. The statement [énoncé] falls necessarily short of the utterance [énonciation]; in stating something, it does not state the truth.
It should be evident by now that the notion of hysteria as a riddle has more than descriptive value: hysteria is not today's riddle which might be solved tomorrow. Hysteria is a riddle, and remains a riddle. Nothing truer can be stated of a riddle than: "It is a riddle."
Paradoxically, the only true answer to the question "What is hysteria?" is not answering it. There are two possible positions: (i) answer the question and produce knowledge; or (ii) speak the truth but don't answer the question.
[
]
The hysteric embodies the division between subject and object in a particular way. As subject she incites desire; but when this desire moves towards the object that causes it, the hysteric cannot condescend to be this object. She incites man to know what causes his desire, inciting him to acknowledge her as the inaccessible object of his desire.
This intrigue of the hysteric is open to everyday observation. Offering her charms, she captivates the man. She provokes his desire, then suddenly disappoints it; she retreats at the very moment hen he risks a response to her advances: being the object of his desire is the position she cannot endure. Her game is to present herself as desirable; but when this offer is taken seriously, she withdraws and will not have been what one thought she was.
[
]
Here the castrating dimension of the hysteric's game becomes evident. Pushing man towards knowledge [pousse-à-savoir], she also pushes him towards failure [pousse-au-manque]: the man involved with her always finds himself stupid [manque-à-savoir]. But the erratic quality of the hysteric's discourse derives more from the structure which necessitates hysteria than from the hysteric who asks to be interpreted in terms of the structure.
Hysteria is an elementary effect of language. As an intelligible phenomenon it follows from the structure of the Demand. This structure, in fact, is identical with hysteria. Immersed in language, the subject is hysterical as such. While Freud took hysteria to be the nucleus of all neurotic disorders, Lacan has revealed the speaking subject as fundamentally hysterical: the only subject of psychoanalysis is the barred, unconscious, hysterical subject.
It then appears no longer sufficient to conceive of hysteria as a fact of language among others; it is the fact of language if we admit that whoever speaks is hysterical. We can go further and say that the subject demands to be recognized as a fact of language (see the formula "Tell me who I am --> I am what you say.") The hysteric not only requests that language be used as a means for explaining her; she also insists on being acknowledged as a being of speech. Freud fulfilled this demand, and so did Lacan.
The connection of hysteria and psychoanalysis is structural and not historical: the subject, insofar as it demands to be recognized as an effect of language, lines up with the analyst, whose existence is sustained by the fact that language has effects. This constitutes his knowledge, or rather the knowledge the hysteric attributes to him. The hysteric is not a Subject privileged by and for analysis, and yet psychoanalysis could only emerge with the hysteric as subject. This does not explain why analysis was invented by Freud, but provides the structural reason for its emergence. As we said, there are two possible subjective positions regarding the hysteric: (i) The position of medicine; by playing the hysteric's game, this position produces a body of knowledge from which the hysteric: (i) The position of medicine; by playing the hysteric's game, this position produces a body of knowledge from which the riddle drops out. (ii) Freud's position which consists in a non-response to the riddle, or rather the silent response: "It's a riddle." This silence is a structural position, and not only an incitement to speak. It is a response, and knowledge is produced; but adequate to the truth, the response does not answer the Demand. The statement "It's a riddle" stands for a knowledge that functions as truth. (This could be the definition of psychoanalytic interpretation.) As a matter of fact, the analyst's silence might lead to a reverse hysterization, inasmuch as the analyst, by becoming a riddle himself, commands the subject to produce knowledge about him. As a result, the riddle includes the knowledge of the riddle, and this knowledge cannot be articulated.
It is Freud's historical achievement not to have fabricated new knowledge to more adequately or more elegantly account for hysteria. He came upon a knowledge that does not know itself, the unconscious; his break with the past was recognizing a knowledge that speaks by itself.
The hysteric renders unfeasible any enterprise based on the teleological organization of different kinds of knowledge. She banalizes the bits and pieces of knowledge, challenging not so much their content as the place from which they are pronounced. All medical knowledge is the same for her, whether it be Hippocrates' wandering uterus or Charcot's missing lesion. Between the two, centuries of patient and learned efforts, thousands of pages of theses, of analyses, of conclusions.
We suggest that history's judgment on Charcot's studies of hysteria must not be understood as the failure of a particular theory or approach but, on the contrary, as marking a point of no return. Charcot's paradigmatic failure is that of knowledge as knowledge about the hysteric.
What can be seen from her history, then, is not only that the hysteric resists being apprehended as an object of science, but that she cannot serve as such an object because the knowledge she embodies is precisely unknowable. Freud's identification with the hysteric has more than biographical relevance: by putting himself in her place, his knowledge about her was produced like a symptom--a knowledge speaking by itself. Knowledge about the hysteric is the knowledge of the hysteric.
Freud closed the discourse of the hysteric, or rather, opened it up, by establishing as irremediable the disjunction between subject and object. The invention of psychoanalysis proceeded from his position on the hysteric: he kept silent and let the symptom speak.
[
]
1. From LE MAITRE ET L'HYSTERIOUE. Paris: Navarin (1982), pp. 11-30. Translated [by Thelma Sowley] for LSN
with the friendly permission of the author.
This article is reproduced, in part, from HYSTORIA, Schulz-Keil, Helena (Ed.), New York: The New York Lacan
Study Group, 1988.
back up
2. The arrow indicates the direction of the message as well as the synchronic relation between two places. back up
3. Lacan opposes Demand and desire; Demand is addressed to the capital Other. cf. << Subversion of the Subject and the
Dialectic of Desire in the Freudian Unconscious >>, in: Jacques Lacan, ECRITS: A Selection, New York: W. W. Norton
(1977), p. 315 and passim. Editor's note. back up
4. Lacan puns Maître/m'ître. Editor's note. back up