As pulsões e a (in)determinação nas psicanálises de Freud e Lacan : elementos para uma leitura abrasileirada da psicopatologia e seus litorais

Abstract

Reasoning about psychoanalytical psychopathology is a task we cannot run away from. If there is a psychopathology to be upheld, such a perspective is neither easily substantiated nor unconditionally accepted in one’s culture. Actually, it is more and more essential, given the path taken by psychiatry and psychology towards the neurosciences and symptomatology fields, and due to internal clashes observed within psychoanalysis itself. Dualisms deriving from the Cartesian tradition, such as body and soul, somatic and psychic, nature and culture, reappear as great novelties and bring along promises that mostly cease, rather than enrich, this debate. We seem to return to the old medical one-sidedness, according to which, only what is somatic can produce symptoms and effects on individuals’ psyche. Unlike the discourse emerging in contemporary times, we herein advocate that these dichotomies are insufficient/unsustainable, mainly (a) when we approach concepts of trauma and their association with historicity; (b) when we question psychic suffering as the “littoral” of anomie and indetermination between the discontent of jouissance and the knowledge-truth of the symptom; (c) when we talk about clinical structures and their supposed ontological fixity towards historical and contingent variety; (d) when we address symptoms as claim to society and to the current order, rather than as deficit; or yet, (e) when we debate social and contemporary pathologies as manifestation forms located in space-time. Thus, the aim of the current study is to propose a reading to enable differentiating biomedical diseases from psychopathologies, based on the awareness that we must move away from dichotomous understanding, mainly in case of psychopathologies. Therefore, by addressing psychoanalytic psychopathology, we bet on (1) the proposition of inseparability between ontology and epistemology, based on which, we get dialectical realism or dynamic nominalism. However, such a bet on inseparability does not enable the unitary understanding about psychopathology. It is about affirming (2) the “littoral” condition of the “real, truth and knowledge” triplet, which we similarly describe as our rock, sea and sand; these distinctions should not be erased by means of dyads or units in psychoanalysis. Finally, (3) we defend the biopsychosocial triad as way of reading both the Freudian and the Lacanian psychopathologies. These three psychopathology-reading propositions could only be substantiated by the concept of drive and by its origin. Based on the “unfamiliar” of the drive, we approach the aesthetic dimension of the death drive in Freud, which is the one that mostly interests us, since it leads to abnormal, anomie, mutant, indetermination figures understood as the likelihood to deform and criticize the ego dimension. Unlike the historical-political and/or biological dimensions of the death drive, which would lead organic and social individuals to the suicidal condition, Freud and Lacan point towards indetermination in its political aspect. It is a revolution towards the self, as well as towards individual and social structures, and it enables formalizing a critique of Biopolitics and Necropolitics, which are psychic suffering-management models recently made famous by Neoliberalism. Thus, we propose recovering the historical-political and biological matrix of psychoanalysis through the aesthetic dimension of the death drive, since, due to its “littoral” condition, the aesthetic matrix enables affirming both the ontological-epistemological indissociability and the “real, truth and knowledge” triad. Finally, we see the possibility of ‘Brazilianizing’ psychoanalysis to avoid insisting in Eurocentric (reductionist) readings that are not capable of understanding both the complexity of, and difference between, black and indigenous people, as well as their multiculturalist and multi-naturalist perspective. This is how we announce the “littorals” of Brazilian psychoanalysis, in comparison to other cultural knowledge sets.