Abstract
Following recent debates within Psychosocial Studies, this paper explores the interpretive trajectories initiated in contrasting conceptualisations of the relation between subject and other. Starting from a discussion of countertransference, I go on to examine Lacan’s notion of the ‘action of interpretation’ and what this might look like within the practice of research. My analysis is organised around instances from an interview-based research project investigating unconscious relations in academic practice. These instances relate to moments of disruption to disciplinary or methodological identities. The analysis thus draws attention to shifting locations and modes of articulation of desire within research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Benjamin, J. (2004) Beyond doer and done to: An intersubjective view of thirdness. Psychoanalytic Quarterly 73: 5–46.
Butler, J. (2005) Giving an Account of Oneself. New York: Fordham University Press.
Clarke, S. (2002) Learning from experience: Psycho-social research methods in the social sciences. Qualitative Research 2 (2): 173–194.
Fink, B. (1995) The Lacanian Subject: Between Language and Jouissance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Fink, B. (1999) A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis. Cambridge, MA and London, UK: Harvard University Press.
Frosh, S. and Baraitser, L. (2008) Psychoanalysis and psychosocial studies. Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society 13 (4): 346–365.
Glynos, J. (2002) Theory and evidence in the Freudian field: From observation to structure. In: J. Glynos and Y. Stavrakakis (eds.) Lacan and Science. London and New York: Karnac, pp. 13–50.
Hoggett, P. (2008) What’s in a hyphen? Reconstructing psychosocial studies. Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society 13 (4): 379–384.
Hollway, W. and Jefferson, T. (2000) Doing Qualitative Research Differently: Free Association, Narrative and the Interview Method. London: Sage.
Jervis, S. (2009) The use of self as a research tool. In: S. Clarke and P. Hoggett (eds.) Researching Beneath the Surface: Psycho-Social Research Methods in Practice. London: Karnac, pp. 145–166.
Lacan, J. (1991) The Seminar of Jacques Lacan Book II: The Ego in Freud’s Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis 1954–1955. New York, London: W. W. Norton and Company.
Lapping, C. (2011) Psychoanalysis in Social Research. London and New York: Routledge.
Lapping, C. (2008–2011) The development of a psychosocial methodology for investigating knowledge practices in higher education. ESRC funded research project; unpublished.
Parker, I (2010) The place of transference in psychosocial research. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 30 (1): 17–31.
Racker, H. (1982) Transference and Countertransference. London, New York: Karnac.
Rustin, M. (2008) For dialogue between psychoanalysis and constructionism: A comment on paper by Frosh and Baraitser. Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society 13 (4): 406–415.
Žižek, S. (2005) Neighbors and other monsters. In: S. Žižek, E. Santner and K. Reinhard (eds.) The Neighbor: Three Inquiries in Political Theology. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, pp. 134–190.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to the editors and reviewers and to Zoe Charalambous, Jason Glynos, Angela Kühner, Sara Matthews, Ian McGimpsey, Diego Santori, Laura Teague, and Angie Voela and Natasha Whiteman for their incredibly useful contributions. The ESRC funded the research project that produced the data analysed in the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lapping, C. Which subject, whose desire? The constitution of subjectivity and the articulation of desire in the practice of research. Psychoanal Cult Soc 18, 368–385 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/pcs.2013.14
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/pcs.2013.14