Guérin Nicolas
J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 2023 Feb;71(1):33-60. doi: 10.1177/00030651231154623.
Although neither Sigmund Freud nor Jacques Lacan ever neglected the place of culture and the social field for the subject, they always opposed "culturalist" ideas, even when such ideas no longer used this label. It is important to examine what both of these figures said about culturalism, but it is just as pertinent to return to other criticisms of this movement, which developed in the United States during the last century, because at present this movement has returned covertly within French psychoanalysis. First, "culturalism" is neither a specifically American problem nor one that belongs to the past. Second, some decisive criticisms of this movement remain both germane and original: they are able to throw light on a theoretical current that, at least in France, now characterizes a dominant orientation of psychoanalytic work. Third, although Lacan himself foresaw it, the misuse of some of his notions has unexpectedly served as a Trojan horse that has enabled culturalism to return.
尽管西格蒙德·弗洛伊德和雅克·拉康都从未忽视文化和社会领域在主体形成中的地位，但他们始终反对“文化主义”观念，即便此类观念已不再使用这一标签。审视这两位人物对文化主义的论述固然重要，但同样有必要回顾对该运动的其他批评，这场运动于上世纪在美国兴起，因为目前它已在法国精神分析领域悄然卷土重来。首先，“文化主义”既非美国特有的问题，也并非只属于过去。其次，对该运动的一些决定性批评依然切题且独到：它们能够阐明一种理论思潮，至少在法国，这种思潮如今已成为精神分析工作的主导取向。第三，尽管拉康本人早有预见，但对其某些概念的误用却意外地成为了文化主义卷土重来的特洛伊木马。
