The aim of this paper is the discussion about the amplitude of Name-of-the-Father concept nowadays. Within the first Lacan's teaching, the concept was taken as fundamental condition for diagnose, therefore its presence was decisive to establish structural difference between neurosis and psychosis. Although, presently Name-of-the-Father has been criticized mainly through three sources (theoretician, clinic and sociological), undermining the concept's validity among the analytic movement and thus opposing the relevancy of structural distinction. The three sources threatening the concept are: the last Lacan's teaching that pluralized the Name-of-the-Father; the appearing of new symptoms, which are challenging an accurate structural diagnose; and authority figures' decay into the social world. The paper seeks answers to some of these points, defending the Name-of-the-Father importance, even though restricting its realm validity.
Name-of-the-Father; clinical structures; new symptoms