The entire legacy of Jacques Lacan is permeated by his deep interest in psychosis and psychotic phenomena. This book examines Lacan's contribution to our understanding of psychosis, proposing that his work can best be framed in terms of four broad periods. Each period contains a different set of key concepts, together with a number of crucial texts containing references to psychosis. Stijn Vanheule explains the precise meaning of these concepts and their implication for the clinic of psychosis, focusing on Lacan's discussion of clinical cases and literary works, and his critical dialogue with related disciplines such as psychology, psychiatry, philosophy, and linguistics. Synthesising ideas from Lacan's entire oeuvre, this book sheds light on the evolution of his theory and provides a valuable tool for students and scholars.
I devoured this book. I was inspired because I am writing an essay about Black Swan through a Lacanian lens... this book has given me a lot to think about. What I appreciate in particular is the way he breaks down Lacanian ideas around psychosis in the four different eras. Reading it this way was very nice. I have put together a lot of ideas on Lacan which have just been floating around, and now that I read this I have better understand of the overall project. Will refer to this book in the future, great piece of scholarship.
For me, a newcomer to Lacan, this was excellent. I’m building up to reading his seminars and wished for some contextual overview of his writings. Being a novice I needed orientation, clarity, accessibility and interest. This provided perfectly. As it follows his theoretical developments throughout his entire career, I suspect it will help me understand any of his writing, as opposed to just the psychoses.
Na lang te hebben zitten worstelen in knopen - symbolisch, imaginair en reëel - heb ik aan het einde een compleet gevoel van ontknoping gekregen. Heel bevattelijk geschreven.
4.5/5. Very clear exposition of Lacan's conception of the psychotic subject in the 50s (what Vanheule dubs his "2nd period"). A text on Lacan will inevitably get complicated, but his shift to the 60s was relatively clear ("3rd period", primarily dealing with object a and jouissance) but the last chapter should have been a lot longer, but maybe I'm biased because I need more information on Lacan's topology. I don't think 20 pages is enough to accurately cover Lacan's work in the 70s. At a slim 171 pages, I think that with the exception of his work in the 50s (which takes up pages 33-122...well over half the book) the book in general is probably oversimplified...which, with Lacan, is probably a good thing.
Just want to reiterate pages 33-122 are absolutely Very Good and a must read analysis of the Lacanian psychotic subject as conceived in the 50s. I just wish there was more to the 60s and 70s.