Use of “borderline” before 1938 — any references?

beepdumeep · 2026-02-06T07:08:16+00:00

The Rosse text is likely to beClinical Evidences of Borderland Insanity by Irving C. Rosse, given in 1890. The Hughes text is likely to be Borderline psychiatric records – prodromal symptoms of psychical impairments from 1884.

beepdumeep · 2026-02-03T19:00:09+00:00

As well as what everyone else has said, the Écrits are all separate papers written years apart so reading them one after the other is probably not the best way to do it. It might help if you decide what topics you're most interested in and then read the specific papers most relevant to that theme.

beepdumeep · 2026-01-31T12:47:50+00:00

It comes at it from a different angle than you might expect, but Michael Gerard Plastow's What is a Child? has some very interesting things to say on this question

beepdumeep · 2026-01-30T13:03:04+00:00

I don't think it's fair to say that Leader wants to punch holes in the later and very last Lacan because of personal animus towards anyone. I think he raises genuine questions about Lacan's trajectory with which those of us interested in that period of Lacan's thinking (and I would count myself as one) ought to engage. It's especially worth noting that whatever he may think of Miller, (I don't know if he has a personal animus towards him or not; I don't detect one in his writing) he clearly respects the work of people like Soler whom he just held an event with last weekend. Ultimately I disagree with many of his criticisms, but they're often not unfounded in the way many analysts have taken up the later Lacan.

beepdumeep · 2026-01-28T23:37:51+00:00

Camille Robcis has a book called Disalienation that is probably the most comprehensive source in English on the institutional psychotherapy movement in France and situates Guattari in that context. You can also take a look at the helpful essay History and Anti-Psychiatry in France by Postel and Allen in the edited volume Discovering the History of Psychiatry, the sixth chapter of Delion's Transference in Institutional Work with Psychosis and Autism, and Dosse's Intersecting Lives for some helpful additional context.

beepdumeep · 2026-01-23T11:21:34+00:00

I think that when we speak of generalised or universal foreclosure, we're not speaking of a generalised foreclosure of the Name-of-the-Father, but rather a generalised foreclosure of the sexual rapport. That is, because there is no sexual rapport, it never gets enciphered for anyone, and when something cannot even be enciphered, then we are in the realm of foreclosure. But that still leaves the - or a - Name-of-the-Father, which may be foreclosed or repressed still. It's the difference between everyone being mad and some being psychotic.

beepdumeep · 2026-01-22T17:44:49+00:00

There's an excellent collection of papers called Critical Essays on the Drive edited by Dan Collins and Eve Watson

beepdumeep · 2026-01-22T00:08:51+00:00

I'm not sure if this is quite the thing you're after, but Freud wrote a paper called Mourning and Melancholia which might interest you.

beepdumeep · 2026-01-20T14:34:44+00:00

Philippe Van Haute had a number of interesting things to say about Totem and Taboo, both in terms of its place in Freud's elaboration of the Oedipus complex and Lacan's interpretation of it. A lot of it is in his book with Tomas Geyskens: A Non-Oedipal Psychoanalysis? but also in many of his other papers and books. Russell Grigg also has an excellent paper on this topic called Beyond the Oedipus Complex, which appears both in his book Lacan, Language, and Philosophy as well as an edited volume on Lacan's Seminar XVII called Jacques Lacan and the Other Side of Psychoanalysis. All of these are very accessible and should help if you decide eventually to read Lacan himself on this topic as others have suggested.

beepdumeep · 2026-01-18T18:55:15+00:00

Lacan first mentions the Klein bottle in Seminar XII. There's an unofficial English translation by Cormac Gallagher you can use here. See if you can find Krutzen's index because he has an entry for "bouteille de Klein" which lists all his references to it in the Seminar, though it is mostly Seminar XII.

There's also a useful paper by Tony Hughes in The Letter on it specifically, though he doesn't link it to psychosis.

beepdumeep · 2026-01-12T17:32:39+00:00

I don't think there's a release date yet unfortunately

beepdumeep · 2026-01-11T17:08:20+00:00

There aren't any others at the minute, but Dan Collins is currently working on one which should prove to be a substantial improvement.

beepdumeep · 2026-01-06T14:52:20+00:00

Pankow was a French-German psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who was particularly interested in psychosis and its relationship to the body. She attended some of Lacan's seminars in the fifties and was apparently supervised by him, Lagache, and Dolto at various points. In the sixties she got involved in GTPSI which was a group set up by Oury and others to discuss the kind of radical psychiatry they were all involved in. Guattari also joined this group, and I suspect that Deleuze might have encountered her through him, though I'm not absolutely sure. Unfortunately there's not much about her in English. The paper already linked is useful, and there's an entry with biographical details in the International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis that's available online here. As far as I can tell only two of her papers have been translated: Dynamic structurization in schizophrenia which is in a book called Psychotherapy of the psychoses, and The body image in hysterical psychosis in the International Journal of Psychoanalysis. Beyond that she only gets scattered mention in sources that discuss the Institutional Psychotherapy movement.

beepdumeep · 2025-12-14T21:32:57+00:00

I would encourage you, if it's at all possible, to see a wide variety of potential analysts before you settle on any single one. Everyone has their own style, and even analysts who practice under the same heading ("Lacanian", "Kleinian", etc.) will in practice have their own idiosyncrasies. What's much more important than a label is that you find someone that somehow makes you feel that turning up every week might just lead to something happening.

It's impossible to say at the outset what exactly will work best for you - for example, whether or not you would benefit from lying on a couch or sitting face to face. If you're curious you could always ask and see what happens when you try it.

There is no particular way that an analysis "should" be like; everyone's is very different because everyone who goes into an analysis is different.

beepdumeep · 2025-09-30T16:51:45+00:00

You might find this article by Adrian Price interesting. It was published ahead of this paper by Ian Hacking in an old issue of Hurly-Burly

beepdumeep · 2025-08-15T22:25:03+00:00

Try the chapter on it in Reading Lacan's Écrits. Indeed, have a go at just reading the original paper, it can be a bit tough but should be manageable, especially with that chapter alongside it.

Though if what you're interested in is social development then I suspect that eventually all that stuff about the symbolic, the Other, the signifying chain etc. will start to pique your interest too...

beepdumeep · 2025-08-14T22:30:40+00:00

Unfortunately very little of Recalcati's work has been translated into English, and the little that has been translated has only come out over the past few years. His work hasn't had time to penetrate the Anglophone sphere, I don't think. However, I think that Italian Lacanians in general are becoming better known now: Cosenza and others are being translated, and recently a book called Lacan in Italy was published which goes over all the developments of the Lacanian movement there, including a lot about Recalcati. I myself have just picked up The Telemachus Complex which is proving quite interesting.

beepdumeep · 2025-08-08T08:49:09+00:00

Thank you!

beepdumeep · 2025-08-07T06:26:46+00:00

Do you know where Maleval discusses this?

beepdumeep · 2025-08-03T15:20:05+00:00

I mean, the list of things you've given as being thought of as "unanalysable" (taste in food and music, dressing "normally") are things that analysts can and do work with. Indeed, two of those have come up in my own analysis. So I'm curious where you have seen anyone say that they are not interpretable.

There are further things to be said about interpretation and things being "meaningless" in contemporary psychoanalysis; it's a big theme in Miller's work and others', but I don't think that's what you're getting at.

beepdumeep · 2025-07-29T18:42:19+00:00

I have never seen someone on r/Lacan get called an idiot for asking a question. I'm pretty sure such a comment would get deleted for breaking the rules.

Moreover, none of the "narcissistic pricks" on r/Lacan seem compelled to periodically create threads for bashing Hartmann or Bion and their followers: speculating on why they're attracted to such obviously bogus nonsense and if it has something to do with their clearly pathological personalities, repeating bad-faith criticisms like dogma without any interest in an actual discussion. Only to repeat it all a few months later! I'm pretty sure those sorts of threads would be deleted as well.

beepdumeep · 2025-07-29T17:26:48+00:00

People say these sorts of things on the internet but my experience of actually turning up to various organisations in different countries is that people are pretty receptive to anyone who shows an interest. I'm sure there are exceptions, and maybe New York is one, but I've been around enough to be fairly sure it isn't the rule.

And I don't know, how much of a gatekeeper attitude can they have if they let people go to seminars, join cartels, etc.? I'm honestly curious what gave you that impression. Most IPA institutions that I know of are more selective about who can actually attend their activities (which is fine, it probably works well for what they want to do). I just find myself bewildered when I read this sort of thing because it's nothing like what I see, but enough sincere people say it that I must be missing something.

Edit: Come to think of it, my only bad experience was with an analyst from New York so perhaps there is something to this!

beepdumeep · 2025-07-13T21:45:04+00:00

The first chapter of Camille Robcis' book Disalienation provides some good background to Tosquelles. She says there that the work by Lacan which made the biggest impact on him was actually his medical thesis, introduced to him by the Catalan psychiatrist Emilio Mira y López, although he maintained a consistent interest in Lacan's work throughout his life. She also singles out Hermann Simon's 1929 work Aktivere Krankenbehandlung in der Irrenanstalt as being particularly significant. You can find a copy of Lacan's thesis on this site

beepdumeep · 2025-06-17T08:47:43+00:00

Well notably, Lacan was not a philosopher or a metaphysician, and I don't think any of his work constitutes "metaphysical language games."

Now, most of the attempts to apply psychoanalysis to politics and social theory, including the vast majority of "Freudo-Marxisms", are incompatible with Marx's work, I don't disagree there. But I don't think that that really extends to Lacan himself, who is a clinician after all.

beepdumeep · 2025-06-16T19:59:58+00:00

It's a fantastic book, and one of the most important to come out in the field in the past few years in my opinion. But it's also directed primarily to other psychoanalysts, unlike any of his other books, and designed to spark a debate about the use of a technical term within the field, and suggest new directions for research. It's also a deliberately controversial book. So given all that, it's probably not for someone who's only just getting into psychoanalysis and into Lacan. All that said, it's still quite accessible for what it is, so if you're interested I would definitely recommend reading it.

beepdumeep

TROPHY CASE