A cura pela palavra : um olhar bakhtiniano para a interação discursiva no tratamento psicanalítico freudiano

Abstract

The tensive dialogue between dialogism and psychoanalysis, registered in the work Freudianism: a critical sketch (1927), is characterized by Volóchinov’s strong criticisms towards Freudian psychoanalytic discourse. However, the psychoanalytic treatment’s practical success did not suffer reprimands. Such fact fostered this research’s hypothesis that one could understand Freudian’s talking cure by a sociological, discursive and alteritary approach, based on Bakhtin and his Circle’s ideas. Thus, our theoretical investigation formulates three research questions: a) How do the critics towards psychoanalysis, registered in the book Freudianism, ground a subject perspective that is aligned to the ideas of Bakhtin and his Circle?; b) What elements specify the speech genre psychoanalytic session, acknowledging plausible alteritary and discursive processes related to Freudian therapy?, and c) What are the alteritary and discursive conditions and dynamics that forge the assumption of psychoanalysis xperience as valuable and valid to the subject whose aim is to be cured? As a general objective, this research aims at scrutinizing plausible theoretical intelligibilities regarding alteritary, dialogical and discursive dynamics related to the psychoanalytic treatment. Following this general objective, this research formulates three specific objectives: i) To investigate the conception of subject that could be underlined from Volochinov’s counterword to Freud; ii) To prospect alteritary and discursive processes involved in Freud’s talking cure, considering the psychoanalytic session as a speech genre, and iii) To discuss the possible conditions and processes that foster the assumption of psychoanalytic experience as valuable and valid for the subject whose aim is to be cured, focusing on the intertwining of the self and other’s discourse. In terms of methodological approaches, this research propels a theoretical, qualitative and bibliographic discussion, comparing texts of Bakhtin and his Circle and texts of Freud, aiming at offering sociological, discursive and alteritaty alternative views to the psychoanalytic treatment. Conceiving such treatment as a process based on a discourse that recollects one’s life story, as well as on responsive clinical listening, we prospect an alternative view to psychoanalytic event as a speech genre, in which the “cure by discourse” is held within a specific responsivity circuit, and also in heterodiscursive voices’ dialogization. Notes on setting and transfer, along with analytical interpretation, allowed us to conceive analytical elaboration as dialogized couttering. Adding to relatively stable aspects of the speech genre, we studied the conditions upon which analytic experience could be assumed as valid, fostering effective cure as an answer that subjects give to oneself and to others. Aspects such as the tensioning between pravda and istina, the chronotopical characteristics of memory, and the alteritary movements between the self and the other allowed us to scrutinize “the discourse that cures (me)”. We understand that therapeutic success would be held due to the semantically open intertwining between the therapist’s discourse and the client’s one. We responded to the Freudian concept of construction with the construct of analyst’s surplus of view, responsible for giving relative finishing to one’s life story, so that the client, once responding to the analyst’s surplus of view, could give authorial finishing to oneself based on the discourse of the other. Thus, we propose construction in analysis as creative and dialogized co-uttering, in which the analytical pair utters a past that is dialogically constructed. With our research, we understand that therapeutic co-uttering is subscribed to the dialogue held in the psychoanalytic session, which is part of the unfinished dialogue. The latter guarantees the constitutive presence of the other in the self, of the social in the individual, either in the clinical sphere and in many others, pointing out to the ongoing subjective (trans)formation in and by language.