Néstor Braunstein, in Depuis Freud, Après Lacan (2008), proposes a periodization of the history of psychoanalysis through the lens of Lacanian discourse theory. His tripartite schema maps not just internal psychoanalytic developments, but also larger transformations in the social-symbolic order. Here’s a breakdown of what Braunstein likely means in each phase:
1. The Year 1900 – Freud’s Era – Discourse of the Master
- What it refers to: Freud’s time inaugurates psychoanalysis under the discourse of the Master (as theorized later by Lacan), in which authority, tradition, and repression dominate.
- Characteristics:
- The subject is shaped by repressive authority (e.g., paternal law, Victorian morality).
- Symptoms are seen as compromise formations arising from repression.
- Psychoanalysis appears as a subversive yet structured critique of this authority.
- The Master’s discourse: Here, knowledge (S2) serves the Master’s signifier (S1), and the barred subject ($) is subordinated to law and prohibition. Truth is veiled beneath the Master’s assertion.
2. The Year 1950 – Lacan’s Time – Discourse of the Capitalist
- Historical context: Post-WWII reconstruction, economic boom, rise of consumer society, and the emergence of mass media and technoscience.
- What it implies: Lacan, during this time, identifies the emergence of a modified or perverse version of the Master’s discourse—what he calls the discourse of the Capitalist, where:
- Traditional authority erodes, replaced by commodity logic.
- Desire is manipulated and repackaged as consumable demand.
- The subject is promised enjoyment (jouissance) rather than regulation.
- In psychoanalysis: The ego-psychology trend, with its alignment to adaptation, reflects this—treating the subject as a client or consumer to be adjusted to societal norms rather than subverted.
- Lacan critiques this move: He warns of psychoanalysis becoming servant to capital, losing its subversive edge.
3. The Year 2000 – Our Present Age – Discourse of the Markets
- The shift Braunstein marks: From identifiable structures (Master, Capitalist) to the anonymous, decentered, algorithmic rule of the Markets.
- What changes:
- There is no longer a “Master” figure nor even a symbolic Big Other; instead, the market functions as a network of impersonal drives, opaque and everywhere.
- The subject is no longer merely repressed or manipulated—it is tracked, profiled, and governed through data.
- Enjoyment is no longer transgressive; it is mandatory, automated, and surveilled.
- Implication for psychoanalysis: The analytic clinic risks being assimilated into performance metrics, optimization discourse, and consumer satisfaction models. What’s lost is the question of desire—replaced by the imperative to function and produce effects.
- Braunstein’s critique is that psychoanalysis must resist being fully absorbed by this market logic; it must remain a site of interruption, opacity, and truth, rather than efficiency and transparency.
Summary
Braunstein’s periodization isn’t simply historical—it’s discursive and structural, aligned with Lacan’s theory of four (and later, five) discourses. Each era reflects a dominant social link:
|
Period |
Symbolic Order |
Discourse Type |
Subject Condition |
|
1900 |
Tradition / Authority |
Discourse of the Master |
Repression under paternal law |
|
1950 |
Consumption / Ego |
Discourse of the Capitalist |
Adaptation to desire managed by market logic |
|
2000 |
Network / Algorithm |
Discourse of the Markets |
Fragmented subject governed by data and performance imperatives |
Would you like me to expand this analysis in dialogue with thinkers like Bernard Stiegler, Byung-Chul Han, or Franco Berardi, who also reflect on the psychic effects of market-era logics?
