From de Clérambault's Theory of Mental Automatism to Lacan's Theory of the Psychotic Structure

Abstract

In 1966, in a paper on those who have influenced his work, Jacques Lacan suggested that his concept of ‘paranoid knowledge’ and his structural approach to psychoanalysis were closely linked to the work of Gaëtan Gatian de Clérambault. This article examines both of these points. Starting with an introduction to de Clérambault, focusing on his concept ‘mental automatism,’ the link between ‘mental automatism’ and ‘paranoid knowledge’ is discussed. Loyalty to Henri Claude and conflicts around theoretical and clinical issues seem to lie at the basis of Lacan's initial neglect of his conceptual indebtedness to de Clérambault. Second, the author discusses the presumed connection between mental automatism and Lacan's structural psychoanalytic theory, which Lacan did not elaborate. It is argued that from a structural perspective, mental automatism comes down to a rupture in the continuity of the signifying chain, which provokes the disappearance of the subject. Furthermore, Lacan's theory implies the hypothesis that manifestations of mental automatism are determined by a foreclosure of the Name-of-the-Father, where questions related to existence cannot be addressed in a stable way. Lacanian theory thus retained de Clérambault's notion of a rupture in mental life that lies at the basis of psychosis, but replaced his biological framework with the dimension of the subject as produced through speech.

Negative symptoms in psychosis: failure and construction of narratives

“…As Lacanian psychoanalysis inspired our data analysis, our results are most in line with a conceptualization of negative symptoms as a confrontation with a lack in the so-called Symbolic register (i.e. the domain of language which helps us to structure and make sense of our world and mental life) (Vanheule, 2011(Vanheule, , 2018. The perplexity which accompanies psychotic experiences is as such literally due to a lack of words for these experiences.…”

Content Matters, a Qualitative Analysis of Verbal Hallucinations

“…However, in the meantime, they define the subject with respect to the question at stake. These elements thus get nonetheless a significant meaning for the subject ( Vanheule, 2018 ). As such, Lacanian theory gives a nice example of the interplay between content and formal disturbances.…”

Listening Between the Lines: How a Theoretical Framework Prevents Superficial Analysis in Qualitative Research

“…Indeed, in Lacanian psychoanalytical terms, negative symptoms can be understood as the result of a confrontation with perplexing experiences, which cannot be accounted for by means of language. (Vanheule, 2018). Due to this linguistic impossibility, people might feel disconnected from their own experiences and the world, which in turn might lead to disinterest and passivity.…”