Autre chose que l’Œdipe ?

RésuméNous exposons l’analyse de quelques résultats d’une recherche internationale, appelée « CoPsyEnfant », dirigée par Pr. Serge Lesourd, coordonnée par V. Dufour et financée par l’ANR.ObjectifÉtudier la construction de l’identité des enfants et des adolescents dans de différents pays.ÉchantillonsEnfants et adolescents tout-venants (283 sujets).MéthodeEn utilisant les dessins de la famille réelle et de la famille de rêve, nous avons analysé la représentation de la famille ainsi que le personnage d’identification. La collecte de données s’est effectuée en deux étapes : passation collective ; passation lors des entretiens individuelleRésultatsLe père en tant que personnage d’identification occupe une place prépondérante chez les adolescents des deux sexes (40 % chez les garçons et 41,3 % chez les filles). Les résultats statistiques amènent à penser que la configuration œdipienne « classique », ce fondement de la subjectivation, n’est plus opérante.DiscussionNous sommes arrivés à penser qu’aujourd’hui le problème pour le sujet consiste plutôt de se créer une place de référence, de faire rentrer le Père Fort sur le piédestal, occupé par l’enfant malgré lui. La société libérale essaie d’effacer les différences générationnelles et de sexes, les différences constitutives pour le sujet. Le discours libéral tente de faire disparaître le Tiers qui viendrait poser limite à la toute-puissance infantile, ce Tiers qu’on appelle le Père Imaginaire.

Since some years, we are used to read various authors discussing about the question of the Oedipus complex in contemporary society. Are we really going through the death of Freudian myth or the observed changes reflect more complex processes than a simple disappearance of a myth?Aims of researchIn this paper, we present some results of international research, called “CoPsyEnfant” which studied the construction of children and adolescent identity in different countries.MethodologyThis comparative research had objective to compare the process of the construction of identity in different societies. We studied this process according to its three main periods: oedipal period (3–6 years old), latency period (6–11 years old) and adolescence (11–16 years old). The research consisted of two stages: collection and analysis of data acquired in the collective investigation; collection and analysis of data acquired in the individual investigation. The aim of the first stage was to find out, basing on the concept of genders’ and generations’ difference, if the processes of identifications of children and adolescents were different in different societies. We used drawings as main tool because it provides a double advantage: it depends on culture and it's independent of native language. The second stage is actually on work and it is dealing with collection of data in individual interviews paying attention to the words of subjects.InstrumentsThe 1st stage: 6 countries (France, Russia, Brazil, Vietnam, Canada, Tunis) 4 drawings: spontaneous, human-figure, real family, imaginary family. The protocol was carried out in school classes. We used a special analytical grid of drawings realised on Sphinx software platform. The 2nd stage: the same 4 drawings accompanied with non-directive interview, TAT (or “PatteNoire” French projective test), test of “Rorschach's patches”. The protocol was carried out in individual encounter.ResultsThis research revealed that the psychical figure of father was drawn very often as the figure of identification by children and adolescents. This phenomenon was investigated in clinical cases. The results showed that processes of identification seemed to be changed in actual social link. This change makes the adolescent passes especially difficult. Some difficulties we illustrate by a clinical case in this paper. From some clinical cases, we propose to discuss the question of the subject's construction in the current social link.ConclusionFinally, we supposed that the contemporary individual is faced with a problem that did not exist before, at the time when the dominant discourse created and maintained “naturally” a place of exception in which we could refer. Today, the problem is that it is up to subject to create a place of reference, to make the Strong Father get back on the pedestal occupied by a child against his will. Liberal society tries to erase generational and gender differences which are constitutive to the subject. This society tries to promote a democratic parenting without conflict where there would not be more mothers and fathers, but a parent one and a parent two.