2D, 3D, 4D: How to inhabit after trauma?

Abstract

AimsThis article seeks to develop a psychoanalytic conception of inhabiting, taking into account the variations of space as they can be observed in the clinic of trauma and in the artistic experience. MethodAfter having presented a first psychoanalytic definition of inhabiting as a “psychical production of space”, in connection with the positions of S. Freud and J. Lacan, Philippe Lançon's book Le Lambeau serves as a clinical reference, highlighting the variations between different types of space. ResultsThree types of spaces are identified and presented metapsychologically: three-dimensional space (3D) constructed by the ego; the two-dimensional space (2D) that manifests itself to the Subject, in particular in the repetitive emergence of traumatic scenes; finally, an artistic experience (both creation and reception) that needs to be thought through topologically, and therefore in four dimensions (4D). DiscussionThese three types of space need to be thought together, in particular because of a mute and vertiginous common point between 2D and 4D. Several articulation models are presented and discussed, gradually making it possible to identify the therapeutic and ethical issues of different clinical orientations. In doing so, three successive definitions of a psychoanalytic approach to inhabiting are also presented. ConclusionThe spatial dimension of trauma remains relatively under-studied. However, it offers valuable ways for intervention and clinical invention, especially if we consider the contribution of artistic experience. The enigmatic notion of inhabiting can at last be understood here as the way in which these three spaces are produced by the structure of the unconscious.