The Analyst Discourse and Democracy at Risk: Why Can't the Psychoanalyst Be Bolsonarista?

Abstract

The objective of this work is to answer why a psychoanalyst cannot be a bolsonarista. For this, we start from the articulation between the notion of post-truth and the truth in a psychoanalytical perspective. Through a predominantly psychoanalytical theoretical review, we discuss such perspectives against the brazilian's last presidential elections and the management of the COVID-19 pandemic background. We intend to articulate the discussion about the importance that the psychoanalyst's discourse assumes when it takes a position in relation to other discourses, proposed by Lacan, especially in a democracy risk's context. We conclude that from the clinical practice, the central axis of his job, the psychoanalyst cannot be a bolsonarista because, by occupying the place of a, he does not establish with the other a relationship of maintenance of a destructive jouissance, jouissance that does not take into account the subjective responsibility whose most pressing incidences are on the experience of alterity.