éditions de Minuit]] |pages=100–110 |chapter=L'illusion lacanienne |trans-chapter=The Lacanian Delusion |isbn=978-2707311085 |access-date=2 February 2016 |archive-date=10 December 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151210101642/http://bactra.org/reviews/lacanian-delusion/ |url-status=live }}</ref> [[Noam Chomsky]], in a 2012 interview on ''Veterans Unplugged'', said: "[Q]uite frankly I thought [Lacan] was a total charlatan. He was just posturing for the television cameras in the way many Paris intellectuals do. Why this is influential, I haven't the slightest idea. I don't see anything there that should be influential."<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.openculture.com/2013/06/noam_chomsky_slams_zizek_and_lacan_empty_posturing.html|title= Noam Chomsky Slams Žižek and Lacan: Empty 'Posturing'|last= Springer|first= Mike|date= 28 June 2013|website= Open Culture|access-date= 31 August 2018|archive-date= 19 March 2022|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20220319200117/http://www.openculture.com/2013/06/noam_chomsky_slams_zizek_and_lacan_empty_posturing.html|url-status= live}}</ref>

Academic and former Lacanian analyst [[Dylan Evans]]{{efn|Evans published a dictionary of Lacanian terms in 1996, titled ''An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis''.}} came to dismiss Lacanianism as lacking a sound scientific basis and as harming rather than helping patients. He criticized Lacan's followers for treating Lacan's writings as "holy writ".<ref>{{cite book|last1=Evans |first1=Dylan |chapter=From Lacan to Darwin |title=The Literary Animal: Evolution and the Nature of Narrative|url=https://archive.org/details/literaryanimalev00gott_879 |url-access=limited |date=2005|pages=[https://archive.org/details/literaryanimalev00gott_879/page/n64 38]–55|publisher=[[Northwestern University Press]]|location=[[Evanston, Illinois]]|editor1=Jonathan Gottschall|editor2=David Sloan|citeseerx=10.1.1.305.690 }}</ref> [[Richard Webster (British author)|Richard Webster]] decries what he sees as Lacan's obscurity, arrogance, and the resultant "[[Cult]] of Lacan".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.richardwebster.net/thecultoflacan.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20020910203351/http://www.richardwebster.net/thecultoflacan.html |url-status=usurped |archive-date=10 September 2002 |title=The Cult of Lacan |publisher=Richardwebster.net |date=14 June 1907 |access-date=18 June 2011}}</ref>

[[Roger Scruton]] included Lacan in his book ''Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left'', and named him as the only 'fool' included in the book—his other targets merely being misguided or frauds.<ref>{{Cite news | url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/dec/10/fools-frauds-and-firebrands-thinkers-of-the-new-left-roger-scuton-review | title=Fools, Frauds and Firebrands by Roger Scruton review – a demolition of socialist intellectuals| newspaper=The Guardian| date=10 December 2015| last1=Poole| first1=Steven}}</ref>

In ''Les Freudiens hérétiques'', the 8th tome of his work ''Contre-histoire de la philosophie'' (''Anti-History of Philosophy''),<ref name=anti>{{cite book |last= Onfray |first=Michel|author-link=Michel Onfray |date=2013 |title=Les Freudiens hérétiques : Contre-histoire de la philosophie|language=French|trans-title=The heretic Freudians: Anti-History of Philosophy|volume= 8th |publisher=[[Éditions Grasset]] |isbn=978-2246802686}}</ref> philosopher and author [[Michel Onfray]] describes Lacan's ''[[Écrits]]'' as "illegible".<ref name=anti/>{{rp|49}} According to Onfray, Lacan engages in constant [[word play]], has a taste for the formulaic, and deploys "incantatory [[glossolalia]]" and unnecessary [[neologism]]s.{{efn|In 2002, the Lacanian School of Psychoanalysis, ''École lacanienne de psychanalyse'', edited and published a book titled ''789 Neologismes de Jacques Lacan'' (Epel publishers).}} He calls Lacan a "charlatan," and a "dandy figure" who "sinks into [[autism]]," eventually becoming senile.<ref name=anti/>{{rp|49–50}}