Lacanian Psychoanalysis and Eastern Orthodox Christian Anthropology in Dialogue

Carl Waitz, Theresa Tisdale

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9781032102412
• eBook ISBN: 9781000467444
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Mental Health in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

This book vigorously engages Lacan with a spiritual tradition that has yet to be thoroughly addressed within psychoanalytic literature—the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition.

The book offers a unique engagement with a faith system that highlights and extends analytic thinking. For those in formation within the Orthodox tradition, this book brings psychoanalytic insights to bear on matters of faith that may at times seem opaque or difficult to understand. Ultimately, the authors seek to elicit in the reader the reflective and contemplative posture of Orthodoxy, as well as the listening ear of analysis, while considering the human subject.

This work is relevant and important for those training in psychoanalysis and Orthodox theology or ministry, as well as for those interested in the intersection between psychoanalysis and religion.

Part I

Chapter 1
Introduction

DOI: 10.4324/9781003214359-2

Jacques Lacan (2005/2013) once remarked that Christianity is “the true religion” (p. 66). What might appear at first glance as an endorsement is rather a sharp critique—“it’s the worst that can be said about it” (Lacan, 1975/1998, p. 107). As Lacan explained, Christianity—and particularly the Roman Catholic Church he grew up with (Roudinesco, 1993/1997)—is adept at providing meaning, in the sense that “meaning serves the purpose of rationalization, which keeps the unconscious at bay” (Fink, 2014, p. 7). The ability of Christianity to explain and provide understanding satisfies the ego because it covers up the ruptures of the inexplicable into one’s sense of reality—ruptures that cause a wealth of anxiety. For Lacan, “the true religion,” by its ability to explain, often amounts to anxiety avoidance and the prevention of hearing the speech of the unconscious. It is because of its function of reassuring the ego that Lacan averred “the triumph of religion” (Lacan, 2005/2013, p. 63).

In contrast, psychoanalysis does not seek to rationalize or explain the inexplicable ruptures, but to attend closely to them, to speak them but not to explain them (Fink, 2014); as such, the question for psychoanalysis is not one of triumph—Lacan conceded that it will not triumph—but one of survival: “either it will survive or it won’t” (Lacan, 2005/2013, p. 64). The survival of psychoanalysis depends to a large degree on the totality with which the inexplicable, which Lacan called the real,¹ is paved over when it irrupts—a function served by the “Roman” religion, as Lacan puts it (Lacan, 2005/2013, p. 64). In contrast to this form of religion, the relationship of the real to psychoanalysis is one of symptomatology; that is, “psychoanalysis is a symptom” (Lacan, 2005/2013, p. 65). It is a consequence of the real’s irruption into our sense of reality—an irruption following the rapid change in the human context due to the exponential revolution in science and technology. The advancements in these areas “introduce all kinds of distressing things into each person’s life” (Lacan, 2005/2013, p. 64), widening the opening that reveals the real. In response to this emergence or irruption of the real, Christianity in its Western garb has sought to cover over the looming gaps with meaning—for example, explaining the yawning questions about the origins of life and the universe—which lessens the anxiety people feel in the face of the real. Psychoanalysis seeks another perspective: “We must be able to get used to the real” (Lacan, 2005/2013, p. 77). Thus, as the Church and other explanatory models rush to catch up to the universe opened by the ruptures in meaning generated by science, psychoanalysis, as an expression of the real, may find its end.

Indeed, psychoanalysis faces a field increasingly determined by reductionisms to manualized interventions, evidenced-based practices, and brief courses of treatment. All these reductions essentially serve to provide meaning: that chemical imbalances are the agent of malaise, that symptoms do not carry significance, that complex psychic structures can be rendered manageable through emotion regulation, and so forth. Although some of these explanations may bear on historical facts of the human organism, their status as meaning in the Lacanian sense comes from their function as stoppers of the unconscious. The explanations they offer satisfy prematurely, preventing further exploration. As such, Lacan’s expression of concern regarding the survival of psychoanalysis was prescient. However, is Christianity by necessity a method of hiding the real? Is it impossible to write the relationship between Christianity and psychoanalysis, in the Lacanian sense, in terms different from contradiction? Or is there a Christianity that might be consonant with Lacanian psychoanalysis’ insistence as a symptom?

In addressing the question of Lacanian analysis’ relationship to something of the realm of religion, some authors have been so broad as to approach religion as a whole concept, that is, from the perspective of some synthetic collection of religions that lacks acknowledgment of differentiation, which also covers over the real in its own way. Lacan himself argued that “to try to put all religions in the same basket and do what is called ‘the history of religions’ is truly awful” (2005/2013, p. 66). The attempt to view all religions as a single phenomenon or whole entity that is capable of “integration” with another field, such as psychoanalysis, is inherently problematic. Because of this, a particular view of religion is more suitable for developing a dialogue.

Various bodies of work have sought this particular interaction between Lacanian analysis and specific religious traditions. Raul Moncayo (1998a, 1998b, 2003, 2012) has contributed significantly to the discussion of Buddhism and Lacanian psychoanalysis; Moshe Spero has written on Orthodox Judaism and Lacanian psychoanalysis (Spero, 1996; see Cohen, 2008); and various authors have written of Western Christianity and Lacanian psychoanalysis. This latter category includes a notable segment that appears to be based on secular theology, such as contained in Wyschogrod et al.’s (1989) volume; in Parker (1999); in Rashkow (2007); and in Davis et al.’s (2014b) volume. Although these authors make genuine attempts to form connections between these fields, the subject of religion about which they write is often at odds with what many who describe themselves as Christians believe in day-to-day practice. Zizek’s (2003) work is perhaps the quintessence of this approach.

Seeking to connect Lacanian analysis to Christianity by utilizing a theology predicated on academic interest will only ever be an academic exercise. These are works implicitly by and for theologians. Such excursions are largely confined to a limited audience, despite the adroitness of their observations.

Furthermore, the use of such theology divests Christianity of its religious content—that is, the belief in its core beliefs—effectively precluding authentic connection with the tradition by removing its heart. This is problematic, as any search for consonance between psychoanalysis and Christianity will succeed only if the violence occurring is not the violence of divestment but the violence of the real as exposed between the fields and in their overlapping claims. Something as thoroughgoing as secular theology’s logical working through of systems of thought, even if expressed in Lacanian terms, leaves little room for the violence of the real as it seeks to account for everything; ironically, this approach then contributes to the paving over of the real.

Other authors have taken an approach to dialogue between Lacanian analysis and Christianity that seems to be grounded in traditional rather than secular theology. These include Dunlap (2014) and DeLay (2015), whose work is further explored in Chapter 4. However, all of the authors writing from both secular and more traditional theological perspectives rely on Western conceptions of Christianity as descended from the Western Church after the East–West Schism of 1054. Although Lacan described Catholicism as religion par excellence, the systematic approach to theology broadly taken in both Protestant and Catholic Western Christianity lends itself to the same process of explaining and, therefore, hiding the real. There has been remarkably little engagement between Lacanian analysis and Christianity descended from the Eastern tradition (Dunlap, 2014). Given the starkly contrasting theological foundations of Eastern and Western Christianity, Eastern Christianity is uniquely suited for dialogical engagement with Lacanian psychoanalysis. Might Eastern Orthodox Christianity prove more open to the reality of Lacanian psychoanalysis?

We believe so! The Eastern Orthodox Church is historically, theologically, and experientially different from the Western forms of Christianity as manifested in Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, which, “to an Orthodox … appear as two sides of the same coin” (Ware, 1993, p. 2). Eastern Orthodoxy offers an inversion of the more typically antinomical relationship between Christianity and Lacanian analysis. Indeed, we hope to demonstrate that these traditions can be enlightening to one another in speaking about human experiences. In Orthodoxy, Lacanian psychoanalysis can discover a form of Christianity not devoted by necessity to paving over the real. Similarly, beyond the acceptance of psychoanalysis as a treatment suitable for Orthodox Christians, Orthodoxy can find in Lacanian psychoanalysis a pathway to further the development of Orthodox thought on human nature. To explore the ways these traditions may supplement one another, this study provides an investigation of a common point of interest to both: anthropology. Religious anthropology has enjoyed some previous exposure in the literature through Lacanian interpretations of the creation story in Genesis (Parker, 1999; Rashkow, 2007; Spero, 1996), but almost none from an Orthodox perspective. Orthodox theologians and authors are not, for their part, uniformly skeptical of psychoanalysis; Fr. Vasileios Thermos (2002) engaged in dialogue with the Winnicottian tradition, and Pia Sophia Chaudhari (2019) examined analytical psychology for resonance with the Orthodox faith. Some Orthodox authors have examined Lacanian psychoanalysis, such as Yannaras (1996), Kalinich (1988, 1990), and Schneider (2009); while these chapters and articles are excellent theological works, they are quite brief and illustrative, calling for a greater investment in examining the potential creative space between Lacanian analysis and Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

To assist in structuring the dialogue between Lacanian psychoanalysis and Orthodoxy, we will use the creation story as a beginning point in the second half of the book. Several other Lacanians have engaged with the creation narrative. Points of resonance between the fields are examined by viewing anthropology from both a position within Lacanian psychoanalysis and from within an Orthodox perspective. Ultimately, Eastern Orthodoxy is shown to share with Lacanian analysis a remarkable emphasis on the real.

Because Lacanian psychoanalysis and Eastern Orthodox theology are two particular traditions resting in more general fields, this book is designed to gradually introduce themes and ideas pertinent to dialogue between them. In this spirit, Chapters 2 and 3 are paired overviews; Chapter 2 provides an introduction to critical concepts in Lacanian psychoanalysis, and Chapter 3 explores important components of Eastern Orthodox theology, including points of divergence from the Western Christian tradition. Rather than attempting to provide exhaustive reviews, these two chapters provide a basic framework to enable those unfamiliar with one or the other field to effectively engage with the remainder of the book.

Chapter 4 contains a review of the literature regarding Lacanian analysis and religion, with particular emphasis on the limited literature that already exists at the nexus of Eastern Orthodoxy and Lacanian analysis. It also addresses previous Lacanian interpretations of the creation and fall narratives in Genesis to examine the state of anthropology as intersected by both Lacanian analysis and Orthodox theology. This chapter will provide contextual understanding for the direct dialogue between Lacanian psychoanalysis and Eastern Orthodoxy.

The remaining chapters of this book contain the bulk of our theoretical development. Chapter 5 provides a new reading of the story of the creation and fall of humanity, utilizing the Orthodox Church’s unique perspective of the narratives to highlight new interpretations of the texts. Chapter 6 provides an extended reflection on the position of God in psychoanalysis. Specifically, the Orthodox doctrine of the essence/energies distinction is put in conversation with Lacan’s conceptions of the Thing and the unconscious. Chapter 7 addresses how Lacanian psychoanalysis’ knowledge of sex, sexuation, and sexuality may supplement and enlarge the Church’s mind with respect to sexual praxis. Chapter 8 explores the role of ethics between Eastern Orthodox theology and Lacanian psychoanalysis using Lacan’s teaching and the Orthodox hagiographies of two saints. Chapter 9 discusses the ego and its fate; the ego is viewed as symptomatic in Lacanian analysis and the individual person is vital in the Orthodox Christian faith.

The book concludes with a reflection on the implications of the theoretical development presented, its limitations, and further directions that might be explored. As is the case throughout the book, the focus will be on ways in which Lacanian psychoanalysis and Eastern Orthodoxy might continue to be mutual and reciprocal fellow workers through ongoing dialogue.

Lacan wrote that the psychoanalyst’s journey “requires a long subjective ascesis” (Lacan, 1966/2006, p. 264). This ascetic journey—the development of knowledge—is not found in discrete techniques and manuals. This book is intended to benefit both the clinician (analyst, psychologist, or psychotherapist) and those interested in spirituality, not by providing an instruction manual of integration, but by offering a perspective that may serve to shift one’s position in relationship to the real.

Note

• 1 The Lacanian concept of the real is much more complex than this suggests, but this is explored more extensively in Chapter 3.

References

• Chaudhari, P. S. (2019). Dynamis of healing: Patristic theology and the psyche. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.
• Cohen, M. (2008). A dialogue between psychology and religion in the work of Moshe Halevi Spero, an Orthodox Jewish psychoanalys...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Contents
• List of figure and tables
• Acknowledgments
• Another to Echo
• Part I
• Part II
• Index