Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Duy's avatar

I think what's missing here, to express it, is Lacan's single trait (trait unaire), through which the child inscribes itself by introducing itself with the set - similar to how humanity does with the notch. And isn't it much more significant how the category models of diseases specifically give space to the trait (that is, the form) of the notch? By this, I mean that the child, at least in the assumption of a subject, does not represent itself for itself or other subjects, but precisely as a signifier in relation to other signifiers. It takes a place where it wants to see itself represented in this illness, and desire is precisely the desire of the Other, which means that the needs and wishes are anticipated based on the clinical picture. In this sense, the illness shows us not only what the child is suffering from, but also what it should desire, what it should claim, and how the child must do it.

Thank you for your text.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Expand full comment
AJ's avatar

As ever this is a very interesting piece. For me though I am yet to find a genuinely non pathologising psychoanalytic understanding for autism. Rather than just being a new label for an old delinquency, the emerging science around neurodivergent brains is filling this space for me. But this is a slow process.

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts