Back to Table of Contents
2. Subduing the drive implies subjecting it to regulations (‘order’), resulting from the Oedipus complex and the assumption of castration, which articulate the drive with the wish and with Eros. The insistence on a non-mediated ‘jouissance’, in line with the omnipotent narcissistic ambition of extinguishing the wish, obeys, on the other hand, the death drive, which means a failure in the processing of the drive. 3. Eros and Thanatos are to be conceived as different forms of the work of only one drive, the sexual drive, governed by the pleasure principle or its opposite, the principle of Nirvana. 4. The death drive should not be identified with the repetition compulsion, which does not respond to only one tendency and is not always lethal, as is the case of the repetitions promoted by transference, which makes the work of remembering possible. Such transferential repetitions must be distinguished from the more drive-promoted repetitions that work in favor of death. 5. What defines the death drive is the fact that it operates silently and is opposed to any activity of symbolizing, localizing, binding, signifying, that is, opposed to the category of what can be spoken of and thought about. 6. Eros and Thanatos are considered as related to the tendencies for binding and unbinding, respectively. Both Eros and Thanatos are conditions of life. VI. Dc. Mirta Casas de Pereda Mirta Casas de Pereda, in “El Trauma y el Inconsciente” (1996) [Trauma and the unconscious] offers a multi-theoretical review of the death drive in theory and in clinical practice, through the lens of original Lacanian perspective. In this perspective, starting with Freud, where castration is comprehensively related to every loss (as it pertains to individual’s psychosexual development) and every transforrmation the drive passes through (oral, anal, phallic, the love of the object), and following with post-Freudian authors, one can infer the incidence of structural disavowal (both as a defense and a vicissitude of the drive) through the dialectics of presence – absence. In this view, narcissistic injury is always present. Psychic work of the defenses, where the ‘no’ has a privileged status, allows the deconstruction of the negativism which involves the death drive in a kind of ontological causality. She proposes to leave the attribution of the death drive to the ‘traumatic’, because what is deadly is never the drive, but rather the way in which its effects are treated by ‘the other’. It is a different way of considering death, which would be a consequence of the loss of love of the object and not instinctive biological aim.
193
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online