I raise the debate on gender that bursts among psychoanalysts with the challenge of a conference by the philosopher Paul B. Preciado, and I comment on the various responses from Psychoanalysis. For my part, I make an approach about the laws or rules of normalization in social life (and in particular with respect to the issue of gender) that allows a theoretical problematization from psychoanalysis in dialogue with other disciplines. This dialogue must necessarily be interdisciplinary, between psychoanalysis and other disciplines, but in addition, the problematization requires us to consider very basic approaches, that is, a theory of life and issues typical of an anthropology or in relation to a description of the human being.
gender, psychoanalysis, theory of life, normalization rules
[Automatic translation from Spanish]:
[…] I will not expand on what Preciado says. I’m only interested in pointing out one of his questions, because he touches on central aspects of psychoanalysis, and that’s his accusation that psychoanalysis was built and operated from binary sexual difference. In other words, psychoanalysis is constituted in its theory and practice as an accomplice of heteronormativity.
This radical questioning opens up important fissures concerning central notions in psychoanalytic discourse, such as Oedipus, the role of the family novel in psychic suffering, the understanding of the unconscious structured as language, phallic and castration, desire and enjoyment, impossibility of sexual relationship… to mention only a few key notions. In his lecture, and in his later published text, Preciado went beyond the literary parody of Kafka’s tale, with the monkey describing his humanization as the choice of a different cage, and he could speak to the psychoanalysts as the monster who may have more reason and truth than they do, or at least a potential truth and reason worthy of being heard. […]
Víctor Hernández Ramírez leave a comment
Read full text on screen