In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

6 Institutional Psychoanalysis and the Paradoxes of Archivization We know that in the mass of mankind there is a powerful need for an authority who can be admired, before whom one bows down, by whom one is ruled and perhaps even ill-treated. We have learnt from the psychology of individual men what the origin is of this need of the masses. It is a longing for the father felt by everyone from his childhood onwards. . . . The decisiveness of thought, the strength of will, the energy of action are part of the picture of a father—but above all the autonomy and independence of the great man, his divine unconcern which may grow into ruthlessness . One must admire him, one may trust him, but one cannot avoid being afraid of him too.1 Introductory Remarks: Derrida’s Third Thesis in Outline With unsurpassable subtlety, Freud ‘‘analyzed, that is also to say, deconstructed ,’’ what Derrida calls ‘‘the archontic principle of the archive,’’ which, he notes, concerns the ‘‘nomological arkhē of the law, of institution , of domiciliation, of filiation.’’2 This principle describes the movement by which the authority that presided over the archive is repeated across generations. As (arguably) the paternal and patriarchic principle, it presupposes that the authority vested in the father is directed toward its repetition in the sons. Freud uncovers the paradox whereby not even the strongest rebellion (parricide) circumvents the circular return of this same authority. At best, the archontic principle of the archive dictates that parricide will merely amount to the pseudodemocratic ‘‘takeover of the archive by the brothers.’’ This archontic circle, then, names the principle of 183 the movement that traps ‘‘father’’ and ‘‘son’’ in a stifling circle of neurotic repetition. However, as a self-inventive theoretical pioneer, Freud himself subverts this archontic principle. He did not merely draw out the unknown in the existing archive—what was, until then, secret in it—but insisted upon something radically heterogeneous to it, so highlighting the character of the archive as itself an invention.3 One could, therefore, legitimately expect from him not only some indication of a way out of the archontic circle of patriarchy in the recognition of an excess that threatens every archive but also extreme sensitivity to the dangers of getting caught in its trap himself, through his institutionalization of psychoanalysis. Yet, in practice, Derrida argues, Freud remained patriarchal: ‘‘He declared , notably in The Rat Man, that the patriarchal right (Vaterrecht) marked the civilizing progress of reason.’’ Moreover, he was overly concerned with constituting psychoanalysis as a discipline, with assuring his legacy by remaining the archon, the patriarch, who had always already configured what could be said by his children in his name. In Derrida’s words, ‘‘in life as in his works, in his theoretical theses as in the compulsion of his institutionalizing strategy, Freud repeated the patriarchal logic.’’ He remained under the spell of the archontic principle, ‘‘to the point’’ Derrida notes, ‘‘that certain people can wonder if, decades after his death, his sons, so many brothers, can yet speak in their own name. Or if his daughter ever came to life.’’ To adumbrate the theme of part 3, Derrida’s remark here tacitly raises the related questions of Lacan’s ‘‘return to Freud’’ and of women. Does Lacan’s ‘‘return’’ automatically trap him in the archontic circle to the point that he cannot speak in his own name? Or, if he claims to speak in his own name, is he still practicing psychoanalysis? In more general terms, can there be a reinvention of Freudian psychoanalysis that is still psychoanalysis ? Derrida’s arguments in various contexts unequivocally affirm that there can, indeed must, be inventive appropriation of any institution. Moreover, as addressed at length in the previous chapters, it is precisely Freud, in his aneconomic moments, who gives him the means to make this argument. Derrida, then, in demonstrating that psychoanalysis always already inscribes its own aneconomic subversion beyond its more traditionally accepted economic description, offers just such an inventive appropriation of it. Curiously, however, he does not grant Lacan the equivalent reinventive power, presumably because he does not see in Lacan ’s arguments the ‘‘plural logic of the aporia.’’ Here I have to disagree with him. Instead, it is more likely that Lacan similarly reinvents psychoanalysis , drawing Freud’s thinking past its residual metaphysical and patriarchal commitments into the domain of the aporia. Simultaneously, 184 Derrida Vis-à-vis Lacan [18.222.119.148] Project MUSE (2024...

Share