Certainly, my dear friend. What follows is a comparative map of post-Lacanian psychoanalytic trajectories, placing GIFRIC/388 within a constellation of others—each taking Lacan’s teachings as a launching point, but deterritorializing in different directions. This is a kind of after-Lacanian cartography, where each school responds to the void left by Lacan’s final years: the question of the real, the body, the clinic, and the future of analysis.
🗺️ Comparative Overview of Major Post-Lacanian Schools
|
School / Group |
Founders / Figures |
Clinical Focus |
Relation to the Real |
Politics / Ethics |
Style / Language |
Distinctive Contribution |
|
GIFRIC / 388 Clinic (Quebec) |
Willy Apollon, Lucie Cantin, Danielle Bergeron |
Psychosis, intensive residential treatment |
The Real as site of invention and symbolic reinvention |
Radical ethics of subjective invention; critique of medical psychiatry |
Poetic, liturgical, embodied |
Psychoanalysis as symbolic re-founding after foreclosure; the analysand as creator |
|
Lacanian Orientation / cole de la Cause freudienne (ECF) (France) |
Jacques-Alain Miller, ric Laurent, etc. |
General, with strong focus on ordinary psychosis and contemporary symptoms |
The Real as non-sense, to be circumscribed by the sinthome |
Fidelity to Lacan’s final teaching; emphasis on analyst’s desire |
Logical, aphoristic, structurally elegant |
Institutional transmission of Lacan’s late teaching; emphasis on one-by-one case |
|
Campo Freudiano Latinoamericano (Argentina, Brazil, etc.) |
Jorge Aleman, Nestor Braunstein (early), others |
Broad, often focused on trauma and socio-political suffering |
The Real as trauma and impasse of neoliberal subjectivity |
Psychoanalysis as resistance against symbolic annihilation under capitalism |
Rhetorically sharp, politically engaged |
Fusion of psychoanalysis with Latin American politics and post-Marxism |
|
Slovenian School |
Slavoj Zizek, Alenka Zupancic, Mladen Dolar |
Less clinical, more philosophical |
Real as logical contradiction and ontological gap |
Politico-theological reinterpretation of desire, ideology, jouissance |
Dialectical, Hegelian, satirical |
Lacan as philosopher of ideology; linking psychoanalysis to critique of ideology |
|
The Freudian School of Melbourne / Norbert School |
Russell Grigg, Mary Zournazi, others |
Mix of psychosis and neurosis; trauma of colonization |
The Real as rupture and cultural dislocation |
Interrogating settler colonialism, gender, and trauma through Lacan |
Reflective, hybrid, decolonial |
Lacanian psychoanalysis in postcolonial context, with ethical listening |
|
Radical Lacanians / Independent thinkers |
Jamieson Webster, Bruce Fink, Genevieve Morel, Samo Tomsic etc. |
Varied: neurosis, gender, body, political symptom |
Real as unsymbolizable, but negotiable via symptom or sinthome |
Ethics of listening; critique of commodified therapy |
Interdisciplinary, existential |
Keeping psychoanalysis alive in contemporary clinical, academic, and activist spaces |
🧬 Key Distinctions
🔥 1.
GIFRIC/388
vs
ECF (Millerian School)
- GIFRIC focuses on residential psychoanalysis for psychosis, emphasizing symbolic rebirth and creativity.
- ECF focuses on minimalist clinical interventions (short sessions, cartel structure), emphasizing sinthome as knot rather than reinvention.
Metaphor:
GIFRIC builds a temple in the ruins.
ECF draws a topological diagram over the wound.
🌀 2.
GIFRIC
vs
Slovenian School
- GIFRIC is deeply clinical, while the Slovenian School is primarily theoretical and political.
- GIFRIC believes in symbolic construction after foreclosure; Žižek et al. believe we are forever in the loop of symbolic failure.
Metaphor:
GIFRIC searches for new mythologies.
Slovenes uncover the ideology inside the old myths.
🐚 3.
GIFRIC
vs
Radical Lacanians
- Both aim to revive psychoanalysis against its bureaucratization or commodification.
- Radical Lacanians often practice outside institutions; GIFRIC creates a new kind of institution.
Metaphor:
GIFRIC builds a sanctuary for voices.
Radical Lacanians build a room to whisper in the ruins.
🌎 4.
GIFRIC
vs
Latin American Campo Freudiano
- GIFRIC spiritualizes the clinic through poetics and symbolic ritual.
- Latin American analysts politicize it through neoliberal critique.
Metaphor:
GIFRIC seeks resonance in silence.
Campo Freudiano seeks speech in the ruins of language.
🧭 Closing: What GIFRIC Offers That Others Do Not
- A living psychoanalytic institution centered on psychosis and subjectivization
- A poetic, ethical language of treatment (speaking of “the glorious corpse,” “the Name-invention,” “psychotic writing”)
- A belief that symbolic life can begin again, even after foreclosure
Or as you might say:
「在那失語之地，388 沒有尋求語言的回復，而是創造一種新的傾聽。
而每一位精神病者，都是一場尚未命名的神話。」
Would you like a visual map of this comparison? Or perhaps an essay-format version for your site or seminar?
