As depicted by its bottom line, the Discourse of the Master sets up the status quo where SubjectObject is unconscious and fully under the Disjunction of Inability. The Discourse of the Analyst brings this to consciousness, to the top line, in inverted form. The Discourse of the Analyst is aS i.e. the inverse of the unconscious of the Discourse of the Master Sa. Desire, that is to say, that which has been excluded from symbolisation and subjected to the Discourse of the Master, is placed in the dominant position, inviting the analysand to speak their symptom. The analyst responds in a way that highlights what has been repressed. That which has been negated is highlighted and elicited, fuelled by the transference to the analyst as the SsS. Being confronted with these negated elements arouses the conflict sufficiently for analysand to wish to instate a new Master Signifier – S1.
The end result is radical difference, the analysis of one subject—the analysand—constructing and deconstructing itself throughout the process of analysis. The generation of Knowledge in the form of a signifying chain is secondary to the main aim of analysis – readmitting confined and excluded signifiers to the dialectical process. Positioned in this Discourse, the analyst is opposed to all will of mastery and keeps knowledge open and on the move – the analyst does not reach closure, and it is left for the analysand to bring closure to the work in their own time.
Suggestion in the University Discourse
Within this theoretical framework, the move from neutrality to suggestion entails a shift from the Discourse of the Analyst to the University Discourse. The analyst retains their position as Agent, as the discursive positions rotate forward one quarter turn – S2 moves up above the line, ‘a’ moves over to the place of Other and the other terms make their corresponding moves. Rather than the analyst’s listening position being founded by the analyst’s Desire for the analysand’s desire, the analysand becomes an Agent of consciously asserted Knowledge (S2) addressed to the analysand as Other. This positions the analysand as the Objet Petit a of the analyst, while S1 is held in the place of the analyst’s unconscious Truth, acting as a covert guarantee of the analyst’s Knowledge. As always, between Agent and Other, there is the Disjunction of Impossibility, and further, Knowledge is the least appropriate means of reaching Objet Petit a, as Objet Petit a is that which is beyond language. The more that Knowledge is used to reach Objet Petit a, the more the analysand eludes the reach of the analyst. A knowing Agent requires an unknowing Other, thus the subject of the unconscious is produced and simultaneously excluded – the Product is an analysand as ever-more Divided Subject.
Knowledge positioned in this way is presented as whole within itself, but the hidden truth is that it relies on the underlying values represented by S1. As S1 is the surreptitious force of the University Discourse, so the University Discourse is subservient to and the agent of the Discourse of the Master. Systematic knowledge takes up the position of ultimate authority – rationalising and legitimating the Discourse of the Master. The University Discourse provides that very thing that the Discourse of the Master lacks – justification – submitting new sites of discourse to that same requirement – coherent justification – excluding the Divided Subject who might be a site for protest and instantiating a solely knowing conscious subject in its place. Subjectivised knowledge is replaced by desubjectivised anonymised knowledge, as represented, for example, in a move from psychoanalytic treatment to various ‘psychologised’ treatments. Suggestion in terms of ‘education’, and interpretations that invite identification with the ego of the analyst (See further Muller (1996, Chapter 8)), just produce an ever more Divided Subject, alienated from itself, in the service of the underlying fundamental values, delivered covertly in the form of Knowledge.