LUCRETIA Zamboni
About this work and the experience of cartel
This paper presents a challenge to me as a strange and foreign, which has no definite form or final , of which I am part, I do not know very well that way. It represents the work of a complex one, complicated. A cartel is a device that I have not thoroughly investigated. It also articulated in a strange and foreign, individual and collectively. There was a brief tour, perhaps deep in the sense that it has touched our most genuine concern, but limited. Rather than raise questions has been the place to share and we brought those to confirm our doubts them forever. Institutional times also call for a bounded time and I have the feeling that everything has been incomplete. The need to tell about this experience is directly related to the content of this work, the challenge, responding to which I will try make this short tour, which do not recognize more than a fleeting impression.
There are so many names (titles) possible ...
When we started, the title of our lineup would have been something like "The speech asylums in the streets." The question was around about the figure of "crazy" about the social fabric that held it. Then think of the normal and the pathological: how we think about this issue from psychoanalysis? Become: how psychoanalysis lives in psychiatric institutions? Intervention appeared as a political practice. What about mental health? What about public health?
The problem of classification. How do we not qualify? NO is without rules. All regulation is collective. How rules can be normativizantes, regulations? How much discomfort do we stand? If there is an inherent discomfort, why suffering is the side of the disease? The stigmatization of mental illness and the naturalization of organic disease. The diagnosis is not necessarily the classification. Concept of health: each is warranted. The importance of place the patient in the disease. What is the possible welfare? Love and work, to Freud.
definitely the question of the limits we are made flesh: how far supports the body? This led us back to the subject of institutions. There are ways of suffering we need a institutional framework. He also built the institution suffering. Put aside the dichotomies, think: what is permitted / prohibited for a company? Social law, how far is traded? Natural that nothing is touching the point of greatest distress.
normal and pathological
institutions institution's speech in the dimensions of normal and pathological
normal and pathological institutions
The specificity of psychoanalysis in normal and pathological
The need
naming
The origin is the need to appoint, naming things, the material with which we work, as real as they carry is lost. There is not even things in the world, the word itself: something has been created by men. So that the fact that things take a name, we can name them to identify them as such is a product of necessity that forces us the work we do with these things. Trabajásemos even though the organism, with organic, we might say, all-natural, even then we could say that this material is objective, is really natural, as is traversed by our human work showing that distance between words and things.
So we can not ignore the names, we can not ignore the world of representation: There, according Marité Colovini, a production ritual of symbolic representations through which subjects are identified and identifiable in a culture. But the fact we need to appoint a problem, since the classification has ruled as a parameter to the standard universal and objective measurement. Hence you see the infraction, the deviation from this standard and we have built a nosography of things, so they can be identified not only identifiable but also framed, boxed, sorted and labeled. The problem of classification, I always heard that discrimination is not the same as segregation, "is that he has been asked addition to those names that contain a specific content. Everything in its place, but also with the claim that everything behaves as expected there, in a repetitive and pre-established. This classification can think about things turn on people. They settled their behaviors, their personalities, their ways of living and solving the problems of their worlds. Everything could be written with precision in a grid. The effect of this classification, people believed him and began to behave in a manner that followed the patterns of what was planned for each. The standardization was internalized, the control is made invisible. But always make noise within each person, that which runs from the box, what is truly their own and which does not conform to the requirement that program. That makes the noise is called desire. Subjective responsibility speaks
involvement with desire. We are absolutely responsible for stay in the place we played. We do not choose the place, but chose to stay or run. Speaking of responsibility points to a line of response: someone has made a choice. The choice is not aware, of course, is not a question of will. And that's a lot less forgiving. The legality unconscious showed us that we also do not know where we are and that the elections led by the desire may be the less visible, but always the most effective.
From the point of view of psychoanalysis, there is none other than the patient to say what's wrong with itself, since the analyst does not make sense, but it paves the way for the emerging sense of self is sufficiently analysand flexible to change. Canguilhem takes this in function of someone suffering from an organic disease, it argues that while the patient is not known as much himself-perhaps because they do not know what to do with what happens or does not know exactly what happens- ; about that happens, he is the only authorized to say that's wrong. The patient does not know the language of science and that is why put your trust in the doctor know so that it can amenguar pain so that you can relieve suffering. The patient's point of view is, basically, true.
"... the disease is entitled to suspect and to correct the view of the patient who thinks he knows too, that feels different, how and how he is different. Because the patient is obviously deceived about this second point, we can not conclude that they also lie about the first. "
The question of limits
normal as signaling category and rule establishing regulations. Expresses the requirements to be within and requirements to be outside. Is it expected given an ideal which, if completed, would involve the greatest benefits for those who get it. Indeed, according to Canguilhem's thesis, the disease is not quantitative expansion of health, but carrying different qualities. So, in a way, we would have no defined criteria for choosing one or another state. They are simply different, qualitatively different, and do not imply that the same order of preference.
"... the character of the disease is to be truly sick to walk another way in life."
course is better to be healthy to be sick, but as the word indicates-be-it's states, both momentary and transient. Existing both in the world. This suggests that there is no ideal "to be or what ought to be in the world, because there are two states, because the opposites co-exist, because all qualitative differences are part / s of this world.
"If there is any exception, it refers to the laws of naturalists and not the laws of nature because in nature all the species are what they should be to the extent that also have variety in unity and unity in variety. "
Everything is inside and what is outside are part / s of the world, separate and divide them according to the features each carries one of these items is segregated. Canguilhem argues that normal / pathology is an abstract classification is done, because it is not only the analysis of the physiological elements, but those categories mean value judgments. No fact is normal or pathological in itself. A living being is normal in a given environment and that environment is normal for that to be alive. No one can speak of normal or pathological without reference to the relationship with respect to which that fact, that event, that person may be called normal or pathological. This relationship calls for ethical and political position, in that it involves a decision regarding the value ideological assigned.
"We think there is medicine as an art of life because the same human being qualifies as pathological, therefore, as should be avoided or corrected-to certain states or behaviors seized, with respect to the dynamic polarity of life, as a negative value. "
Thus, the rule is, for me, as one form of the boundary. That is, the standardization of the characteristics of the elements of the set, people in this world, is presented as one of the ways that society has adopted to give itself its own limits, its own rules, established between the inside and the outside is a difference quantitatively according to the criteria of regularity, ie, depending on how often displayed these characteristics in those people, displayed these phenomena in the world.
In the limit, the forbidden
Why should it be banned? In the first instance we are not alone. There should be banned from places exist where permitted. When I say "everything in its place" I say, to establish a legal order "to know the rules-with which we can move. In the words of Legendre:
"... a (...) version of the Law Third, we can call social guarantees of the humanization of everyone."
is impossible all we are allowed. The forbidden acts at the end of the chain rules. So there are rules: Some things you can do and some do not.
"Parting from this idea: establish a reign is forbidden, and is not otherwise prohibited from imposing the sacrifice that for each one to make possible the differentiation required the deployment of generations. This is, in the West and elsewhere, that same forbidden to be built as the discourse that passes all subject. "
Negotiation is part of life. If we know there are places that are banned, we can see what they are and we can agree that they are such, then we know that there is something that we must sacrifice. For Freud's structural distress, the plight of everyday life, which we can not wait to be there, it happens. Is the price we must pay to be with others. The price paid is a waiver of the omnipotence of all, the symbolic castration of the subject.
Being exempted from these places, inaccessible to human beings for being part of the culture, because the world is not natural, but a world of language, makes us free. Free to choose between us, what we have, how we move and where, with whom, at what time. We are responsible to decide, collectively, how we manage it, at what dose and under what conditions. Then we will be responsible for choosing that place and also to stay. Decide how to organize ourselves, what games we play and what rules is what Castoriadis called autonomy. All regulation is collective. In my view, is the collective, the collective, that must undertake this task as an interpreter, which awarded the Legendre function of the boundary. The community is exercising this profession in order to mediate and make livable the relationship with the principle of the Law:
"Precisely this is the interpreter's task: to prevail in modern humanity as elsewhere and in all the time, the role of limit function linked to the fate of the species. (...) And what is subjective and socially, the role of limit? Exactly this: to play the imperative of differentiation, ie, put into action the logic of otherness, meet the challenge of such and the other ".
From the perspective of the constitution of the psyche, we think that the self is constituted as another. is another. is alienated, but then separated. We can not without the other, we are not ever "loose", which pretty word, though we Robinson. We are like in the mirror, a wishful vision of what we actually we are. "In truth we are We are there as well. The reality behind the mirror there is always the image that we see and look. Therefore it is necessary that the third instance. There is another, and not an Other. There are some others.
rules, which never put themselves function as the third instance we can not break if we keep playing. The institution, which is not the same as the institutionalization of these rules is the mechanism by which we can then move in the world, even if it is imaginary. The institutionalization of these rules has to do with the momentum in the standardization, since the rules become rigid and external, are not created by the community, but imposed from outside and maintain the obligation to respect them. People become stereotypes prefabricated, of which certain behaviors are expected. But this, as I said, is one form of the law. It is one form of the boundary.
Another form occurs when, accepting that we can not play without rules of the game, we play the game our way. When these rules are created within the community, with the agreement of the participants with knowledge in each of what everyone should sacrifice, what each one should lose, so each one must negotiate depending on the game, then those rules are not normativizantes, are facilitators of a transition less bitter, are more supportive of that discomfort inevitable. The pain that triggers a waiver drive can be mitigated because the others are just that, travel with us, playing the game with us, help us cope. Bibliography
1. Georges Canguilhem. Normal and pathological. DF, Mexico, 2005, Siglo XXI.
2. Pierre Legendre. Lesson VIII. Lortie Cape crime. Treaty father. DF, Mexico, 1994, Siglo XXI.
3. Eugenio Raúl Zaffaroni, Alejandro and Alejandro Slokar Alagia. Manual of Criminal Law. Chapter 1: Power punitive and criminal law and Chapter 21: The unenforceability of understanding of mental disability illegality. Bs As, 2005, Ediar.
4. Eduardo Cuadrado. "Case Ema." Introduction to Module Production State and Subjectivity, Chair Production of Subjectivity, University Experimental. School of Psychology, UNR, June 2006.
5. Marité Colovini. "The normal and pathological." Tuesday April 15, 2008. Source: www.clinicayactualidad.blogspot.com
6. Raquel Capurro. "Gay-Straight. Critique of a conceptual pair." Thursday April 24, 2008. Source: www.clinicayactualidad.blogspot.com
7. Marité Colovini. "Devices and substitution treatment." Paper presented at the Congress of Mental Health, Panel: Institutions, organized by the College of Psychologists of Entre Rios. Paraná, Entre Ríos, April 2003.
8. Marité Colovini. "Terms of practicality." Thursday April 10, 2008. Source: www.clinicayactualidad.blogspot.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment