The search for Lacanian psychoanalysis courses and their relationship with other theoretical strands, such as Freudian psychoanalysis and contemporary approaches, has grown steadily among people who wish to begin a training that is ethical, solid and attuned to the complexity of psychic experience. Although psychoanalysis is not formally regulated in Brazil, there is a growing consensus among specialists that the choice of theoretical focus makes a difference in the training path — not as an imposition, but as a subjective, methodological and epistemological orientation.
Over the last decade, we have observed a clear pattern among students who begin this journey: many arrive with simple questions — “how do I start?”, “which approach makes the most sense?”, “is Lacanian psychoanalysis harder?”, “is it worth starting with Freud?” — but, most of the time, these questions carry deeper concerns about professional identity, personal transformation and the desire to understand the human being beyond the surface.
With this in mind, the aim of this article is to offer a clear, rigorous and non-dogmatic reading of how to distinguish Lacanian psychoanalysis courses, courses with a Freudian focus and contemporary trainings that engage with multiple strands. The point is not to defend one path as the best — Academia Enlevo does not uphold rigid views, in line with Projeto 50B — but to help the reader understand the nuances that guide the choice of the path most consistent with their purpose.
Freud, Lacan and contemporary psychoanalysis: what beginners really need to understand
Before choosing between Lacanian psychoanalysis courses and Freudian psychoanalysis courses, it is essential to understand that all these strands share a common core: the recognition of the unconscious, of subjective singularity, of psychic conflicts and of the importance of language as the mediator of human experience.
What changes is not the foundation, but the way each author or school reads these phenomena.
The Freudian approach
Courses focused on Freudian psychoanalysis generally emphasize:
-
classical metapsychology;
-
the first models of the psychic apparatus;
-
the theory of the drives;
-
defense mechanisms;
-
the role of the dream as wish fulfillment;
-
the importance of transference;
-
the clinical path based on listening and free association.
This strand is usually considered a gateway, not because it is simpler, but because it lays the foundations of the entire psychoanalytic field.
The Lacanian approach
Lacanian psychoanalysis courses , on the other hand, start from Lacan’s rereading of Freud, emphasizing:
-
the unconscious structured like a language;
-
the centrality of the signifier;
-
the logic of desire and lack;
-
the imaginary, symbolic and real registers;
-
the function of the Other;
-
the role of the cut and of not-knowing in the clinic;
-
the importance of speech and of logical formalization.
Many beginners believe that Lacanian psychoanalysis is inaccessible or hermetic, but this usually happens when teaching does not respect the student’s subjective time and gradual maturation.
Contemporary approaches
Contemporary trainings usually integrate:
-
post-Freudian rereadings;
-
studies on trauma and the social bond;
-
debates between clinic and culture;
-
interdisciplinary connections (anthropology, philosophy, linguistics);
-
clinical readings aligned with the current context.
It is not about replacing Freud or Lacan, but about broadening dialogues.
Where to start? The role of the question “which focus suits me?”
Among the most frequent doubts is:
“Should I choose Lacanian psychoanalysis courses even without knowing Freud?”
The answer, in contemporary training practice, is not rigid.
What professionals frequently report is that the path grows stronger when the student:
-
understands that Freud and Lacan do not compete;
-
realizes that each focus sheds light on different questions;
-
recognizes that the choice of focus is also a subjective choice;
-
understands that training is gradual and non-linear;
-
avoids models that promise rapid technical mastery.
At the beginning of the path, more important than choosing a fixed line is understanding how each approach thinks about the subject, what kind of questions it produces and what relationship it establishes with human suffering.
For example:
-
Someone interested in language, structure and formalizations may identify early on with the Lacanian approach.
-
Those seeking to understand more descriptive psychic processes may be drawn to Freud.
-
Those interested in social clinical work, trauma or the effects of culture tend to engage with contemporary psychoanalysis.
The fundamental point is that there is no mandatory path — and this is one of the most important ethical pillars of Academia Enlevo.
How to distinguish Lacanian, Freudian and contemporary psychoanalysis courses in practice
When researching Lacanian psychoanalysis courses, many beginners notice that the descriptions tend to be dense, full of technical terms and references to seminars, registers and concepts that seem distant from everyday life. However, complexity should not be confused with inaccessibility. What makes a training understandable is not excessive simplification — but the way the path is presented.
That is why one of the most important criteria for distinguishing courses is to observe how the institution organizes its way of presenting thought.
In Freudian psychoanalysis courses, for example, the structure usually follows the metapsychological paths: topographies, developmental phases, defense mechanisms, dream interpretation, transference and the initial handling of listening. This structure helps the student understand the birth of psychoanalysis and its first conceptual categories.
Lacanian psychoanalysis courses , in turn, tend to structure teaching around categories such as the signifier, the barred subject, desire, lack, the subject of the unconscious, the Other and symbolic castration, as well as the connections with linguistics and logic. This is not “more complex”, but it requires another mode of approach — based more on language than on the descriptive psychic apparatus.
Finally, contemporary trainings are often organized by themes, such as:
-
the clinic of trauma,
-
the clinic of the social bond,
-
the clinic in culture,
-
effects of contemporary discourse,
-
relations between psychoanalysis and society,
-
new forms of psychic suffering.
Thus, when comparing Lacanian psychoanalysis courses, Freudian and contemporary ones, the student can perceive not only theoretical differences, but different ways of building a way of thinking.
What to consider before enrolling in Lacanian psychoanalysis courses?
When evaluating Lacanian psychoanalysis courses, some criteria help the student understand what to expect:
1. Clarity in presenting the fundamentals
Serious courses explain from the outset how Lacan rereads Freud. The training should show the structural path:
-
the symbolic, the imaginary and the real;
-
the mirror stages;
-
the logic of the signifier;
-
desire and its structural lack.
This allows the student to understand that Lacan is not a rupture, but an expansion and formalization of Freudian thought.
2. Care with language
Lacanian language is demanding, but it should not be impenetrable. Responsible courses translate without losing rigor and accompany the student in the gradual acquisition of the vocabulary.
3. The ethics of non-anticipation
A common feature of Lacanian psychoanalysis courses is to show that knowledge lies not with the analyst, but with the subject. This implies that one should not offer quick answers or rigid intervention models.
4. Integration with the student’s experience
Institutions aligned with psychoanalytic ethics present complex texts without disregarding the reader’s singularity. This helps beginners avoid the feeling of inadequacy that sometimes arises when facing Lacanian materials.
Freudian psychoanalysis courses: why do they remain a gateway?
Despite the growing offer of Lacanian psychoanalysis courses, Freudian training remains a widely sought-after and valued path. This is because Freud offers:
-
a historical construction of thought;
-
a progressive logic of reasoning;
-
conceptual categories that serve as a basis for the entire field;
-
texts that make it possible to follow how ideas changed over time.
In addition, Freudian courses help the student to:
-
recognize fundamental clinical phenomena (transference, resistance, repression);
-
get to know psychoanalytic thought through classic cases;
-
understand the impact of the theory on the cultural and social context of the time;
-
perceive how Freud worked through questions that still run through the contemporary clinic.
For many beginners, this trajectory provides methodological security and creates fertile ground for later moving on to Lacanian psychoanalysis courses or contemporary approaches.
Contemporary courses: broadening perspectives
So-called contemporary trainings do not replace Freud and Lacan, but broaden the dialogue. They incorporate current issues that many students bring as their initial motivation, such as:
-
the impacts of technology;
-
psychic suffering in hyperconnectivity;
-
new family configurations;
-
effects of neoliberal discourse on subjectivity;
-
questions of gender and the body;
-
the clinic of trauma and symbolic violence.
Emerging studies suggest that students who identify with cultural themes find greater initial engagement in these paths. This does not mean they should abandon Freud or Lacan, but that they can articulate diverse readings without losing depth.
When choosing between contemporary courses and Lacanian psychoanalysis courses, the student can assess:
-
what kind of question moves them;
-
which reading resonates with their experience;
-
how each approach reads culture and the subject.
The Role of Subjective Experience in Choosing Between Different Psychoanalytic Approaches
When researching Lacanian psychoanalysis courses, Freudian ones or contemporary trainings, many people base their decision solely on theoretical aspects — as if the choice of a line depended exclusively on intellectual affinity. However, experienced professionals frequently report that subjective experience plays an equally relevant role in building the training path.
This subjective experience includes factors such as:
-
the way the student relates to each author’s language,
-
their sensitivity to certain clinical issues,
-
the kind of question that mobilizes them,
-
and the way they understand their own history and their impasses.
In some cases, students find greater resonance with the narrative and descriptive clarity of Freudian texts. In others, contact with the Lacanian structure — with its emphasis on the signifier and the cut — provokes a kind of attention that transforms the way of thinking even before the concepts are mastered. There are also those who recognize themselves in dialogue with contemporary authors, especially when they feel that social, cultural and political themes are necessary crossings for understanding present-day suffering.
This subjective dimension does not replace technical, ethical and theoretical importance. It complements it. Identifying how each approach affects the reader — producing strangeness, curiosity, discomfort or openness — can help discern which path fosters greater involvement and working-through.
In other words, choosing between Freud, Lacan or contemporary perspectives is not just an intellectual decision: it is also an affective and subjective decision, one that accompanies the student throughout the entire training.
How to avoid rigid views when choosing a course
A common misconception at the beginning of training is to believe that:
-
studying Freud makes it impossible to study Lacan;
-
starting with Lacan excludes other lines;
-
studying contemporary authors requires abandoning the founding texts;
-
there is a “right” or “best” path.
None of these ideas is compatible with the formative ethics of psychoanalysis — especially with the vision of Academia Enlevo, which respects plurality and singular paths.
Serious courses do not impose:
-
mandatory tripods,
-
linear stages,
-
ready-to-apply techniques,
-
or promises of quick practice.
Instead, they offer space for working-through, discussion and gradual training — both in Lacanian psychoanalysis courses and in Freudian or contemporary ones.
How to choose between Lacanian, Freudian and contemporary psychoanalysis courses: when the choice becomes part of the training
At the end of reading about the differences between Lacanian psychoanalysis courses, Freudian trainings and contemporary approaches, it becomes evident that the choice between these paths does not depend solely on intellectual preferences. It also reveals something about the way each student approaches human experience, the unconscious and language.
The Freudian key invites one to follow the steps of a thought that is built progressively, accompanying clinical paths, metapsychological formulations and Freud’s own internal transformations. It is a training that sheds light on the birth of fundamental concepts, offering historical and methodological ground to sustain the complexity of the field.
Lacanian psychoanalysis courses, in turn, invite a twist of the gaze. They move the student into a perspective where the signifier, desire, lack, the Other and the symbolic structure take center stage. Lacan calls on the reader to experience a way of thinking that is not organized linearly, but in cuts, repetitions and plays of language that reveal the formation of the subject.
Contemporary approaches, finally, broaden the debate by bringing in elements of current culture, discussing emerging modes of suffering, social transformations, the effects of technology, new forms of bond and issues linked to the body, identity and politics. They are fertile paths for those who seek to understand how the clinic is articulated with contemporary life.
Thus, choosing between Freud, Lacan or modern perspectives is not opting for rival schools, but recognizing:
-
which question moves you at the moment;
-
which language resonates most deeply;
-
what kind of working-through you wish to sustain;
-
how your subjectivity dialogues with each approach.
Observing students’ accounts over the last decade, we have noticed an interesting pattern: most start with Freud, move through Lacan and, at some point, approach contemporary debates. Others start directly with Lacanian psychoanalysis courses, and only later return to the founding texts. This movement is not a failure — it is part of the path. It is an organic, non-linear path that is built in layers.
The choice of the ideal focus, therefore, is not a definitive decision. It is a formative gesture.
Avoid dogmatic views: there is no single model of training
One of the most common risks when researching Lacanian psychoanalysis courses or Freudian ones is falling into the belief that there is a single valid path for training. This view, however, runs counter both to the historical plurality of psychoanalysis and to the ethical premises upheld by Academia Enlevo and Projeto 50B.
Training is:
-
subjective,
-
singular,
-
non-linear,
-
open,
-
built over time,
-
sustained by working-through and not by technique.
The student needs to authorize themselves to travel the path gradually, discovering what resonates, what provokes, what calls to them. There is no “best line”. There is the one that makes sense now — and that may change.
Conclusion: choosing Lacanian, Freudian or contemporary psychoanalysis courses is choosing a way of thinking
Thinking about psychoanalytic training also means thinking about the way each person relates to their questions, their impasses, their desires and their way of understanding the world. More than acquiring knowledge, entering a training path means recognizing that thought is transformed, that language produces effects and that study is a space for subjective working-through.
Lacanian psychoanalysis courses, Freudian courses and contemporary approaches do not compete with one another. They complement each other. Each offers a different lens through which to look at the subject, suffering and desire. Choosing one of them as a starting point is not a closure — it is an opening.
And, like every opening, it requires care, ethics and time.
If study is supported by institutions that respect the complexity of the field, that do not promise shortcuts and that value subjective construction, the path tends to be fertile, transformative and intellectually consistent.
FAQ — Frequently Asked Questions
Can I start directly with Lacanian psychoanalysis courses without studying Freud first?
Yes. Although many beginners start with Freud, there is no fixed rule. What matters is that the course presents the fundamentals needed for the Lacanian path to make sense, especially the relationship between Lacan and Freud.
Are Freudian psychoanalysis courses “easier” than Lacanian ones?
Not exactly. Freud uses more narrative language, but the complexity lies in the concepts and their articulations. Lacan may seem more abstract at first, but both require time to mature.
Does the choice between Freud, Lacan and contemporary approaches affect clinical practice in the future?
The initial choice does not determine future practice. Many professionals move between different strands throughout their training, building their own style of reading and listening.
Is there an ideal order of study between Freud, Lacan and contemporary authors?
No. The order depends on the question that moves the student. Some people start with Freud and move on to Lacan; others begin with contemporary approaches and later return to the founding texts.
Do Lacanian courses require greater familiarity with philosophy or linguistics?
Not necessarily. Although Lacan engages with these fields, good courses introduce such references gradually, without requiring prior training.
Can I combine courses from different approaches?
Yes. Contemporary psychoanalysis is made up of theoretical crossings. Combining paths can enrich the training, as long as there is internal coherence and reflection.
