O sintoma na psicanálise e na psicopedagogia: do que se trata?

This paper aims to discuss the concept of symptom in psychopedagogy and psychoanalysis, drawing the consequences for the direction of treatment for each of these fields. Learning Problems has been the name given by various fields of knowledge to what does not happen as expected in the learning process. To address these problems several professionals are called upon. Faced with this demand a new field of knowledge is created: the psycho-pedagogy. In Brazil, it is established as a field of work and research from the contributions of Alicia Fernández. This author, supported by the work of French philosopher and educator Sara Paín, takes the concept of Freudian-Lacanian symptom as a fundamental concept to read the so-called "learning problems". Given this one must question whether the concept of symptom Fernandez is really the same as psychoanalysis. Are they the same? If yes, how to sustain as different fields? If not, what are consequences for the direction of treatment for each of these fields? For this study, the theoretical works of Alicia Fernández and Sara Pain were read aiming to clarify the concept of symptom in psychopedagogy. To discuss the psychoanalytic concept of symptom we turned to the texts of Freud, Lacan and commentators in which this issue is discussed. The results show that Pain and Fernandez seek psychoanalysis as a theory to be coupled with others to solve the learning problems. The concept of symptom as a return of the repressed and as an indicator of a sense to be found in the history of the subject is similar to the psychoanalytical one, however, in psychopedagogy other fields of knowledge and techniques are used as reference and these are sometimes incompatible with the concept of symptom presented. The use of psychological tests for the diagnosis, the idea of transference without the notion of subject supposed to know and the proposed treatment are indications of a different treatment approach from what the ethics of psychoanalysis proposes

A questão do estilo na psicanálise lacaniana

Lacanian psychoanalysis has won a considerable space in brazilian university: a search for Lacan in the field of subject of the CAPES Thesis Bank shows 1.032 results! However the difference in the style of knowledge production and language usage is considerable between academic psychology and lacanian theory. The difficulty in reading and understanding Lacan is something pointed out by supporters and critics alike. In addition to that, his disciples choose many times to imitate his baroque, complex style, full of neologisms, causing perplexity in many unprepared audiences. What is the origin of such an enigmatic and polemic style of expression? How it became so widespread under the sign of repetition? And which are the consequences of this style to the communication, transmission and teaching of lacanian psychoanalysis? Through these questions it is our goal to contribute to the dialogue between lacanian psychoanalysis and the academy, to provide a better understanding of the causes of this style, analyzing the consequences it has to the transmission of psychoanalysis. We chose to perform a theoretical study, using authors that have treated Lacan s style and the history of psychoanalysis from a critical point of view, like Beividas (2000), Roustang (1987, 1988) and Gellner (1988), and also those that have defended and justified its legitimacy, like Glynos e Stavrakakis (2001), Fink (1997) and Souza (1985), using as well some works by Freud and Lacan. The study of these texts has led us to three main themes: 1) the difficulty of the lacanian text; 2) Lacan, heir of Freud; 3) consequences of the lacanian style. In the first one, we enumerate many different explanations and interpretations given by commentators about the difficulty and particularity of the lacanian discourse; in the second, we show how Lacan came to occupy the place of great idealization that was before destined to Freud, what made his style something to be taken as a model, to be imitated by disciples; in the third, we explore the way in which the concepts are treated in lacanian psychoanalysis, arguing that their multiple meanings point out that the final goal is not to build a clear and coherent theory, but to try to aim directly at the subject, to catch him