Not everything is an interpretation

In a text titled, What words, What Body?, Anne Lysy writes,[1]

There are words that carry some weight, and others that don't. That's what we call interpretation,[2]" Lacan said in Nice at the end of 1974. The whole question is: how to they impact, how to they affect jouissance?

Lysy reminds us that even if an analyst says something they think is a great interpretation, it might not be. What makes an interpretation an interpretation that works is the way the analyand experiences the words the analyst has spoken. If the analysand experiences the words as something that affects them, that changes something about how they think/feel; then it is probably safe to call it an interpretation. However, if the words don't have an effect if they are spoken and are promptly forgotten, they are not an interpretation,

  1. This text is printed in The Lacanian Review: 09 Still Life? pp. 75-80. ↩︎

  2. Jacques Laan, "The Lacanian Phenomenon," Also in The Lacanian Review: 09 Still Life? pp. 17-42. ↩︎

Subscribe to [S][J][P]

Don’t miss out on the latest issues. Sign up now to get access to the library of members-only issues.