The Analyst Discourse and Democracy at Risk: Why Can't the Psychoanalyst Be Bolsonarista?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12957/epp.2023.80460Keywords:
psychoanalysis, politics, post-truthAbstract
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.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
COPYRIGHT:
Studies and Research in Psychology automatically holds the copyright deriving from the publication of the works. The full or partial reproduction of each text (over 500 words of the original text) must be requested in writing to the Editor.
Studies and Research in Psychology Journal is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license might be available at http://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/index.php/ revispsi/.