The news item I have chosen for this column is the one that gives its title to the next Congress of the EuroFederation of Psychoanalysis, « Critique and Clinic of Patriarchy », under the direction of Guy Poblome, which will take place in Brussels on the 1st and 2nd July[1].
Beyond the critique of paternalism
The question I want to ask concerns language itself, the language that is spoken today. In the moment that we are in, what is that makes it no longer merely a question of critiquing what was called paternalism at the time of the Enlightenment, critiquing the power of fathers, what was still called authority in the 20th century, or even critiquing what Lacan called in the 1950s the function of the Name-of-the-Father, but that it a question of radically rejecting « patriarchy » as a system of domination ? What does this change of term reveal in our language ? What does the primacy of the use of this term say about what is being rejected today, namely patriarchy and its effects on subjects ? The term patriarchy contains in itself what it denounces. With this term, it is not only a question of a problematic in the father’s authority – legitimate or not – nor is it only a question of getting rid of a protective power. It is not only a question of rebelling against an overly repressive law and against a prohibition. It is about something else. It is about denouncing an abuse of power.
The critique of patriarchy and its antecedents
Let’s take the terms in turn. Philosophers of the Enlightenment can be considered as the first to have paved the way for the current « critique of patriarchy ». Rousseau denounced any analogy between the power of the father over his children and the power of the sovereign over citizens. It is by virtue of the social pact that citizens agree to obey the general law, not by virtue of the natural authority vested in the sovereign in the manner of a father over his children. Through this critique of paternalism as a political model, Rousseau goes so far as to radically reverse the foundation of the authority of the father himself. Not only is the power of the sovereign in no way analogous to that of the father, but the power of the father has to be reconsidered in the light of politics, since the only legitimate power is that which results from the social pact. If the father’s power over his children is presented for a time as a matter of nature, in truth it finds its true foundation in the social pact[2]. This authority is also instituted and lasts only as long as the children consent to it. After him, Kant denounced paternalistic government as the worst danger to freedom. The sovereign who would occupy the place of the pater familias is also the one who, promising protection, happiness and security, deprives the citizens of their political freedom. Thus Kant critiques the paternalistic model in order to defend the republican model, and to assert the motto of the Aufklärung : « Dare to think for yourself ! »[3]
Let’s advance further into the successive versions of this revolt against the power of fathers, tutors and masters. In the 20th century, it is still authority that is rejected, the authority of tradition embodied by masters. The May 1968 movement in France is inscribed in the vein of the « critique of paternalism ». It was a revolt against authority and a revolt against prohibitions, but no longer in order to assert a « dare to think for yourself », but as a demand for jouissance. We know that Lacan will be attentive to the lure of the motto « il est interdit d’interdire », when it’s about aspiring to a surplus-enjoyment [plus-de-jouir][4].
Translation : Michele Julian
Proofreading : Robyn Adler
Picture : © Jos Tontlinger – https://jos-tontlinger.be/
[1] Leguil C., « Actualité de la psychanalyse. Critique du monopole de la jouissance légitime », Studio Lacan, n°42, 28th January 2023, available on the internet : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD-iwMv7z3A.
[2] Rousseau J.-J., « The Social Contract », Ware : Wordsworth Editions, 1998, p.6. « If they remain united, it is no longer naturally but voluntarily ; and the family itself is kept together only by convention. »
[3] Kant E., « An Answer to the Question : What is Enlightenment ? » tr. by D.F. Ferrer : https://philarchive.org/archive/FERATQ. Translation follows Clotilde Leguil’s French text.
[4] Lacan J., Le Séminaire, livre XVI, D’un Autre à l’autre, texte établi par J.-A. Miller, Paris, Seuil, 2006.
