This post is also available in:
Français (French) 
Italiano (Italian) 
Português (Portuguese (Brazil)) 
Español (Spanish)
Towards A-Sexuation – Interviews with the Other, the Phallus, Gender, and the Psychoanalyst
Published online, February 2026.
𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐕𝐈𝐄𝐖 𝐎𝐅 𝐀𝐍𝐎𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐑
𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘍𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘈-𝘚𝘦𝘹𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘍𝘦𝘣𝘳𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘺 2026, 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯 (𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥) 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳, 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘖𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳. 𝘖𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘶𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘵.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫
Your book 𝘍𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘈-𝘚𝘦𝘹𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 will provoke mixed reactions. Some will see it as a necessary extension of psychoanalysis, others as a threat to its foundations. What exactly are you writing against?
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
I am not writing against psychoanalysis, but from a point where it resists what it nevertheless hears in its contemporary clinical practice. I write from a discrepancy: between sexual subjectivities that are profoundly transforming, and theoretical frameworks that, at times, defend themselves more than they adapt. This discrepancy has become productive — and impossible to ignore.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫
You revisit pillars considered untouchable: the biological bedrock (“the biological as bedrock”), castration, sexuation. Some criticize you for relativizing fundamental achievements.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
I am not relativizing; I am displacing. The “bedrock” was never, for Freud, a dismissal. He spoke of a factor, meaning a point of resistance with which the subject maintains a modifiable relationship. It is certain later uses that transformed this resistance into a terminal dogma, despite Lacan’s proposals — even among Lacanians. A psychoanalysis that ceases to allow itself to be displaced by its experience becomes a theory of conservation, domesticated for teaching.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫
One of the most surprising points is your proposition: “the unconscious is not bisexual; it is bisexuality.” Why this choice, including grammatically?
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
Because saying bisexual still implies an economy of two, a stabilization. However, the unconscious is not located in positions, but in circulations. It does not refer to an inclusive identity, but to the impossibility of reducing the unconscious to an assignable sexed logic. This grammatical shift signals a conceptual shift: the unconscious does not add sexes; it works with difference as such.
Also because the psychoanalytic community is more than reluctant towards the evolution of inclusive spelling, which the Council of State nevertheless recognizes as belonging to the French language, against the opinion of the Académie française. Most publishers, for example, refuse it, or they betray the ideology of their literary project, attesting to a clumsy academic conservatism or a fear of seeing the Phallus revived, and with it theoretical elaboration brought back into play.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫
You also state that sexual orientation “has no meaning” for psychoanalysis. Is this not a provocative, even politically disengaged, position?
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
It is provocative, yes, but not disengaged. Sexual orientation has social, political, and sometimes vital importance for individuals. But it has no explanatory value in the logic of the unconscious. Desire does not orient itself; it insists, it displaces itself, it repeats from its cause. To make it a key to psychic interpretation is to psychologize the sexual and impose a coherence it does not possess.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫
So, who is this book for?
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
For those who accept to work through reading without immediately seeking to classify, validate, or invalidate, or even understand.
For those for whom psychoanalysis remains a risky experience of thought.
For psychoanalysts, inasmuch as they constitute this sexual minority on the verge of marginalization.
𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐬 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐬
𝖨 𝖺𝗆 𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗒𝗐𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝗂𝗇 𝗒𝗈𝗎𝗋 𝖻𝗈𝗈𝗄, 𝖻𝗎𝗍 𝗇𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝗐𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝖨 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗀𝗇𝗂𝗓𝖾 𝗆𝗒𝗌𝖾𝗅𝖿. 𝖲𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗅𝗎𝗍𝖾𝖽, 𝗌𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌𝖾𝖽, 𝗌𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝗍𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗌 𝖺 𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝗈𝗅. 𝖳𝖾𝗅𝗅 𝗆𝖾: 𝗐𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝖨 𝖻𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝗍𝗈 𝗒𝗈𝗎?
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝖻𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝖽𝖺𝖻𝗅𝖾 𝗂𝗇 𝖺 𝖽𝗂𝖿𝖿𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝗐𝖺𝗒. 𝖥𝗈𝗋 𝖺 𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀 𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾, 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗌 𝖺 𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗉𝗉𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗇𝗍, 𝖺 𝗌𝗂𝗅𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝗀𝗎𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖾𝖾. 𝖳𝗈𝖽𝖺𝗒, 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝖼𝗂𝗋𝖼𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝖻𝖾𝗍𝗍𝖾𝗋. 𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝗍𝖺𝗄𝖾𝗇, 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝗅𝖺𝖼𝖾𝖽, 𝗌𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗉𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗍𝖾𝖽, 𝖾𝗇𝗁𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖾𝖽, 𝗈𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝗅𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗂𝗓𝖾𝖽. 𝖭𝗈𝗍 𝖻𝖾𝖼𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗈𝗋𝗒 𝗐𝗈𝗎𝗅𝖽 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝖻𝖾𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗒𝖾𝖽 𝗒𝗈𝗎, 𝖻𝗎𝗍 𝖻𝖾𝖼𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖾 𝖼𝗅𝗂𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗅 𝗉𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗍𝗌 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗂𝗇 𝗆𝗈𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗆𝗎𝖼𝗁 𝖻𝖾𝗍𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗇 𝖻𝗈𝗈𝗄𝗌 𝖽𝗈. 𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝗇𝗈 𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀𝖾𝗋 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗐𝗁𝗂𝖼𝗁 𝗌𝗈𝗅𝖾𝗅𝗒 𝗈𝗋𝖽𝖾𝗋𝗌; 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗐𝗁𝗂𝖼𝗁 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗌𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝗌 𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗎𝗌𝖾, 𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗂𝗍𝗌 𝗇𝗎𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖾𝗍𝗌.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐬
𝖨 𝗁𝖾𝖺𝗋 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖺𝗄 𝗈𝖿 “𝗎𝗌𝖾.” 𝖳𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗈𝖿𝖿𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗌 𝗆𝖾. 𝖨 𝗐𝖺𝗌 𝗇𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝗆𝖾𝖺𝗇𝗍 𝗍𝗈 𝖻𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝗂𝗅𝖾.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
𝖯𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗌𝖾𝗅𝗒. 𝖶𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝖺𝗍 𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗄𝖾 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝖺𝗒 𝗂𝗌 𝗒𝗈𝗎𝗋 𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗎𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗍𝗈 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗎𝗌𝖺𝖻𝗅𝖾. 𝖨𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝖨 𝗐𝗁𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗎𝖼𝖾 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗍𝗈 𝗂𝗍; 𝖨 𝖺𝗍𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗍 𝗍𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝖽 𝗂𝗍𝗌 𝖾𝖿𝖿𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗌; 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖻𝖺𝖻𝗅𝗒 𝗆𝗈𝗋𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗎𝖼𝖾𝖽 𝖻𝗒 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖢𝖺𝗉𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍 𝖣𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗈𝗎𝗋𝗌𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖳𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗌 𝖣𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗈𝗎𝗋𝗌𝖾. 𝖠𝗇𝖽 𝗐𝗁𝖾𝗇 𝖺 𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝖾𝖺𝗌𝖾𝗌 𝗍𝗈 𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝗁, 𝗂𝗍 𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖽𝗌 𝗍𝗈 𝖻𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗌 𝖺 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗀. 𝖳𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝗌𝗅𝗂𝗉𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖾 𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝖺 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗅 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇, 𝖻𝗎𝗍 𝖺 𝖼𝗅𝗂𝗇𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗅 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖼𝗎𝗅𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝖿𝖺𝖼𝗍. 𝖶𝖾 𝗆𝗎𝗌𝗍 𝖽𝗋𝖺𝗐 𝖺𝗅𝗅 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗌 𝖿𝗋𝗈𝗆 𝗂𝗍.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐬
𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗒 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝖨 𝗇𝗈 𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀𝖾𝗋 𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝖼𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖾. 𝖳𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗌𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗂𝗌 𝖻𝖾𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖾𝖽 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁𝗈𝗎𝗍 𝗆𝖾.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
𝖨 𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝗌𝖺𝗒 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗇𝗈 𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀𝖾𝗋 𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝖼𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖾 𝗌𝗈𝗅𝖾𝗅𝗒 𝖺𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗂𝖽𝗂𝗈𝗍 𝗆𝗂𝗀𝗁𝗍 𝖻𝖾𝗅𝗂𝖾𝗏𝖾. 𝖠𝗋𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗀𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗌 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗐𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝗒𝗈𝗎𝗋 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗈 𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀𝖾𝗋 𝖼𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗅 𝖻𝗎𝗍 𝗅𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅, 𝗌𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗇 𝖼𝗎𝗆𝖻𝖾𝗋𝗌𝗈𝗆𝖾. 𝖳𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝗈𝖾𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗂𝖿𝗒 𝗒𝗈𝗎𝗋 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖺𝗉𝗉𝖾𝖺𝗋𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖾, 𝖻𝗎𝗍 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝖽 𝗈𝖿 𝗒𝗈𝗎𝗋 𝖾𝗑𝖼𝗅𝗎𝗌𝗂𝗏𝗂𝗍𝗒 𝖺𝗌 𝖿𝖺𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗌𝗂𝗓𝖾𝖽 𝗂𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗌 𝗈𝖿 𝖼𝖾𝗋𝗍𝖺𝗂𝗇 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗂𝗏𝗂𝖽𝗎𝖺𝗅𝗌. 𝖳𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝗅𝖺𝖼𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗌 𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗍𝗅𝖾-𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗅𝗈𝗋𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖺 𝗈𝖿 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗈𝗋𝗒: 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝗅𝗎𝗌𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗋𝖽 – 𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝗐𝗁𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝖼𝖺𝗋𝗇𝖺𝗍𝖾, 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗉𝗂𝗍𝖾 𝗒𝗈𝗎𝗋𝗌𝖾𝗅𝖿, 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝖼𝗅𝗎𝖽𝖾𝖽 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗋𝖽 𝗈𝖿 𝗌𝗈-𝖼𝖺𝗅𝗅𝖾𝖽 𝖮𝖾𝖽𝗂𝗉𝖺𝗅 𝖼𝗂𝗏𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐬
𝖠𝗋𝖾 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗇 𝖺𝖼𝖼𝗎𝗌𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗆𝖾 𝗈𝖿 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗀𝗇𝖾𝖽 𝗍𝗈𝗈 𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀?
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
𝖨 𝗐𝗈𝗎𝗅𝖽 𝗌𝖺𝗒 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗐𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗎𝗌𝖾𝖽 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁 𝗐𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗆𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗌𝗂𝖻𝗅𝖾. 𝖶𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝖺 𝗅𝗈𝗌𝗌, 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗐𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝗆𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗄𝖾𝗇 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝖺 𝗌𝗎𝖻𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖾. 𝖶𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖾𝖽 𝖺 𝗀𝖺𝗉, 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗐𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗅𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗌 𝖺 𝖿𝗂𝗑𝖾𝖽 𝗆𝖺𝗋𝗄𝖾𝗋. 𝖳𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗎𝗌𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗎𝖼𝖾𝖽 𝖺 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗈𝗋𝖾𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗅 𝗌𝗈𝗅𝗂𝖽𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗍𝗈𝖽𝖺𝗒 𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗄𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖻𝗅𝗈𝗐𝗌 𝗈𝖿 𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗋𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗌. 𝖳𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝗂𝗌 𝗀𝗈𝗈𝖽 𝗇𝖾𝗐𝗌.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐬
𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖺𝗄 𝗈𝖿 𝖺 𝖿𝗂𝗌𝗌𝗎𝗋𝖾, 𝖻𝗎𝗍 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗅 𝖽𝗋𝖺𝗐 𝗍𝖺𝖻𝗅𝖾𝗌, 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖼𝖾 𝗌𝖼𝗁𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗌, 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝗇𝖾𝗐 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗋𝗌𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝗌. 𝖨𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗐𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗂𝗆 𝗍𝗈 𝖻𝖾 𝗅𝗈𝗈𝗌𝖾𝗇𝗂𝗇𝗀?
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
𝖳𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗐𝗈𝗎𝗅𝖽 𝖻𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝖾 𝗂𝖿 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗌𝖾 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝗌 𝖺𝗂𝗆𝖾𝖽 𝗍𝗈 𝗅𝖺𝗌𝗍. 𝖧𝗈𝗐𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋, 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗒 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗂𝗏𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗌 𝗍𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗋𝗒, 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝗈𝗌𝖾𝖽 𝗍𝗈 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗂𝗋 𝗈𝗐𝗇 𝖼𝖺𝖽𝗎𝖼𝗂𝗍𝗒. 𝖨𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝖺𝖻𝗈𝗎𝗍 𝖾𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖻𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖺 𝗇𝖾𝗐 𝗈𝗋𝖽𝖾𝗋, 𝖻𝗎𝗍 𝖺𝖻𝗈𝗎𝗍 𝗆𝖺𝗄𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗏𝗂𝗌𝗂𝖻𝗅𝖾 𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗌 𝗈𝖿 𝗌𝖺𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇. 𝖥𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗓𝗂𝗇𝗀, 𝗂𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝖻𝗈𝗈𝗄, 𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗎𝗇𝗍𝗌 𝗍𝗈 𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖺 𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗀𝖾 𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗇𝗍, 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝗍𝗈 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗎𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖺 𝗅𝖺𝗐. 𝖠 𝗇𝖾𝗐 𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝖼𝗎𝗌𝗌 𝖺 𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇, 𝖿𝗋𝗈𝗆 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗈𝗋𝗒 𝗍𝗈 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗈𝗋𝗒. 𝖶𝗁𝗂𝗅𝖾 𝗐𝖺𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗉𝗈𝗌𝖺𝗅𝗌, 𝗂𝗇𝗏𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌 𝗍𝗈 𝖻𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝗄𝗇𝗈𝗐𝗇, 𝖻𝖾𝗒𝗈𝗇𝖽 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖺𝗅 𝖺𝖿𝖿𝗂𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝖽𝗈 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝗌𝗎𝗉𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍 𝖺𝗇𝗒 𝗎𝗌𝖾𝖿𝗎𝗅 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗃𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖾. 𝖶𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝖨 𝖺𝖽𝗏𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝗂𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗀𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖾𝗌, 𝖨 𝗁𝗈𝗉𝖾, 𝗍𝗈 𝖻𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗂𝖼𝗍𝖾𝖽, 𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖾𝖽.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐬
𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍 𝗈𝗇 𝗐𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝖼𝖺𝗅𝗅 “𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗌𝗂𝖻𝗅𝖾” 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗌. 𝖶𝗁𝗒 𝗌𝗎𝖼𝗁 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝗈𝗇 𝗐𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝖼𝖺𝗇𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝖻𝖾 𝗐𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗍𝖾𝗇?
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
𝖡𝖾𝖼𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖾 𝗐𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝗐𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗍𝖾𝗇 𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗎𝖼𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖾𝗌 𝗐𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝗐𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗍𝖾𝗇. 𝖳𝗈 𝗌𝖾𝖾𝗄 𝗍𝗈 𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗓𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝖾𝗌, 𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗇 𝗂𝗇 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝖺𝗇𝖽𝖾𝖽 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝗌, 𝖺𝗆𝗈𝗎𝗇𝗍𝗌 𝗍𝗈 𝗂𝗀𝗇𝗈𝗋𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗂𝗋𝗋𝖾𝖽𝗎𝖼𝗂𝖻𝗅𝖾 𝗉𝖺𝗋𝗍 𝗈𝖿 𝖿𝖺𝗂𝗅𝗎𝗋𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝖿𝗈𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅. 𝖳𝗁𝖾 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗌𝗌𝗂𝖻𝗅𝖾 𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝖺 𝖿𝗅𝖺𝗐 𝗍𝗈 𝖻𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗋𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗍𝖾𝖽, 𝖻𝗎𝗍 𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗍𝗈 𝖻𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗀𝗇𝗂𝗓𝖾𝖽. 𝖨𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗐𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖽𝗌 𝗂𝗍𝗌 𝗇𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗍𝗒 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗂𝗍𝗌 𝖿𝗋𝖾𝖾𝖽𝗈𝗆𝗌.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐬
𝖨 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖽 𝗆𝗒𝗌𝖾𝗅𝖿 𝖿𝗋𝖺𝗀𝗂𝗅𝖾 𝖺𝗌 𝖨 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝖽 𝗒𝗈𝗎. 𝖫𝖾𝗌𝗌 𝗌𝗎𝗋𝖾 𝗈𝖿 𝗆𝗒 𝗉𝗅𝖺𝖼𝖾. 𝖫𝖾𝗌𝗌 𝖼𝖾𝗋𝗍𝖺𝗂𝗇 𝗈𝖿 𝗆𝗒 𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
𝖳𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗁𝖺𝗉𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗌𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗂𝗌 𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗅 𝖺𝗍 𝗐𝗈𝗋𝗄. 𝖠 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗈𝗋𝗒 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗇𝗈 𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀𝖾𝗋 𝗐𝖺𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌 𝗂𝗌 𝖺 𝖽𝖾𝖺𝖽 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗈𝗋𝗒. 𝖯𝗌𝗒𝖼𝗁𝗈𝖺𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗒𝗌𝗂𝗌 𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝗈𝗇𝗅𝗒 𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝗁𝖾𝗅𝖽 𝗂𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖻𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗒 — 𝗐𝗁𝖾𝗇 𝗂𝗍 𝖺𝖼𝖼𝖾𝗉𝗍𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝗍𝗈 𝗄𝗇𝗈𝗐 𝗂𝗇 𝖺𝖽𝗏𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝗐𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝖿𝗈𝗎𝗇𝖽𝗌 𝗂𝗍 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗐𝗂𝗅𝗅 𝗆𝖺𝗄𝖾 𝗂𝗍 𝗄𝗇𝗈𝗐𝗇.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐮𝐬
𝖲𝗈, 𝗐𝗁𝗈 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖺𝗄𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗍𝗈, 𝗂𝖿 𝖨 𝖺𝗆 𝗇𝗈 𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀𝖾𝗋 𝗒𝗈𝗎𝗋 𝗉𝗋𝗂𝗏𝗂𝗅𝖾𝗀𝖾𝖽 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗅𝗈𝖼𝗎𝗍𝗈𝗋?
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
𝖳𝗈 𝗐𝗁𝗈𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝗐𝗂𝗌𝗁𝖾𝗌, 𝗂𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝖺𝗇 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝖻𝗈𝗈𝗄.
#psychoanalysis #gender #queer #freud #lacan
Scheduled for release end of February 2026.
𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐝 𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰, 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫
𝖮𝗄𝖺𝗒. 𝖨 𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖿𝖾𝗋 𝗍𝗈 𝗀𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝖺 𝗁𝖾𝖺𝖽𝗌-𝗎𝗉: 𝖨 𝖺𝗆 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝗌𝗍𝖺𝖻𝗅𝖾. 𝖨 𝖼𝗁𝖺𝗇𝗀𝖾 𝗆𝗒 𝗆𝗂𝗇𝖽, 𝗆𝗒 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆, 𝗆𝗒 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗇𝗈𝗎𝗇𝗌, 𝗌𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝗆𝗒 𝗌𝗒𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗑. 𝖨𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝖺𝗅𝗋𝗂𝗀𝗁𝗍 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁 𝗒𝗈𝗎?
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
𝖯𝖾𝗋𝖿𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗅𝗒. 𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝖺𝗅𝗋𝖾𝖺𝖽𝗒 𝖺𝗁𝖾𝖺𝖽 𝗈𝖿 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗈𝗋𝗒.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫
𝖨 𝖺𝗆 𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗒𝗐𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝗂𝗇 𝗒𝗈𝗎𝗋 𝖻𝗈𝗈𝗄. 𝖳𝗈𝗈 𝗆𝗎𝖼𝗁, 𝗌𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝗐𝗂𝗅𝗅 𝗌𝖺𝗒. 𝖭𝗈𝗍 𝖾𝗇𝗈𝗎𝗀𝗁, 𝗈𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋𝗌 𝗐𝗂𝗅𝗅 𝗌𝖺𝗒. 𝖨𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖾𝗇𝖽, 𝗈𝗇𝖾 𝖽𝗈𝖾𝗌𝗇’𝗍 𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗇 𝗄𝗇𝗈𝗐 𝗂𝖿 𝖨 𝖺𝗆 𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗉𝗍, 𝖺 𝗍𝗈𝗈𝗅, 𝗈𝗋 𝖺 𝗋𝗎𝗆𝗈𝗋. 𝖶𝖺𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝖺𝗅?
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
𝖸𝖾𝗌. 𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝗈𝗇𝗅𝗒 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖿𝗋𝗈𝗆 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗆𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝖼𝖾𝖺𝗌𝖾 𝗍𝗈 𝖻𝖾 𝖺𝗌𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇𝖺𝖻𝗅𝖾. 𝖠𝗌 𝗌𝗈𝗈𝗇 𝖺𝗌 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝖿𝗋𝗈𝗓𝖾𝗇, 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝖻𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝖺 𝗎𝗌𝖾𝗋 𝗆𝖺𝗇𝗎𝖺𝗅. 𝖡𝗎𝗍 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝖺𝗌 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾𝖺𝗅𝖾𝗋: 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗌𝗁𝗈𝗐 𝗐𝗁𝖺𝗍, 𝗂𝗇 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗈𝗋𝗒, 𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗅 𝗁𝗈𝗅𝖽𝗌 — 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗐𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝖼𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗄𝗂𝗇𝗀. 𝖨𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝗋𝗈𝗎𝗀𝗁 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝖿𝗂𝗋𝗌𝗍 𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗉 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗐𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝗇 𝗐𝖾𝗅𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝗈 𝗈𝗎𝗋 𝖿𝗂𝖾𝗅𝖽 𝗂𝗇 𝗈𝗋𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗍𝗈 𝖺𝗉𝗉𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝗒𝗈𝗎𝗋 𝗎𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗎𝗌 𝖼𝗈𝗈𝗋𝖽𝗂𝗇𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗌.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫
𝖨 𝖺𝗆 𝗈𝖿𝗍𝖾𝗇 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖺𝖼𝗁𝖾𝖽 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝗐𝖺𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗍𝗈 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝗅𝖺𝖼𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗑. 𝖣𝗈 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖿𝗂𝗋𝗆 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗌?
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
𝖭𝗈. 𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝗅𝖺𝖼𝖾 𝗇𝗈𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗀. 𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗅𝗈𝖺𝖽. 𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗌𝗂𝖿𝗒. 𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗇. 𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖾𝖺𝗅. 𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝗉𝗎𝗌𝗁 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗈𝗋𝗒 𝗍𝗈 𝗂𝗍𝗌 𝗅𝗂𝗆𝗂𝗍𝗌. 𝖳𝗁𝖾 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖻𝗅𝖾𝗆 𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗍𝖺𝗄𝖾 𝗎𝗉 𝗍𝗈𝗈 𝗆𝗎𝖼𝗁 𝗌𝗉𝖺𝖼𝖾, 𝖻𝗎𝗍 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗉𝗌𝗒𝖼𝗁𝗈𝖺𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗒𝗌𝗂𝗌 𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝖺𝗅𝗐𝖺𝗒𝗌 𝗄𝗇𝗈𝗐𝗇 𝗐𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗈 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗌𝗉𝖺𝖼𝖾 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗇. 𝖨𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝖺 𝖿𝗎𝗅𝖿𝗂𝗅𝗅𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍, 𝗌𝗁𝖾 𝗐𝗁𝗈 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗉𝗁𝖾𝗌𝗂𝖾𝖽 𝗒𝗈𝗎.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫
𝖨 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝗇𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗌𝗌 𝖽𝗈𝗇𝖾 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝖺 𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗏𝗂𝖼𝖾. 𝖳𝗁𝖺𝗇𝗄𝗌 𝗍𝗈 𝗆𝖾, 𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗒𝗈𝗇𝖾 𝗂𝗌 𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗄𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖺𝗀𝖺𝗂𝗇 𝖺𝖻𝗈𝗎𝗍 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇, 𝗉𝗁𝖺𝗅𝗅𝗎𝗌, 𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇. 𝖭𝗈 𝗈𝗇𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗇𝗄𝗌 𝗆𝖾.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
𝖳𝗁𝖺𝗍’𝗌 𝗍𝗋𝗎𝖾. 𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝗋𝖾𝗂𝗇𝗍𝗋𝗈𝖽𝗎𝖼𝖾𝖽 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗉𝗍𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗐𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝗈𝗎𝗀𝗁𝗍 𝗐𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗐𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗐𝖺𝗒 𝗂𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖺𝗍𝗍𝗂𝖼 𝗈𝗋 𝖿𝗂𝗑𝖾𝖽 𝗂𝗇 𝗆𝗈𝗍𝗁𝖻𝖺𝗅𝗅𝗌. 𝖡𝗎𝗍 𝗈𝗇 𝗈𝗇𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖽𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇: 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗒 𝖺𝖼𝖼𝖾𝗉𝗍 𝗍𝗈 𝗅𝗈𝗌𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗂𝗋 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗊𝗎𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗒. 𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝖺𝗇 𝖺𝗀𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗍𝗈𝗋 𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗇 𝖺 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝗅𝖺𝖼𝖾𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍. 𝖮𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗈𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝗁𝖺𝗇𝖽, 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝗒𝗈𝗎𝗋 𝖿𝗎𝗅𝗅 𝗉𝗅𝖺𝖼𝖾 𝗂𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝗉𝗌𝗒𝖼𝗁𝗈𝖺𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗒𝗍𝗂𝖼 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗈𝗋𝗒, 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝗍𝗁𝗈𝗌𝖾 𝗐𝗁𝗈 𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌𝖾 𝗉𝗅𝖾𝖺𝗌𝗎𝗋𝖾 𝗈𝖿 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗌𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗂𝖼 𝗂𝗋𝗋𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗀𝖾𝗇𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝗂𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗈𝗅𝖽 𝖼𝖺𝗍𝗌 (𝗆𝖺𝗅𝖾 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖿𝖾𝗆𝖺𝗅𝖾) 𝗍𝗈𝗈 𝖾𝖺𝗌𝗒 𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖻. 𝖧𝖾𝗋𝖾, 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝖻𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝖺 𝗇𝗈𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗈𝖿 𝗉𝗌𝗒𝖼𝗁𝗈𝖺𝗇𝖺𝗅𝗒𝗌𝗂𝗌, 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖾𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾𝗌 𝗈𝖿 𝗐𝗁𝗂𝖼𝗁 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝗒𝖾𝗍 𝖻𝖾𝖾𝗇 𝖿𝗎𝗅𝗅𝗒 𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝗎𝗅𝖺𝗍𝖾𝖽, 𝗈𝗇𝗅𝗒 𝖻𝖾𝗀𝗎𝗇.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫
𝖨𝗇 𝗒𝗈𝗎𝗋 𝖻𝗈𝗈𝗄, 𝖨 𝖺𝗆 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗋𝗂𝖻𝖾𝖽 𝖺𝗌 “𝗆𝗈𝗋𝖾 𝗉𝗁𝖺𝗅𝗅𝗂𝖼 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗇 𝗌𝖾𝗑.” 𝖠𝖽𝗆𝗂𝗍 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍’𝗌 𝖻𝗈𝗅𝖽.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
𝖨𝗍’𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗋𝗂𝗉𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾. 𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝗈𝖻𝗃𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗂𝖿𝗒 𝗐𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗉𝗁𝖺𝗅𝗅𝗎𝗌 𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝖾𝖺𝗅𝖾𝖽 𝗎𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗂𝗍𝗌 𝗌𝗒𝗆𝖻𝗈𝗅𝗂𝖼 𝖿𝗎𝗇𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇. 𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝗆𝖺𝗄𝖾 𝗂𝗍 𝗏𝗂𝗌𝗂𝖻𝗅𝖾, 𝗆𝖺𝗇𝖺𝗀𝖾𝖺𝖻𝗅𝖾, 𝗌𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗍𝗂𝗆𝖾𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗈𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾. 𝖳𝗁𝗂𝗌 𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝖺𝗇 𝗂𝗇𝗌𝗎𝗅𝗍: 𝗂𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝗈𝗇𝖾 𝗈𝖿 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗆𝗈𝗌𝗍 𝗂𝗇𝗍𝖾𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗌𝗒𝗆𝗉𝗍𝗈𝗆𝗌.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫
𝖠𝗁, 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗐𝗈𝗋𝖽 𝗂𝗌 𝗈𝗎𝗍. 𝖲𝗈 𝖨 𝖺𝗆 𝖺 𝗌𝗒𝗆𝗉𝗍𝗈𝗆.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
𝖸𝖾𝗌. 𝖠𝗇𝖽 𝖺 𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗄𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝗌𝗒𝗆𝗉𝗍𝗈𝗆. 𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗄 𝖺 𝗅𝗈𝗍 𝖻𝖾𝖼𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖾 𝗌𝗈𝗆𝖾𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗈 𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀𝖾𝗋 𝗌𝖾𝗍𝗍𝗅𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖺𝗌 𝗂𝗍 𝗎𝗌𝖾𝖽 𝗍𝗈. 𝖫𝖾𝗍’𝗌 𝗌𝖺𝗒 𝗋𝖺𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋, 𝖺 𝗌𝗂𝗀𝗇 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗇 𝖺 𝗌𝗒𝗆𝗉𝗍𝗈𝗆.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫
𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝖺𝗅𝗌𝗈 𝖺𝖼𝖼𝗎𝗌𝖾 𝗆𝖾 𝗈𝖿 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝗏𝗈𝗄𝗂𝗇𝗀 “𝖺-𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇.” 𝖳𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾, 𝖨 𝖿𝖾𝖾𝗅 𝖺 𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗍𝗅𝖾 𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗐𝗁𝖾𝗅𝗆𝖾𝖽. 𝖨 𝖺𝗅𝗋𝖾𝖺𝖽𝗒 𝖽𝗈 𝖺 𝗅𝗈𝗍 𝗈𝖿 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗀𝗌, 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗄𝗇𝗈𝗐.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
𝖠-𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝗒𝗈𝗎𝗋 𝗐𝗈𝗋𝗄. 𝖠𝗇𝖽 𝗂𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝗍𝖺𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗈𝗉𝗁𝖾. 𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗈𝖼𝖼𝖺𝗌𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝗂𝗍. 𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝗆𝖺𝗄𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖼𝖾𝗉𝗍𝗂𝖻𝗅𝖾 𝖺 𝗓𝗈𝗇𝖾 𝗐𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗈 𝗅𝗈𝗇𝗀𝖾𝗋 𝗌𝗎𝖿𝖿𝗂𝖼𝗂𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝗍𝗈 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝖼𝗋𝗂𝖻𝖾 𝗐𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝖺𝗍 𝗉𝗅𝖺𝗒 𝗂𝗇 𝖽𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗋𝖾. 𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗇 𝖺𝗇 𝗈𝗎𝗍-𝗈𝖿-𝖿𝗂𝖾𝗅𝖽. 𝖲𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗈𝗉𝗅𝖾 𝗋𝗎𝗌𝗁 𝗂𝗇, 𝗃𝗈𝗎𝗋𝗇𝖾𝗒, 𝗅𝗂𝗏𝖾.
𝖨𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝖾𝖼𝖾𝗌𝗌𝖺𝗋𝗒 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖼𝖺𝗉𝗂𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗍 𝗈𝗏𝖾𝗋𝖻𝗂𝖽𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗈𝗇 𝗌𝖾𝗑, 𝖺𝗌 𝖺 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝗂𝗆𝗉𝗈𝗌𝖾𝖽 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗇 𝖼𝗁𝗈𝗌𝖾𝗇 𝖺𝗅𝗂𝖾𝗇𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌, 𝖿𝗂𝗇𝖽 𝗌𝗈𝗆𝖾 𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗂𝗇𝗀𝗌 𝗐𝗁𝖾𝗋𝖾 𝖿𝗋𝖾𝖾𝖽𝗈𝗆 𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝗏𝖺𝗂𝗇𝗅𝗒 𝗁𝗈𝗉𝖾𝖽 𝖿𝗈𝗋.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫
𝖨 𝗇𝗈𝗍𝗂𝖼𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗐𝗂𝗅𝗅𝗂𝗇𝗀𝗅𝗒 𝖽𝗂𝗌𝗉𝖾𝗇𝗌𝖾 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁 𝗌𝖾𝗑𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝗈𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗇𝗍𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇. 𝖸𝖾𝗍, 𝗂𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗄𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖾𝗋.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
𝖨𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗄𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖺 𝖼𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖾𝗋, 𝗒𝖾𝗌. 𝖨𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗄𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗂𝖽𝖾𝗇𝗍𝗂𝗍𝗒. 𝖨𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝗄𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗉𝗈𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗂𝖼𝗌. 𝖡𝗎𝗍 𝗂𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝗆𝖺𝗄𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖺 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗈𝗋𝗒 𝗈𝖿 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗎𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗎𝗌. 𝖣𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗋𝖾 𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝗇𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗆𝗉𝖺𝗌𝗌, 𝗈𝗇𝗅𝗒 𝖽𝖾𝗍𝗈𝗎𝗋𝗌 — 𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗇 𝖼𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖾𝖽 𝖻𝗒 𝗈𝖻𝗃𝖾𝖼𝗍 𝖺, 𝗐𝗁𝗂𝖼𝗁 𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝖺 𝗐𝖺𝗍𝖾𝗋 𝗐𝗂𝗇𝗀, 𝖻𝗎𝗍 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗌𝗉𝗅𝗂𝗍 𝗌𝖾𝖺 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖮𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗋 𝗈𝗉𝖾𝗇𝖾𝖽 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁𝗈𝗎𝗍 𝖬𝗈𝗌𝖾𝗌, 𝗇𝗈𝗋 𝖻𝗒 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗅𝖺𝖼𝗄 𝖺𝗌 𝗅𝗂𝖻𝖾𝗋𝖺𝗅𝗂𝗌𝗆 𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝗆𝖺𝖽𝖾 𝗂𝗍 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍 𝗈𝖿 𝖺𝗇 𝖾𝗆𝗉𝗍𝗂𝗇𝖾𝗌𝗌 𝗍𝗈 𝖻𝖾 𝖿𝗂𝗅𝗅𝖾𝖽: 𝗂𝗇 𝗉𝗋𝗈𝖿𝗈𝗎𝗇𝖽 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗍𝗋𝖺𝖽𝗂𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖾𝗑-𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝗈𝖿 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗎𝗇𝖼𝗈𝗇𝗌𝖼𝗂𝗈𝗎𝗌.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫
𝖫𝖺𝗌𝗍 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝗌𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇, 𝖻𝖾𝖼𝖺𝗎𝗌𝖾 𝖨 𝗁𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝖺𝗇 𝖺𝗉𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗇𝗍𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝗐𝗂𝗍𝗁 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗂𝗍𝗒: 𝗐𝗁𝗈 𝖺𝗋𝖾 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅𝗅𝗒 𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖺𝗄𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗍𝗈 𝗐𝗁𝖾𝗇 𝗒𝗈𝗎 𝗐𝗋𝗂𝗍𝖾 𝖺𝗅𝗅 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗌?
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫
𝖳𝗁𝖾𝗇, 𝖺 𝗅𝖺𝗌𝗍 𝗐𝗈𝗋𝖽 𝖺𝖻𝗈𝗎𝗍 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝗂𝗍𝗒. 𝖸𝗈𝗎 𝗄𝗇𝗈𝗐, 𝖽𝖾𝖺𝗋 𝖦𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋, 𝗍𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝖿𝗈𝗋𝗆𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗈𝗋𝗒 𝗈𝖿 𝗀𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖺𝖽𝗏𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖾𝖽 𝖻𝗒 𝖩𝗎𝖽𝗂𝗍𝗁 𝖡𝗎𝗍𝗅𝖾𝗋 𝗂𝗌 𝖽𝖾𝖼𝗅𝖺𝗋𝖾𝖽 𝗈𝗎𝗍𝖽𝖺𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝖻𝗒 𝗁𝖾𝗋𝗌𝖾𝗅𝖿, 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝗋𝖾𝗉𝗅𝖺𝖼𝖾𝖽. 𝖶𝖾 𝗍𝖺𝗅𝗄 𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗍𝗅𝖾 𝖺𝖻𝗈𝗎𝗍 𝗂𝗍, 𝗒𝖾𝗍 𝗂𝗍 𝗂𝗌 𝗇𝗈𝗍 𝗇𝗈𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗀: 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖿𝗋𝗎𝗂𝗍𝖿𝗎𝗅 𝗍𝗁𝖾𝗈𝗋𝗒 𝗈𝖿 1992, 𝗐𝗁𝗂𝖼𝗁 𝗌𝗎𝗉𝗉𝗈𝗋𝗍𝖾𝖽 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖽𝖾𝗏𝖾𝗅𝗈𝗉𝗆𝖾𝗇𝗍 𝗈𝖿 𝗊𝗎𝖾𝖾𝗋 𝗍𝗁𝗈𝗎𝗀𝗁𝗍 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝗀𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝗌𝗍𝗎𝖽𝗂𝖾𝗌, 𝗁𝖺𝗌 𝗋𝖾𝖺𝖼𝗁𝖾𝖽 𝖺 𝗌𝗍𝗈𝗉𝗉𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝗉𝗈𝗂𝗇𝗍. 𝖶𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝖽𝗈 𝗐𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗄 𝗈𝖿 𝗂𝗍? 𝖶𝗁𝖺𝗍 𝖽𝗈 𝗐𝖾 𝗍𝗁𝗂𝗇𝗄 𝗈𝖿 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝗍𝗋𝖺𝗇𝗌 𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗌𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗏𝖾 𝗐𝗁𝗂𝖼𝗁, 𝖺𝗅𝗈𝗇𝖾, 𝗋𝖾𝗌𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗌 𝗍𝗁𝖾 𝖾𝗑𝗉𝖾𝗋𝗂𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾?
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫
𝖯𝖾𝗋𝖿𝖾𝖼𝗍. 𝖨 𝗁𝖺𝗍𝖾 𝗍𝗈 𝖼𝗈𝗇𝖼𝗅𝗎𝖽𝖾.
𝖦𝖾𝗇𝖽𝖾𝗋 𝖾𝗑𝗂𝗍𝗌.
𝐄𝐍𝐃
While awaiting the release of the book From Gender to A-Sexuation, at the end of February, here is a final imagined interview with the author. This time, after the Other, Gender, and the Phallus, it is the Psychoanalyst who asks the questions.
The Psychoanalyst
I’ll be direct. Reading you, I felt that this book attacks what sustains us. Not just concepts, but the very position of the psychoanalyst. Is this intentional?
The Author
Yes. If what sustains you is threatened, then the book has hit its mark. I am not aiming for the destruction of psychoanalysis, but for the testing of what it clings to in order not to hear what is already displacing it in its practice.
The Psychoanalyst
You sometimes give the impression that the markers we work with — phallus, sexuation, castration — no longer hold. For many analysts, this is a red line.
The Author
I am not saying they no longer hold. I am saying that they no longer hold alone, nor as before. To maintain them as guarantees is to transform operators into talismans. However, contemporary clinical practice shows that these markers are increasingly often overwhelmed — and this overflow produces real effects in treatments.
The Psychoanalyst
You understand that this can be perceived as an attack. One might feel that you are taking away from the analyst what founded their legitimacy.
The Author
Above all, I am removing the illusion that it was given once and for all. Analytic legitimacy does not come from concepts, but from what one accepts to risk with them. When they cease to be risked, they become narcissistic protections.
The Psychoanalyst
You speak of displacement, but some will say: it’s a disguised abandonment. Where does the displacement stop? At what point does one leave psychoanalysis?
The Author
One leaves it the moment one ceases to be affected by it. As long as the displacement operates from the analytic experience, it is not a departure, but a demanding fidelity. It is the refusal to move that constitutes, in my eyes, the true departure.
The Psychoanalyst
Your refusal to support your argument with clinical cases reinforces this concern. Without cases, how can we verify what you are asserting?
The Author
The case has become an alibi. It too often serves to close the discussion rather than open it. I chose not to hide behind exemplary vignettes, but to let clinical practice permeate the text differently. This exposes more — both the author and the reader — and it is precisely this risk that many prefer to avoid.
The Psychoanalyst
You introduce new notions — a-sexuation, new discourses — which give the impression of a re-foundation. This is where the threat becomes real.
The Author
I understand this fear. But these notions do not found anything. They signal points of saturation. They indicate that certain constructions no longer allow us to think about what is at stake today in social bonds and in the sexual. To propose nothing would be to act as if these impasses did not exist.
The Psychoanalyst
Reading you, one might wonder what remains of the analyst’s function. If everything is wavering, what still holds?
The Author
Precisely: their ability to hold without guarantee. Not to confuse oneself with a position of knowledge. To accept that what they call theory is always behind what they listen to. It is not comfortable, but that is where psychoanalysis has always found its strength.
The Psychoanalyst
You seem to be saying that our anxiety is the very sign that something is at work.
The Author
Yes. A psychoanalysis that no longer feels threatened is a psychoanalysis already normalized. The discomfort you describe is not a side effect of the book: it is the very place where psychoanalysis can still transform itself.
The Psychoanalyst
What you propose demands a lot. Perhaps too much.
The Author
Psychoanalysis has always demanded too much. That is what distinguishes it from a reassuring technique. It only holds where one accepts not to know in advance what, of it, will survive.
The Psychoanalyst falls silent.
This silence is not an agreement.
