In this paper we propose to explore an array of critics often targeted to Lacan’s concept of the term “comprehension”. All along his work, he makes several mentions referring to suspend the comprehension regarding patient’s sayings when it’s a neurotic saying or when is the case of a psychosis.
Our proposal is to clear some of the more revealing Lacan’s quotations regarding this term and exemplify them with clinic references. We will also make use of some developments coming from the post structuralism linguistics to bring some light on Lacan’s expressions –often enigmatic- about the term “comprehension”.
Through these pages we’ll develop the deviation that the comprehensive listening drives us, while examining the different modalities where the comprehension mechanism takes place.
We’ll also take account of the reasons why comprehending implies answering to patient’s demand and, for this, collaborates with the resistance.
Finally, we’ll address the difficulties that rise at the moment of following this lacanian indication of “not comprehending”, i.e., to keep this position that is so different to the one that automatically operates in any common dialogue, where assumptions have a fundamental function.