Powerlessness and Impossibility in Special Education: a Qualitative Study on Professional Burnout from a Lacanian Perspective

Powerlessness and impossibility in specialeducation: A qualitative study onprofessional burnout from a LacanianperspectiveStijn Vanheule and Paul Verhaeghe

A B S T R AC T This article describes how experiences of professional burnout and

difficulty in the job are linked to people’s expectations concerning

the outcomes they aim to realize. Based on a random sample of

respondents to a burnout questionnaire, two groups of special

educators were interviewed. The interview data are interpreted

taking Lacanian psychoanalytic theory about how people deal with

their subjective lack as a point of departure. We conclude that

burnt out people can be characterized by their imaginary stance

towards outcomes (they cherish clear images of the products of

their efforts, feel powerless, tend to fuse with the other, have the

impression that the other is taking advantage of them and feel

unable to speak freely). By contrast, the group with a low burnout

score can be typified by their symbolic distance towards their job

experiences and outcomes (they support the other in the process

of realizing outcomes, feel impossibility, react with creativity and

speak freely).

K E Y W O R D S burnout � Lacan � Marx � psychoanalysis � qualitative research �

work attitude

4 9 7

Human Relations

DOI: 10.1177/0018726704043897

Volume 57(4): 497–519

Copyright © 2004

The Tavistock Institute ®

SAGE Publications

London, Thousand Oaks CA,

New Delhi

www.sagepublications.com

05 vanheule (ds) 29/4/04 9:43 am Page 497

www.sagepublications.com

In his late essay, ‘Analysis terminable and interminable’, Freud (1964)concludes, rather pessimistically, that governing, educating and psycho-analysing – or, more broadly, professions that involve some degree of curing(Freud, 1961) – constitute impossible professions. According to Freud, innone of these professions can one predict one’s ultimate success owing to thelarge number of uncontrollable factors involved. Since Freud, a number ofauthors have returned to his idea and discussed the question of impossibil-ity within psychoanalysis. Whereas only a few authors have thoroughlyconsidered the concept of impossibility (e.g. Berenstein, 1987), fewer stillhave discussed the consequences of Freud’s statement for the (special)education profession. Those who have (e.g. Aarons, 1970; Novick, 1980)stress the difficulty of working with disturbed youngsters but add little toour understanding of the dynamics at work.

In this article we examine the nature of the experience of impossibil-ity by focusing on professionals in special education. Our interpretationstarts from Lacanian psychoanalytic theory. In discussing the impossibleprofessions, Lacan (1991, 2001) at once accentuates these professions’ socialnature (in all of these professions the social bond is the pivotal mediumthrough which an agent addresses another in order to effect change) andwarns us against making premature conclusions. He qualifies theseprofessions as ‘hazardous undertakings’ and ‘challenges’ (in French‘gageurs’; Lacan, 2001). The least we can do, he says, is to produce evidenceof the impossibility involved. Following Lacan, we think that the concept of‘impossibility’, on the one hand, needs to be delineated from adjacentconcepts (e.g. powerlessness). On the other hand, people’s experiences ofimpossibility need to be studied empirically, for there has been very littleempirical investigation into these professions. An interesting line of thought,however, was opened up by Cooper (1986), who links the experience ofimpossibility with professional burnout.

Along with the observation that social relations are pivotal in imposs-ible professions, classical burnout research concludes that – among otherfactors (see Maslach et al., 2000; Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998) – burnoutcoincides with difficult interpersonal relations between professionals, on theone hand, and clients, colleagues and superiors, on the other hand. Forexample, researchers have found a significant link between professionalburnout and clients’ aggressiveness, challenging behavior and the severity ofclients’ disabilities; the degree of burnout seems to increase proportionallywith the clients’ difficulties (Innstrand et al., 2002; Leiter & Harvie, 1996;Mitchell & Hastings, 2001). However, some authors emphasize that it is theprofessional’s subjective perceptions of difficulty that are closely connectedto burnout, rather than objective client characteristics (measured by rating

Human Relations 57(4)4 9 8


scales or expert opinions) (e.g. Jenkins et al., 1997). This implies an import-ant shift in focus: from objective observation to subjective perception. Whatnevertheless remains unclear, is how the perception of difficulty is related tothe nature of the rewards that professionals expect to receive in return fortheir engagement in the job. It is precisely at this point that Lacanian psycho-analytic theory can contribute to our understanding of professional burnout.

Starting from interview research and Lacan’s model of intersubjectiv-ity, Vanheule et al. (2003) have already concluded that burnt outprofessionals can be differentiated from those that are not burnt out by thespecific way they strive for recognition and identity. Indeed, the process ofsocial recognition is important in understanding people’s relation to their joband to the expectations they cherish. However, Lacan also allows us to recog-nize that this is only one side of the coin. After all, people value the attain-ment of outcomes as well as intersubjective recognition. By working, peoplestrive for outcomes that, from their subjective point of view, imply a bonusof satisfaction. Lacanian theory indicates that besides the intersubjectiveprocess, a product dimension can be discerned.

In this article we study how professionals’ experiences of difficulty arerelated to their expectations of the product they aim to realize in their job.The article consists of two parts. First, we outline Lacan’s ideas on people’ssubjective relation to the products and outcomes they aim for while workingand interacting, taking as our point of focus the Freudian impossibleprofessions. Second, we use these ideas to interpret research data gatheredfrom an explorative interview study into special educators’ experience ofburnout. We discuss how people’s relation to the product they long for intheir work is connected to experiences of burnout.

The product dimension in working: Impossibility versuspowerlessness

In his discussion of the dynamics of working, Lacan built his own theory toa large extent on others’ reflections on this topic, especially those of Hegeland Marx. Consequently, Lacan respectively accentuates the value of inter-subjective recognition and the value of attaining products.

The Lacanian model of intersubjectivity is based on the Hegelianmaster and slave relationship and starts from the idea that human desireessentially longs for something non-material (Kojève, 1947; Vanheule et al.,2003). It is a desire to be recognized and to be desired by the other. Socialrecognition is valued because it compensates for people’s lack of identity. Inthis line of thinking, work is considered as a means by which recognition

Vanheule & Verhaeghe Powerlessness and impossibility 4 9 9


and identity can be achieved. The actual product of work has no intrinsicvalue and only counts to the degree that it is valued by the other andcontributes to one’s identity. Hegel’s thinking is interesting to Lacan to theextent that it indicates a fundamental relation of servitude and/or subordi-nation in all labour. However, it is an idea Lacan gradually places in abroader perspective as he developed an interest in the product dimension,which he links to the radical lack at the level of subjectivity. In order tounderstand this link between the product dimension and subjective lack, andto apply it to our research on the impact of subjective perception of bothaspects, we must first go briefly into Lacan’s theory of subjective lack (seealso Arnaud, 2002; Long, 1991; Verhaeghe, 2001). Next we relate thistheory to the activity of working.

Like many other psychoanalysts, Lacan (1994) falls back on Freud’sideas concerning the loss of a primal object, i.e. the mother. Lacan, however,argues that whereas the mother is perhaps the first object, she is not anoriginal object. An original situation of totality and fullness, what Lacan calls‘jouissance’ and locates at the level of the ‘real’, is already lost at the momentthe mother becomes an object for the child (Lacan, 1991). In Lacan’s theorythis register of the real refers primarily to the dimension of the bodily drive,1

and the loss of completeness comes about the moment the child is introducedinto what Lacan calls ‘the symbolic’ (which comprises typical human produc-tions such as language, conventions, structure, culture . . .). What is lostthrough this introduction into the symbolic is ‘a piece of the real’ (Lacan,1976) and, consequently, the original state of jouissance itself. The lossresults in a fundamental subjective lack that, according to Lacan, is inherentto the human being.2

Consequently, the primal object gains its value in light of this funda-mental lack, and every object arises against the background of this essentialabsence. From the moment the lack is installed, the subject can only dreamretroactively of the lost and supposed enjoyable ‘Arcadia’, which it never-theless did not experience as such whilst living it (see also Stern, 1985).Hence, for Lacan the question is not so much what a normal or healthyobject would be (e.g. pre-genital versus genital), but first and foremost howa subject handles the fundamental impossibility of filling this lack. In Lacan’sopinion, the experience of and reaction to impossibility forms the very basisof subjectivity.

A first level through which the subject attempts to deal with its funda-mental lack, is by striving for recognition (based on the relation with a primalobject). In order to meet its inner lack the subject identifies with the desireof the other. This results in social recognition and in the construction of apersonal identity, aspects that complement the subjective default. At a second



level, all social relations additionally imply (the striving for) an outcome aswell. Interactions end up in a product and the relation to this product isanother medium for a subject to deal with its fundamental lack. Each subjectis confronted with the question of if and how this product can satisfy itsdrives, alleviate the lack and restore its original jouissance.

As we focus on the relation between subject and product, we concludethat the impossibility of the endeavour to fill in the fundamental lack leavesonly two options: either getting stuck in what Lacan calls the imaginary orassuming the lack by way of the symbolic. In the first case, the imaginary beliefthat the lack can be eliminated by achieving the product or outcome one longsfor is dominant and not questioned. What thus results is a fetishization of theproduct, such that the aimed at product is elevated to a sublime status. Thesubject believes that the product it longs for has the power to restore the loststate of fullness and jouissance (see Lacan, 1991). In the second case, the lackas such is recognized, accepted and used as a means of creativity. The beliefthat the lack can be sutured is abandoned and replaced by the idea that‘circling’ the lack can result in something pleasant and/or interesting.

Lacan’s theory of subjective lack and the imaginary or symbolicposition subjects assume vis-à-vis the product dimension of interactions isparticularly well suited to studying people’s attitude toward the outcome oftheir work. This becomes obvious as one studies Lacan’s comments on Marx.Lacan was interested in Karl Marx’s thinking3 precisely to the extent that itaccentuates the product side of working (see Jonckheere, 2001; Lacan, 1966,1968–1969,4 1991, 2001; Vanier, 2001; Vinciguerra, 2003; Žižek, 1988,1989). His discussions of Marx first and foremost sought insight into thesubjective value people attribute to products of work at the level of psychiceconomy. Lacan consequently takes Marx’s description of the relationbetween the capitalist and labourer as a metaphor, whereby he especiallyaccentuates the importance of the creation and pocketing of surplus value,and the activity of fetishization.

In Marx’s Capital (1999), the notion of surplus value is defined as thedifference between the exchange value of products of labour (commodities)and the value that coincides with the effort of producing these products, i.e.the means of production and labour power. In our market economy system,Marx says, money is the pre-eminent criterion to measure the amount of thevalue that is realized. For the capitalist, i.e. the one who possesses money,pocketing surplus value seems to be the sole aim. Profit-making and theexpansion of capital are the motives that drive the capitalist. However, thispocketing of surplus value is only possible by selling commodities for a pricethat is higher than the value attributed to productive labour. If equivalentvalues were exchanged, no surplus value would be realized.



Marx indicates that the realization of this aim depends on a trick, andit is this cunning trick that especially interests Lacan. In the market the capi-talist meets with the free labourer and buys the latter’s labour power in orderto produce things. Marx states that the trick put into practice in this processis that the capitalist pays the labourer as much as the latter needs to survive,but much less than the value the labourer actually produced. In other words,in the process of exchanging value (labour power/money) the capitalist putsa surplus of money into his pocket behind the back of the labourer, and actsas if he too worked hard during the process of production. In dishing up thisexplanation, Marx says, the capitalist has to hide his smile: ‘after a heartylaugh, he re-assumes his usual mien’ (Marx, 1999: 126). This laughter resultsfrom the fact that the value which is created during a work day is actuallymuch higher than what the capitalist pays the labourer.

Lacan accentuates that in the system described by Marx, the secretpocketing of surplus value is the truth that determines the dynamics at work.After all, in Marx’s depiction human interrelations are strictly instrumental,and the value of social recognition seems to be nil. In comparison with theHegelian intersubjectivity model, human interrelations are de-valued and de-idealized. Surplus value as such, embodied in wealth and money, is nowvalued.

As we relate Lacan’s theory of the subject’s imaginary or symbolicrelation to subjective lack to Marx’s account, surplus value can be identifiedas a product of work that is fetishized and elevated to a sublime status. Thiselevation is an essentially imaginary move, which results in the beliefs thatit is possible for an object/product to function as an appropriate stand-in forthe lack and that the attainment of this valued object/product will producea bonus of jouissance (‘plus-de-jouir’). Indeed, the labourer sees the capitalistas a robber who secretly enjoys the surplus value he pockets; this secretenjoyment from an imaginary point of view is indicated in the laughter thecapitalist conceals. The capitalist is seen as someone who gains enjoymentby depriving and trampling on the labourer. He prevents the labourer fromrealizing the value that supposedly could fulfil the latter. This suppositioneasily results in fantasies of vengeance and struggle against the one who isseen as the frustrating agent. In other words, the imaginary orientation setsup a chain reaction that culminates in aggressive tension. While the attain-ment of the sublime product is linked to a sense of power (which in Marx’smodel is attributed to the capitalist), it likewise gives rise to a feeling ofpowerlessness and perhaps to disappointment, the moment it becomes clearthat the longed for outcome is out of reach. In this context, powerlessness isto be understood as an imaginary feeling that is linked to the inability torealize the sublime product one cherished.



However, Lacan importantly notes that the imaginary orientation itselfdazzles both protagonists. It masks the underlying determination of anyparticular capitalist or labourer by the broader symbolic system (which canbe understood in terms of established social relations and prevailing sub-cultural expectations and norms). From Lacan’s point of view, both the capi-talist’s laughter and the labourer’s vengeance are just an indication of thesystem’s secret truth. i.e. that both are only pawns within a broader system.Both are just a link within the chain of production and neither can reallyenjoy the surplus value that is produced. The imaginary activity of cherish-ing products and dreaming of subjective totality precisely blinds them fromthis fact. Whereas from an imaginary point of view the capitalist’s laughteris seen as an indication of a secret personal enjoyment, the same laughterfrom the point of view of the symbolic hides that both capitalist and labourerare merely toys within the symbolic system.5

Lacan finally argues that if a fetishized product (such as money) indeedcomes within the subject’s reach, this will not result in the dreamt of enjoy-ment, not for the capitalist nor for the labourer. This perhaps is the ultimatereason for the capitalist’s laughter: he literally laughs away the lack of enjoy-ment the moment he is really confronted with an outcome he previously cher-ished. What the laughter thus evades is a radical sobering up. The imaginaryassumption, that the object which serves as the stand-in for the lack couldeffectively remedy the lack and that it could produce surplus enjoyment, istouched but eventually saved by the laugh.

The Lacanian line of reasoning supplements Marx by showing thatfetishization of objects and outcomes, and the activity of creating surplusvalue, can be detached from the strict capitalistic and industrial context.Lacan places the activity of valuation and the subject’s relation to enjoymenton the fore. In this way, he makes the Marxist concepts he selects morebroadly applicable.

As Lacan discusses Marx’s thinking, or specific concepts like surplusvalue, he explicitly brings these into relation with the clinical problemswith which an analyst is confronted, and with conceptual questionsconcerning the structure of neurosis. Hereby, Lacan separates Marx’sthinking from its traditional economic connotations and examines thestructure of the Marxist line of reasoning, such that the concepts helpilluminate problems at the level of psychic economy. An example of thisdetachment can be found in his reflections on the nature of the symptom.Lacan (1968–1969) links the concept surplus value (‘Mehrwert’) to theFreudian idea of gaining pleasure (‘Lustgewinn’), and this leads him todevelop new ideas concerning the psychical function of the symptom.Indeed, armed with the Marxist concepts Lacan starts stressing the peculiar



relation to enjoyment (‘Mehrlust’) that is embodied in the symptom (seeJonckheere, 2001).

In the context of this article we do not address further the predomi-nantly clinical problems that Lacan approached with his detour via Marx.Instead, we specifically focus on the detaching shift he makes and on theactivity of fetishization, in its relation to the fundamental lack in subjectiv-ity.

Starting from Lacan (1966–1967, 1968–1969,6 1991), the specificnature of the substantializing interpretation given to the stand-in for the lackin fetishization can be considered as variable along the surrounding symboliccontext. As such it is quite evident, for example, that because of the differentsymbolic universes in which they live, a development-aid worker longs for adifferent sublime object/product than a video-game designer or a stockexchange speculator. In each case, however, the sublime object occupies astructurally similar place in relation to the lack. Within this logic the deter-mining influence of the symbolic context is multilayered; it can be situatedfrom macro- to micro-level, from general culture (see e.g. Žižek’s, 2000interpretations on Coke as a western fetishized object) to individual subjec-tivity. Indeed, ultimately the symbolic context is different for each subject,which means that to understand individual cases, the precise nature offetishization needs to be studied again and again.

Applying this line of reasoning to a professional group such as specialeducators, means that we have to reckon with a meso-level of symbolicdetermination. This consequently implies that the nature of outcomes thatare generally valued by these professionals has to be taken into account.Previous research indicates that one’s professional competence, (self)-efficacy and ability to find meaning are especially highly valued outcomes.In reporting on their own burnout experiences, educators often indicate thatthey suffer from disappointments at precisely these levels, such as from aninability to attain set objectives and to make a noticeable change in clients’lives, from having poor opportunities to develop their own knowledge andskills, or from receiving negative as opposed to positive reactions (see, forexample, Cherniss, 1995; Friedman, 2000; Houkes et al., 2001; Pines,2002). The central characteristic these outcomes share with Marx’s notionof surplus value is that both concern something sublime that is amenable tofetishization. A typical feature, however, is that whether these outcomes arerealized depends considerably on people’s perception and their subjectivepoint of view. We consequently concluded that people’s subjective percep-tion of outcomes, and of the obstacles in realizing these, had to be the focusof our research.



A qualitative investigation into professional burnout

Our question is to what extent, and how, does this conceptual model helpus to understand the nature of special educators’ relation vis-à-vis theoutcomes in their job. More specifically, we study how the difference betweenan imaginary or symbolic attitude vis-à-vis outcomes, on the one hand, helpsus to differentiate between people who are suffering from burnout and thosewho are not and, on the other hand, enables us to study the way in whichboth groups deal with work incidents and with job outcomes. To explorethis, we address the conceptual model using research data gathered from acombined quantitative and qualitative research project. Although manyfactors contribute to professional burnout – such as work-organization orevents in private life – in this study we limit our approach and strictly focuson the way professionals subjectively make sense of their job-reality.

Methodology

The research sample was made up based on a burnout screening. Based on992 burnout questionnaires that were filled out by special educators whoprovide basic daily guidance in residential special youth care or residentialmental handicap care in Flanders (Belgium), the 15 highest and the 15lowest scoring respondents on the burnout questionnaire were selected foran interview (see also Vanheule et al., 2003). The burnout screening wascarried out using the Flemish version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory(Vlerick, 1993).

The interviews were semi-structured and methodologically based onKvale’s (1996) psychoanalytically based research interviewing. Respondentswere asked to specify the major difficulties they experienced at work in theirrelations with clients, colleagues and the executive staff, and how they dealtwith such difficulties. This was done each time by means of two critical inci-dents. In the same way, respondents were asked to specify those aspects oftheir position that provided them with the most satisfaction. Interviews tookbetween 1.5 and 2 hours and were tape-recorded. Two trained interviewersconducted the interviews.

The interviews were typed out verbatim. They were processed on thebasis of Miles and Huberman’s methodology (1994). Each interview wasanalysed in detail and coded by each of the two interviewers, using the ATLAS-TI software. In developing their codes, the researchers started fromtheir Lacanian psychoanalytic background and from the coding principles ofMiles and Huberman (1994), Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Strauss and



Corbin (1990). The tactics we used in interpreting the data were thosedescribed by Miles and Huberman (1994).

Results

Based on our research data, we discerned four general themes recurring inthe special educators’ accounts, which enable us to differentiate betweenhigh- and low-scoring respondents (see Table 1). We elaborate on thesethemes and illustrate them with case material. Hereby we focus exclusivelyon the relation between a special educator and his/her clients.

High-scoring respondents

A first characteristic typical of high-scoring respondents is that they clearlylong to affect clients and fantasize about achieving clear results in workingwith them. Beginning with a definite image of their clients in general, andwith a scenario of their own role and tasks, they want to attain the goalsthey design for the other. It is as if they have a clear self-defined aim in mindtoward which they want to direct their client and with which these clientsshould comply. In terms of the conceptual model previously discussed, theoutcomes they have in mind function as sublime products they want toattain. This characteristic is strikingly coupled with a strong sense of personalobligation. They see it as their damned duty to help the other and they mustattain what they have in mind. This intent, however, is over-shadowed by


Table 1 Differentiating themes connected with the burnout score

High-scoring respondents Low-scoring respondents

Want to attain a goal in helping others/focus Want to help others in attaining a goal/focus on the product/must help the other on process support

Absorbed by the other Symbolic detachment from the other

Experience powerlessness, which results in a Experience impossibility but deal with it reversal in the relation towards enjoyment: creativelythe other is strange and must be kept at a distance

Feel unable to speak freely; chaotic storytelling Speak freely about their problems; coherentstorytelling


two disturbing experiences: they feel absorbed by the job and powerless intheir attempt to do good.

Indeed, high-scoring respondents judge situations according to theirown standards and take conflicts very personally. They have difficulties main-taining subjective distance and complain about feelings of absorption. Whenthey feel challenged they are likely to let external events affect their sense ofpersonal identity. In this way, they lose their grip on the situation and mergethemselves with their problems with clients. We interpret this as a clear indi-cation of an imaginary position towards their job and their clients.

A comment by a respondent illustrates this imaginary tendency to takeexternal events personally and to relate work-incidents directly to one’s ownbeing and living conditions, even if these are unknown to the other:

One day, one of the kids said that my mother is a whore and that shehas a fat ass. I said that she shouldn’t say things like that. She didn’tknow my mother and had never even seen her . . . I come from a decentfamily; imagine that my mother heard that.

(Respondent 27)

However, they experience many of their day-to-day interactions with clientsas not fitting their image of how these interactions ought to be. They arecontinuously confronted with the problems they precisely wanted to affect.In their view, the same problems return perpetually, which confronts themwith their own powerlessness; the sublime goal they designed fails to berealized. This evokes a feeling of unease and introduces an aggressive tensioninto the relationship.

One respondents puts it as follows:

I work with moderately retarded adult women who have a personal-ity disorder . . . I direct a workshop and they come to work in it everyday for 6 hours. What I want, is that all of them have a significant dailyoccupation and that they can experience the workshop as a place wherethey can be themselves . . . I do much more than just supervise theirwork. What I want is to offer them the full scope to develop andexpress themselves . . . But at the end of the day I always think ‘it’senough’. It really is a burden, you continuously have to be attentive,you’re always busy with their lives and you haven’t a second to take abreak . . . E. is someone who is quickly agitated if she doesn’t under-stand things, then she starts yelling and abusing. So, one has to beattentive. At the same time A. starts complaining that she doesn’t find



her underwear anymore and K. starts crying for something else. Some-times it’s too much for me, but one has to consider their complaints. . . Take for example A. and her remarks on the lost underwear. Onecan’t just say that she should search for it. For her, it’s a problem ofvital importance, so if we can’t solve it, she doesn’t feel well and thenI would be wrong . . . In fact, she really is a pathological case and shemakes me feel a bit like I’m going to explode. I’m not exaggerating,she can ask me the same question 60 or 70 times a day, and each dayshe has another question . . . I hope that at least she will feel under-stood, it’s a kind of therapy for her . . . at the end of the day I just wantto yell at her and shout that she should shut her stupid mouth, but thatwould not be fair.

(Respondent 28)

The above vignette illustrates how a professional’s preoccupation withimages on outcomes of one’s own actions (‘I want . . . that all of them havea significant daily occupation and that they can experience the workshop asa place where they can be themselves . . . I want . . . to offer them the fullscope to develop and express themselves’) encounters client behaviour thatdoes not fit in with the images cherished. This results in a dynamic tensionin the dual relation between both protagonists, which evokes aggressiveness.In terms of the conceptual model, this aggressive tension (‘she makes me feela bit like I’m going to explode . . . I just want to yell at her and shout thatshe should shut her stupid mouth’) is a side effect of the imaginary orien-tation towards outcomes (see Lacan, 1977). The high-scoring respondentsexperience it as unbearable that the actual product, the result of their inter-actions with clients, does not correspond with the images they cherishedprior to any interaction. This creates an experience of being deceived (‘I hopethat at least she will feel understood, it’s a kind of therapy for her . . . at theend of the day I just want to yell at her’). The bonus of enjoyment and theanticipated experience of completeness fail to occur and the resultingoutcome of the interaction obtains a negative connotation for them. Psycho-analysis teaches that aggressiveness is normally sublimated through people’sprofessional striving and that it cannot easily be acted upon the moment itis released because it is incompatible with the whole project of taking careof the other (Ansermet & Sorrentino, 1991; Menninger, 1942; Vanheule,2002). We observed that our respondents are disturbed by their aggressivefeelings and that, as a defence against them, they blame themselves, the otheror both themselves and the other for this negativity. Situations that involveextreme experiences of this conflict are often a trigger for sick leave.

The following example (from a high-scoring respondent who blames



himself) illustrates how the imaginary tendency of taking incidents person-ally can dynamically cohere with a feeling of personally getting stuck:

The problems we are confronted with are all very complex. One can’tjust say do this or do that. Then it stays on my mind and I keep onbrooding. The emotional things, you take them home. You try to finda solution but you can’t find one . . . I have the impression they dowant an answer from me, for they keep on asking, they continuouslyreturn to it. In fact, they ask more than we can give . . . They undoubt-edly see and feel that I can’t give an answer. Now it’s too much, Ireached the limit, I can no longer stand it. I always take things verypersonally.

(Respondent 24)

Most high-scoring respondents, however, blame the other. Those who do soseem to have a peculiar relation towards their clients. They feel threatenedby them. It is as if instead of deriving some enjoyment by realizing the objec-tives they aim for, they develop the impression that the other regards themas an object from which enjoyment can be derived. We can equate these‘enjoying’ clients with the capitalist in the conceptual model who, at animaginary level, is seen by the labourer as secretly enjoying the surplus valuehe pockets. In this context of reversal in the relation towards enjoyment, theother is invariably experienced as someone troublingly strange. We foundthat, in the case of clients with mental retardation, people tend to attributetheir trouble in realizing the goals they designed to the clients’ limited capac-ities – ‘they are not capable of change’. In the case of clients with behav-ioural and psychical problems, people tend to attribute the strangeness to theclients’ bad intentions – ‘they are not willing to change’.

Dealing with clients in an impersonal way, harsh interactions withclients and pre-occupation with nonclient-related activities are all measureswe observed, designed to keep the strange other at a distance. In interviewees’accounts of ‘inappropriate’ client behaviour, we often observed that punish-ment was not primarily considered as a therapeutic or pedagogical measure,but as a kind of compensation for the injustice done to the interviewees. Thiskind of rectification can be interpreted as a measure designed to defendagainst the disturbing strangeness of the other.

These mechanisms are illustrated in the following story of one of theinterviewees:

I work at a ward for youngsters with a severe character disorder. Wenow have a guy who really gets under my skin . . . he really hunts me.



One day there was a quarrel during dinner. I said something to himthat he should calm down, and then he charged at me. He wanted tobeat me, but then I took him by his throat and I pushed him to thewall. He said that he would bring his older brothers and they wouldwait for me when I go home in the evening . . . Later that week I wasat his school and I saw him with a couple of friends. They werelaughing at me. It was really too much for me; I immediately went tothe director and I said that they should suspend him temporarily fromthe institution and that the guy should apologize personally. I told thedirector that he was lucky that I didn’t react. I am like that, I hit backwhen they hit me . . . I respect them, what I want, is that they respectme in return.

(Respondent 30)

In the vignette above the youngster is dealt with as an exploiting and threat-ening imaginary agent in relation to whom our interviewee does not experi-ence safe boundaries (‘a guy who really gets under my skin . . . he reallyhunts me’). In this vein, ambiguous observable behaviour (‘They werelaughing’) is directly understood as being directed to oneself as a person(‘They were laughing at me’). The threat originating in the youngster isexperienced as unbearable and the intervention (‘I immediately went to thedirector and I said that they should suspend him temporarily from the insti-tution and that the guy should apologize personally’) purely aims atcompensation. The compensatory measures are meant to restore the balancebetween the protagonists, however, both remain locked in their dual,conflicting relation.

Some interviewees end up with a generalized cynical attitude; the jobno longer appeals to them. It is as if these people concluded that the sublimeobject they once sought in the job is not to be found there at all.

Finally, it appeared that high-scoring respondents were uncomfortablespeaking freely. Some described themselves as poor talkers or indicated thatthey do not make a habit of talking about their personal experiences.Respondent 2, for example, said that during team meetings he thought hispart, but also that he wouldn’t say that much, even if things troubled him:‘I sometimes go home more stressed than I arrived’. A highly imaginary fearof disclosure, of being attacked, or of losing the other’s love seems tomotivate their keeping silent (see also Firth, 1985; Forney et al., 1982). Afterdescribing a conflict with a client, one of the respondents puts it as follows:

What I want to avoid is the wretched feeling that they do not love meanymore or that they do not appreciate me anymore. That’s really



terrible. It makes me feel low . . . That’s why I avoid talking about it.It’s because I’m afraid of having that feeling again.

(Respondent 17)

This tendency to keep silent about troubling experiences was repeated duringthe interview, for, compared with low-scoring respondents, high-scoringrespondents had difficulty describing compromising problems they experi-enced. After beginning to talk about a troubling situation, they would intro-duce defensive fillers like ‘but we deal with that professionally’ and ‘but inthe evening I switch over the button and do not think about it anymore’(Respondent 24). Moreover, in talking about their problems they oftentended to lose themselves in details. Their stories tended to be rather chaoticand often contained internal contradictions. Respondent 20, for example,first criticizes her colleagues for regarding clients as ‘poor souls’, yet half anhour later she herself describes them using the same words.

Low-scoring respondents

Low-scoring respondents maintain a subjective distance in their interactionswith the other and vis-à-vis problems in this interaction. They, too, often findtheir expectations regarding their profession do not match their experience.Yet compared with high scorers, their experience of this contradiction wasless problematic. It was not perceived as a source of conflict and it did notresult in the idea that their job is a burden. We suggest that this is becauselow scorers have a less crystallized image of the product they aim for (fewerpre-established imaginary scenarios regarding the result) and because theymaintain a symbolic distance towards their job reality. They tend to havemore moderate and flexible expectations of what one can realize and are lessinclined to relate the problems they are confronted with to their ownpersonal identity. In their relations with clients, they begin not so much fromtheir own imaginary perspective, but from the idea of process support. Theytoo want to transform their clients so that things will be better, but have lessof a fixed image of what that improvement should look like. Their commit-ment starts from a much more ‘empty’ desire, in which there is room for lackas such. They want to help others in attaining a goal, rather than directingothers towards the goal that they themselves have designed. Low-scoringrespondents’ primary frame of reference for judging progress remains withthe other and the context, and not with their own ego. Although they clearlyfeel they do not succeed in fully grasping and affecting the problems they areconfronted with, these professionals do not see this as a sign of personalfailing. In contrast to the powerlessness experienced by the previous group,



these professionals appear to experience impossibility vis-à-vis attaining theungraspable aspects with which they are confronted. The lack in their owntactics or knowledge in dealing with difficult clients does not paralyse them.Rather, it seems to challenge them and results in the understanding that thisis something with which they must cope. These professionals are willing toexperiment and have an inquiring approach to difficulties.

The story below illustrates this:

I always say that we should approach clients in their humanity. Helpingis giving them the opportunity to grow. It’s contributing to theirdevelopment . . . We have a psychotic and very compulsive woman atthe ward. When she just came here, we had a lot of trouble with herand we discussed her case with the psychiatrist for many hours. Nowwe found an interaction style that proves to work. We told her that inher bedroom she could do what she wants but that outside thebedroom she should adapt to the group. It worked wonderfully well.Now she closes her door and she screams, she puts her hands in hermouth and she goes crazy. But when she opens the door, she functionsin the group. It’s peculiar, but it’s okay for me if it works for her todivide her world the way she does. Outside her bedroom she’s acharming woman and inside of it she can do what she wants. Sheclearly feels well. It’s great like that . . . We have other psychotic peopleat the ward. What we want is an interaction style that is each timeadapted to the case.

(Respondent 11)

This vignette illustrates how a low-scoring interviewee does not relate imag-inarily to her own desired outcomes in working with her client: the personalimage of the situation is not organizing the interaction (notice, for example,that she describes the situation in we-terms) and obstacles in attaining hergoals are not taken personally or seen as threatening. Indeed, there is no pre-established image of a desired way of being for the client that is projectedon the situation. Although our interviewee presents herself as outcomedirected (‘Helping is giving them the opportunity to grow. It’s contributingto their development’), the precise nature of the outcome is left open (‘It’speculiar, but it’s okay for me if it works for her’).

The vignette is also typical because it illustrates how low-scoringrespondents go beyond immediate problems to consider them from a reflec-tive distance. They create a symbolic meta-perspective towards difficultiesand thus their attitude is marked by a detachment from the actual situation,which opens up a possibility for creativity. They think about problems



tactically and see themselves working in a kind of social lab in whichrelations are the chemicals with which they can experiment (cf. Respondent11: ‘we found an interaction style that proves to work . . . an interactionstyle that is . . . adapted to the case’). They realize that a lot of the problemsthey experience are provoked by the position they take towards their clients,but they also take into account their own part in the problem. It is as if they‘know’ – parallel to the symbolic structure Lacan discerns as determiningboth labourer and capitalist – that both they and their clients are determinedby causes neither can fully grasp. As a consequence of this attitude, in dailywork they tolerate the undeterminable effect of their own efforts and are notas easily provoked by clients as the high-scoring respondents. Although noneof them expressed it in these terms, the low-scoring respondents take intoaccount the transferential dimension in their job. This results in a consider-ably lower feeling of being absorbed by their work.

We observed that all the low-scoring respondents were eager to speakabout their extant problems. They verbalized spontaneously and, comparedwith high-scoring respondents, dealt differently with incriminating emotionsand situations.

The following vignette illustrates these aspects, whereby both a subjec-tive necessity to speak her mind on aspects of the job where she appearsunable to realize aims, and a decision to do so in relation to the right people– the other team members – come to the fore:

Sometimes you are confronted with situations that make you feel yourown inability; so many things happened in the past and I can’t alwaysget a grip on it. You do not always find a way out . . . but then I havemy team and that’s an essential condition to cope with it. I think thatone is wrong when you take things home. You have to solve your workproblems at work. We have a weekly team meeting and we also havea psychologist we can consult for supervision. But one has to take theinitiative. No one is going to ask you what’s on your mind. You mustsay it yourself, you must look for a solution. Those people are paid tohelp you . . . The biggest disease in our job is unspoken problems. Itonly causes misery . . . By sharing things with others we spread ourresponsibility. You can’t just do it on your own.

(Respondent 5)

At a formal level we found that the low-scoring respondents’ storytelling wascoherent. They spontaneously highlighted diverse facets of the problems theywere confronted with and developed a complex storyline. At the same time,the examples they gave were limited in extent and time. These respondents



were more able to develop a discourse and made creative moves in theirthinking. For example, concerning verbalization, one of the respondents said:‘The question one can ask is not: why do I speak with my colleagues aboutthe difficulties I experience, but rather why should I not do it?’ (Respondent15). This typical orientation towards verbalizing and storytelling illustratestheir symbolic orientation.

Concluding remarks

This study examined the interview narratives of low- and high-scoringrespondents on a burnout questionnaire. We found that although bothgroups experience a dimension of difficulty in their professional activity, thedifference between high- and low-scoring respondents lies in the way eachgroup deals with this difficulty.

High-scoring respondents primarily deal with (the experience of diffi-culty in) their job in an imaginary way. They cherish a defined and optimisticidea of what they want to accomplish – which has the status of a sublimeproduct – but they feel uneasy about the outcomes they achieve and dwellon the reasons and meaning of why things do not turn out the way theyimagined. They clash with their job, feel exhausted and overwhelmed bypowerlessness and attribute its cause to themselves or to the other. In attribu-ting the cause of their problems to the other, they get suspicious and havethe impression that the other is frustrating and taking advantage of them.This often results in measures to keep the other at a distance and sometimesends in generalized cynicism. These persons are easily absorbed by negativeevents and unwilling to speak about what’s on their mind.

Low-scoring respondents primarily deal with their job and the experi-ence of inability in a symbolic way, whereby they take into account the struc-tural context of the events with which they are confronted. This helps themto detach from the events and prevents imaginary absorption from occur-ring. Starting from Lacan’s conceptual model, we define the inability they areconfronted with as impossibility. These persons assume that their jobcontains a kernel that cannot be grasped and experience this as a challenge.The outcome they are aiming for is less pre-defined in its nature and lessimaginarily cherished at the level of their fantasy, yet nevertheless occupiesthem. On the whole, they maintain a symbolic distance towards their clients.They consider their job from a meta-perspective and are inclined to exploreand to speak about things that go wrong.

This differentiation between high- and low-scoring respondentsrequires additional refining. The strict dichotomy between the imaginary and



the symbolic is an artefact of the contrast analysis we made. In Lacaniantheory, both registers are fundamentally intertwined and all subjects’ func-tioning can be typified via both of these registers. The nuance we conse-quently should add is that in the functioning of high-scoring respondents,imaginary characteristics attract attention and dominate the symbolic aspectsof functioning, whereas in low-scoring respondents the opposite is true.

Compared with the previously published article by Vanheule et al.(2003), which also studies professional burnout from a Lacanian point ofview and relates it to Lacan’s thinking on intersubjectivity, this article addsseveral new elements.

First, this article elaborates a different dimension of Lacanian theory.In Lacan’s oeuvre, an internal evolution can be discerned, as he continuouslyapproached often-similar questions from different angles (Verhaeghe, 2001).Stated briefly, in his earlier work Lacan concentrated on the structure of therelation between subject and other, which is reflected in his choice to turn toHegelian reflections on the relation between master and slave. In his laterwork, Lacan focused on the ‘real’ dimension of subjectivity. This dimensioncan be situated beyond symbolic and imaginary determination, yet itnonetheless functions as the structural cause of all symbolic and imaginaryconstruction. In elaborating this move, Lacan built upon Marx, and morespecifically upon his thinking on production, surplus value and fetishization.While the article by Vanheule et al. (2003) focuses on Lacan’s Hegelian logic,this article develops theory, precisely because it focuses on the second periodof Lacan’s theorization and, as such, highlights a conceptually differentapproach of study. Both articles conclude that a high burnout score coincideswith an imaginary orientation, and link a low burnout score coincides witha symbolic orientation. However, in Vanheule et al. (2003) these orientationsare strictly understood in the context of social recognition and in terms ofidentity construction. The present article starts where the other ends: at thelevel of the radical real lack that lies at the basis of subjectivity, and it focuseson the subjective meaning attributed to work outcomes beyond social recog-nition.

Second, in line with this starting point, and as a consequence of ourfocusing on a different object of study – we concentrate on special educators’relation to clients instead of their relation to colleagues and management(Vanheule et al., 2003) – new insights arise in this study, which makes bothstudies complementary. A first new insight developed in this article is thatrespondents in the high- and low-scoring groups can respectively be differ-entiated based on how they deal with the fundamental lack: high-scoringrespondents can be characterized by imaginary fetishization of a stand-in forthe lack and low-scoring respondents by symbolic circling around the



fundamental lack. Second, we concluded that both groups deal differentlywith products of work and with difficulties in realizing these products. Wetypified this difference by contrasting powerlessness with impossibility. Thethird new insight we developed concerns the dynamics of jouissance in thehigh-scoring group, whereby we observed a remarkable reversal: a transitionfrom focusing on deriving a bonus of enjoyment by realizing aims in relationto another, to feeling haunted and being enjoyed by this other the momentthe realization of aims fails.

Our findings could be related to insights developed within the Tavis-tock tradition. It is obvious that there are both similarities and differencesbetween the Lacanian notion of the imaginary, on the one hand, and theBionian formulations on the basic assumption mode of group functioning(Bion, 1961) – which is also linked to the experience of powerlessness (seeGabriel, 1999) – or further developments on defensive projective mechan-isms, on the other hand (Menzies Lyth, 1988; Obholzer & Zagier Roberts,1994). The Lacanian symbolic order in its turn could be linked up with theBionian work group (Bion, 1961) or with functioning along the depressiveposition mode (Gabriel, 1999; Obholzer & Zagier Roberts, 1994). The linkbetween both theoretical approaches could be the subject of a study of itsown.

We think our findings on the way burnt-out special educators typicallyconstruct meaning around job incidents and work outcomes have relevancefor clinical practice. Sigmund Freud (1961: 274) once said that everyone insuch fields as the special educators we interviewed ‘should receive a psycho-analytic training, since without it children, the object of [their] endeavors,must remain an inaccessible problem [to them]’. We do not propose to gothat far, but we do think our results indicate the importance of individualand collective psychoanalytic supervision, that allows for free speech aboutincidents and difficulties at work. Indeed, our high-scoring respondentsexperienced their clients as inaccessible and strange, giving them a feeling ofunease which low-scoring respondents did not appear to have. The latterspontaneously maintain symbolic distance and take a less narcissisticapproach to their work, which was reflected in their habit of speaking freely.High-scoring respondents by contrast tended to keep silent about difficulties.Intervention could precisely counter this silencing attitude by stimulating freespeech, through which the imaginary beliefs that have been pursued in thejob can be questioned. The feelings of powerlessness these imaginary beliefsproduce and the difficulties they cover up could be alleviated through theprocess of symbolization and the consequent attainment of subjectivedistance. Informed by the patterns we discerned in the subjective meaningshigh-scoring respondents construct, intervention could more specifically take



into account the dynamical nature of the imaginary attitude toward job-outcomes, and focus on the subjective relation towards enjoyment.

This research has been explorative and indicates the usefulness of theLacanian conceptualization of the product dimension in working. We believefurther elaboration in two directions is necessary. First, the clinical validityof our results should be checked. Second, research in larger populations andin other professions is necessary to allow for generalization.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank An Lievrouw for the contributions in the analysis ofthe data, and the reviewers for their useful comments on the article.

Notes

1 This is not the sexual phallic drive, but the life-drive such as interpreted by Lacan(see Verhaeghe, 2001).

2 This loss has a logical status: it cannot be observed empirically but just logically beassumed.

3 Lacan engaged with Marx’s work in very much the same way that he dealt with thework of Hegel. He did not aim at commenting on its social economical or politicalvalue, for he considers such a use of psychoanalysis as unfruitful (‘psychoanalysishas no right at all to interpret revolutionary practice’, Lacan, 1966: 9, my trans-lation).

4 This is a non-published seminar of Lacan. Especially in the lessons of 13, 20 and 27November and the lesson of 4 December he discusses the ideas we elaborate in thissection.

5 Lacan (1991) accentuates that Marx detects the hidden structure that founds thesystem. A main Lacanian critique nevertheless is that Marx did not recognize theimaginary implications of the process at hand, i.e. that the increasingly complexorganization of the symbolic system proportionally determines the importanceattributed to the fetishized product (Žižek, 1988). After all, the more jouissance islost because of the complexity of the symbolic system, the more incarnations of thelack will obtain a sublime status.

6 This detachment is especially discussed in the lessons of 12 April 1967 and 30 April1969.

References

Aarons, Z. Normality and abnormality in adolescence. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child,1970, 25, 309–39.

Ansermet, F. & Sorrentino, M.-G. Malaise dans l’institution. Paris: Anthropos, 1991.Arnaud, G. The organization and the symbolic: Organizational dynamics viewed from a

Lacanian perspective. Human Relations, 2002, 55, 691–716.



Berenstein, I. Analysis terminable and interminable: Fifty years on. International Journalof Psycho-Analysis, 1987, 68, 21–35.

Bion, W.R. Experiences in groups. London: Tavistock, 1961.Cherniss, C. Beyond burnout. New York: Routledge, 1995.Cooper, A. Some limitations on therapeutic effectiveness: The ‘burnout syndrome’ in

psychoanalysts. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 1986, 55, 576–98.Firth, J. Personal meanings of occupational stress: Cases from the clinic. Journal of Occu-

pational Psychology, 1985, 58, 139–48.Forney, D.S., Wallace-Schutzman, F. & Wiggers, T.T. Burnout among career development

professionals: Preliminary findings and implications. Personnel and Guidance Journal,1982, 60, 435–9.

Freud, S. Preface to Aichhorn’s wayward youth. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard editionof the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 19). London: HogarthPress, 1961, pp. 272–5.

Freud, S. Analysis terminable and interminable. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard editionof the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 23). London: HogarthPress, 1964, pp. 209–54.

Friedman, I.A. Burnout in teachers: Shattered dreams of impeccable professional perform-ance. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2000, 56, 595–606.

Gabriel, Y. Organizations in depth. London: Sage, 1999.Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine, 1967.Houkes, I., Janssen, P.P.M., de Jonge, J. & Nijhuis, F.J.N. Specific relationships between

work characteristics and intrinsic work motivation, burnout and turnover intention: Amulti-sample analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,2001, 10, 1–23.

Innstrand, S.T., Espnes, G.A. & Mykletun, R. Burnout among people working with intel-lectually disabled persons: A theory update and an example. Scandinavian Journal ofCaring Sciences, 2002, 16, 272–9.

Jenkins, R., Rose, J. & Lovell, C. Psychological well-being of staff working with peoplewho have challenging behaviour. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 1997, 41,502–11.

Jonckheere, L. The symptom between Marxism and psychoanalysis. The Letter, 2001, 21,52–4.

Kojève, A. Introduction à la lecture de Hegel. Paris: Gallimard, 1947.Kvale, S. Interviews. London: Sage, 1996.Lacan, J. Réponses à des étudiants en philosophie sur l’objet de la psychanalyse. Cahiers

pour l’Analyse, 1966, 3, 5–13.Lacan, J. Le séminaire, Livre XIV, La logique du fantasme, 1966–1967. Unpublished seminar.Lacan, J. Le séminaire, Livre XVI, D’un autre à l’autre, 1968–1969. Unpublished seminar.Lacan, J. Intervention sur neuvième congrès de l’École Freudienne de Paris. Lettres de

l’École Freudienne, 1976, 19, 555–9.Lacan, J. Aggressivity in psychoanalysis. In J. Lacan (Ed.), Ecrits – a selection. London:

Routledge, 1977, pp. 8–30.Lacan, J. Le séminaire, Livre XVII, L’envers de la Psychanalyse, 1969–1970. Paris: Seuil,

1991.Lacan, J. Le séminaire, IV, La relation d’objet, 1956–1957. Paris: Seuil, 1994.Lacan, J. Autres écrits. Paris: Seuil, 2001.Leiter, M.P. & Harvie, P.L. Burnout among mental health workers: A review and research

agenda. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 1996, 42, 90–101.Long, S. The signifier and the group. Human Relations, 1991, 44, 389–401.Marx, K. Capital. A new abridgement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. & Leiter, M.P. Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology,

2000, 52, 397–422.



Menninger, K. Love against hate. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1942.Menzies Lyth, I. Containing anxiety in institutions. London: Free Association Books, 1988.Miles, M. & Huberman, M. Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage, 1994.Mitchell, G. & Hastings, R.P. Coping, burnout, and emotion in staff working in community

services for people with challenging behaviours. American Journal on Mental Retarda-tion, 2001, 106, 448–59.

Novick, J. Negative therapeutic motivation and negative therapeutic alliance. Psycho-analytic Study of the Child, 1980, 35, 299–320.

Obholzer, A. & Zagier Roberts, V. The unconscious at work. London: Routledge, 1994.Pines, A.M. Teacher burnout: A psychodynamic existential perspective. Teachers and

Teaching: Theory and Practice, 2002, 8, 121–41.Schaufeli, W.B. & Enzmann, D. The burnout companion to study and practice. A critical

analysis. London: Taylor & Francis, 1998.Stern, D. The interpersonal world of the infant. New York: Basic Books, 1985.Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. Basics of qualitative research. London: Sage, 1990.Vanheule, S. Caring and its impossibilities: A Lacanian perspective. Organisational and

Social Dynamics, 2002, 2, 264–85.Vanheule, S., Lievrouw, A. & Verhaeghe, P. Burnout and intersubjectivity: A psychoana-

lytical study from a Lacanian perspective. Human Relations, 2003, 56, 321–39.Vanier, A. Some remarks on the symptom and the social link: Lacan with Marx. Journal

for the Psychoanalysis of Culture and Society, 2001, 6, 40–6.Verhaeghe, P. Beyond gender. From subject to drive. New York: Other Press, 2001.Vinciguerra, R.P. Marx pas sans Lacan. Ornicar? digital, 2003, 238.Vlerick, P. Exploratieve analyse van de factoriële validiteit van de Maslach Burnout Inven-

tory. Tijdschrift Klinische Psychologie, 1993, 23, 235–50.Žižek, S. Le plus sublime des hystériques. Paris: Point hors ligne, 1988.Žižek, S. The sublime object of ideology. London & New York: Verso, 1989.Žižek, S. The fragile absolute. London & New York: Verso, 2000.


Stijn Vanheule is a Clinical Psychologist, Psychoanalyst in privatepractice and Assistant Professor at the department of Psychoanalysis andClinical Consulting at Ghent University (Belgium). His research interestsinclude Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis, psychoanalytic researchinto psychopathology (especially affective disorders and professionalburnout) and social dynamics.[E-mail: [email protected]]

Paul Verhaeghe is a Clinical Psychologist, Psychoanalyst in privatepractice and Full Professor at the department of Psychoanalysis andClinical Consulting at Ghent University (Belgium). His research interestsinclude Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis, clinical psycho-diagnostics,psychoanalytic psychotherapy and gender studies.[E-mail: [email protected]]


Powerlessness and Impossibility in Special Education: a Qualitative Study on Professional Burnout from a Lacanian Perspective

Documents