Given the hegemony of behavioral and cognitive approaches in the early accompaniment of autism, many psychoanalysts criticize this universalization and defend the place occupied by psychoanalysis. To do this, the term “subject” is often used: these practices, say psychoanalysts, exclude the subject, whereas psychoanalysis bets on its emergence. However, what is the autistic subject’s status in the psychoanalytic clinic? From a texts’ review, it appeared that for many psychoanalysts the divided subject, defined by Lacan, would not operate in autism. At the same time, we do not have many elaborations that propose a specific subject status for autism. Therefore, it was concluded that there is a vacant place of the concept of subject in the psychoanalytic clinic of autism of Lacanian orientation. In this article, three paths are proposed to reduce the distance between a promotion of psychoanalysis as a clinic of the subject and our theoretical elaborations on the subject in autism.
Key words:
Autism; psychoanalysis; lacanian orientation; divided subject