The decline of transmission in formation: psychoanalytic notes

Author(s)

Douglas Emiliano Batista

• Document type: Master's Dissertation
• Press: São Paulo.
• Institution: Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Faculdade de Educação (FE/SBD)
• Defense date: 2009-01-28

Examining board members

Leandro de Lajonquière; José Sergio Fonseca de Carvalho; Marcelo Ricardo Pereira

• Advisor: Leandro de Lajonquière

Abstract

This work belongs to the field of possible connections between psychoanalysis and education and its purpose is to analyze the contemporary decline of the transmission in the education. We searched a net of concepts inside psychoanalysis and also philosophy in order to circumscribe the fact that the subjectivity of a new comer into the world is necessarily impregnated by the older ones, those who were already in the world. Besides, the transmission also requires not only knowledge but unconscious marks that testify the psychic division of the adult and, therefore, the impossibility of this adult to say everything to the child. This same impossibility of the adult to say everything is what makes possible for him to unconsciously transmit to the infans (the one that doesnt speak) the impossibility of just listening (or listen to everything, which is the same of not listening anything at all), allowing the little one to get to speak as subject, once he is affected by this psychic humanizing conflict. That means that he is necessarily going to be a split subject, someone who desire to speak and also to hear because he knows that he is not able to say the last word (the one that would make him and his listeners speechless at all). However, differently from what the contemporary pedagogy believes, not being able to say everything to the children does not mean that we shouldnt say anything at all, does not mean that we should wait for them to speak for themselves as if the presence of the adult had nothing to do with it, as if this new speech was not the consequence of the childs transference toward the older ones. The contemporary (psycho)pedagogy intend to stimulate the child to speak naturally and at the exact time, the time of the development of the inner capacities. But if it worked like that, why we would speak to the children before this exact time, and sometimes only to spare or even to gain time waiting until they eventually answer? And why do we keep talking to them and vice-versa? Just because we enjoy talking a lot? Or because this drive causes our conflictive psychic division which was impregnated in us by a primordial adult, someone that didnt stayed quiet (and by that accomplished the transmission of a place from where another being can be part of a heritage and can be able to speak as any other)? The decline of the transmission in the contemporary education comes from the fact that, nowadays, psychology rules in the field of pedagogy and education. Also, it is a consequence of the fact that either in family education as at school, cultural formation gave place to natural development. This substitution lead to the descharacterization of school and also the reduction of the curriculum, what creates more obstacles to the establishment of the symbolic difference between generation. (AU)