Abstract
The question that moves this work is whether the structuralist inheritance in the Lacanian clinic of psychoses would be overtaken due to the unfolding of Lacan’s later teachings. In this sense, this article aims to present some of the structuralism’s contributions to the Lacanian clinic of psychosis, by the analysis of the so-called ‘structural diagnosis’. It was with Lacan’s teachings that the differential diagnosis, heir to Freud, was described as “structural” to highlight the distinction of three major structures: neurosis, perversion and psychosis. The reason for choosing structural diagnosis for the research proposal of the structuralist legacy in Lacan is based on the evidence of two aspects that would eventually impose some questions on the validity of the diagnosis based on the current structural distinction: the so-called new symptoms and the pluralization of the Name-of-the-Father. In this sense, it is accepted that a brief return to the main contributions of Lacanian dialogue with structuralism in the 1950s provides important considerations to enrich the debate and to clarify if this structuralist heritage in the clinic of psychoses would be overtaken, justifying the value of the epistemic discussion for the field of Psychology as a science. Nevertheless, the importance of the current issues that circumscribe the diagnostic field for the approach to psychic suffering is highlighted.
Psychoanalysis; Structuralism; Diagnosis