Oğuzhan Nacak
He is a founding member and president of the Psychoanalysis Research Association (Psikanaliz Araştırmaları Derneği) affiliated with IF-EPFCL, an international organization active in Lacanian psychoanalysis. He teaches courses on psychoanalytic theory and practice in the Clinical Psychology graduate program at Bahçeşehir University. He introduced Luis Izcovich’s book “Love, Desire, and Jouissance in Perversion” (Sapkınlıkta Aşk, Arzu ve Jouissance) into Turkish. His writings have been published on various platforms, such as Psikanaliz Defterleri and Birikim. He is the host of the Psychoanalysis Conversations (Psikanaliz Sohbetleri) Podcast Series, which examines psychoanalytic concepts in detail. Currently, he continues his psychoanalysis and supervision practice from his own office in Nişantaşı, İstanbul.
How did you start the “Psychoanalysis Conversations (Psikanaliz Sohbetleri)” podcast series, and what motivated you to undertake this project? How have the listeners’ responses affected you since the podcast began airing?
Firstly, let me thank you and DolmusXpress for this interview opportunity. I deeply appreciate the intellectual bridge you’re aiming to build between Turkey and Germany. Having known you since our years at METU, I suspect we share similar motivations! Let me elaborate:
Psychoanalysis is a discipline frequently discussed but often misunderstood. It is sometimes reduced to oversimplified labels (seen as outdated, heteronormative, supportive of power structures, normalizing, etc.). At other times, people avoid engaging with it because of its perceived theoretical complexity, or they overly idealize it. Due to this complexity, as in any intellectual field, I’ve observed the emergence of internal power structures and struggles firsthand. The intricate nature of psychoanalytic theory and the experiential demands of clinical practice encourage certain individuals to monopolize knowledge and position themselves as ultimate authorities.
One of my primary motivations for creating this podcast was to make psychoanalytic theory accessible, initially for clinical professionals, but subsequently for anyone interested. My goal was to simplify complex psychoanalytic concepts, thus democratizing knowledge. Additionally, it aimed to address accessibility issues in the psychoanalytic community and offer a starting point for those interested in deepening their understanding.
Another significant motivation was to introduce the teachings of French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, whom I consider distinct from all post-Freudian analysts and who is subject to various prejudices among Turkish clinicians—sometimes justified, often not. By demystifying Lacan’s challenging speech and writing style, my intention was to convey his theoretical tools for clinical practice and understanding the world. I wanted to highlight how Lacan moved psychoanalysis beyond being a “bourgeois dream,” confronting post-Freudian psychoanalytic trends that advocated identifying with various norms and ideals. Lacan strongly emphasized that psychoanalysis’s goal was to mobilize the subject toward their own desire.
Honestly, although these motivations were always present, I initially expected the podcast to appeal to a limited, niche audience and to remain a specialized project with its own direction. But that was not the case— it attracted significant attention, sometimes ranking among Spotify’s top podcasts. It now has around 50,000 followers, despite my recent irregular publishing schedule. Over time, the podcast also became a collaborative space for my colleagues. What delighted me most was seeing various prejudices toward Lacanian psychoanalysis—stemming from Lacan’s sensational persona or from certain Turkish Lacanian groups—soften considerably.
How did you conceptualize the relationship between art, literature, and desire in your podcast series?
Actually, the connection between psychoanalysis and art remains one of the least-explored areas in my podcast. Although I’ve occasionally referenced literature and cinema, I only directly addressed psychoanalysis’s relationship with literature in one dedicated series, which led me into challenging debates on the limits of language in terms of death, mourning, or unease. I paused this series after the devastating February 6 earthquake in Maraş, and I haven’t yet returned to it.
Answering this question requires some theoretical context: Lacan gives extraordinary importance to language, suggesting human subjectivity emerges as a linguistic effect. Simply put, our biological existence passes through language, which is the carrier of culture and law, and this encounter’s outcomes are unpredictable, differing for each individual. Lacan’s concept of “subject” is that of the unconscious, not a consciously acting entity. For instance, it can push one toward identifying as a woman, induce anxiety in certain situations, or repeatedly confront a person with various internal conflicts.
The language introduces a fundamental lack into our existence. The moment we encounter language, we move beyond a state of merely fulfilling biological needs and enter a realm where we attempt to articulate our needs through language. We become beings who try to express our needs, but this articulation itself introduces a gap between what we need and what we are able to express. Indeed, need and demand never fully overlap. A demand can be met, but something is always missing. It is precisely in this gap that desire is born. Desire, for Lacan, is not something that can be completely satisfied; rather, it is a persistent force that propels the subject forward, an engine of movement that sustains human subjectivity.
Within the theme of art and desire, how do you interpret the relationship between Lacanian psychoanalysis and art?
While the language simultaneously creates desire and subjectivity, it also encounters limitations. Language is incapable of fully capturing all human experiences; there is always an aspect of subjectivity inaccessible to language. Lacan calls this unreachable dimension the “Real” and positions it beyond the Symbolic order, which is bound to the language. One of the clearest ways to recognize these linguistic limitations is the difficulty humans experience when trying to express deeply challenging experiences such as death, loss, mourning, and anxiety. When we reach the limits of something, words abandon us, and our ability to make sense of or convey these experiences almost entirely disappears. This is precisely where art steps in: Art attempts to approach what is unnameable and inexpressible, to grapple with the Real as Lacan defines it. Similarly, desire—because it is inherently unsatisfiable and always connected to a sense of lack—is also never fully expressible in language. Therefore, each work of art can be viewed as an expression of desire. For instance, Marcel Proust’s “In Search of Lost Time” portrays a protagonist constantly chasing his desire yet repeatedly encountering loss and lack.
An important conclusion here is that, for Lacan, pursuing desire does not equate to a pursuit of hedonism. Desire, according to Lacan, is inherently bound to remain unfulfilled, and a subject truly pursues desire only to the extent that they accept their relationship with this lack, cease trying to reclaim it, and instead willingly embrace the possibilities it offers.
Lacan’s concept of “desire” plays a prominent role in his theories. How does this concept influence your creative processes? Based on your experiences, how would you describe the contributions of the theme of art and desire to creativity?
This question reminds me of Freud’s concept of the three impossible professions: governing, educating, and psychoanalyzing. Undoubtedly, this podcast has an educational dimension. Therefore, I could say that this project is driven by a desire to spread and convey psychoanalytic ideas—a desire intimately connected to a powerful impossibility. At the same time, it’s a desire I know will never reach a final, definitive goal. Although I’m uncertain about when exactly I’ll end the podcast, the only certainty I have is that it will conclude without fully expressing everything I initially had in mind.
How do you perceive the current state of psychoanalysis in Turkey, and what is the level of interest specifically towards the Lacanian approach?
Psychoanalysis in Turkey, particularly in its post-Freudian forms, boasts a strong tradition and solid institutional foundations. This is something I greatly appreciate, and I hope Lacanian psychoanalysis will also reach a similar status in time, though perhaps in distinct and varied forms.
The Lacanian approach, however, remains relatively new in Turkey. Its entry into Turkey has primarily occurred through fields such as philosophy, cultural studies, and cinema rather than through clinical practice. This pattern isn’t unique to Turkey; it is quite typical across the entire Anglophone world. Conversely, in Francophone, Spanish-speaking, and Italian-speaking regions, Lacan’s ideas enjoy significantly stronger influence and acceptance.
In Turkey, the visibility and impact of the Lacanian approach are gradually increasing, although it has been accompanied by internal conflicts and divisions from the beginning. Referring back to my motivations in creating this podcast, one major aim has been to shift attention away from these internal tensions toward the richness of Lacanian theory itself and its practical applications. To what extent I’ve been successful, only time will tell, even though statistics provide encouraging indications.
How widely known and influential are Lacan’s theories in Turkey? Based on your personal observations, how would you characterize the trajectory of discussions and developments related to the Lacanian approach in Turkey?
As previously noted, theoretical engagement with Lacan’s ideas in Turkey remains relatively nascent. Nevertheless, I have personally observed considerable enthusiasm from prominent international Lacanian institutions toward Turkey. Many psychoanalysts have explicitly highlighted to me that younger generations in Turkey demonstrate a more vibrant and active interest in psychoanalysis than their European counterparts. From this perspective, Turkey holds notable promise and significant potential.
I am especially encouraged by the presence and recent initiatives of internationally recognized Lacanian institutions such as EPFCL (École de Psychanalyse des Forums du Champ Lacanien), ECF (École de la Cause Freudienne), and ALI (Association Lacanienne Internationale) within Turkey. My hope is that these engagements will foster increased collaboration, helping to establish a more robust and well-grounded Lacanian psychoanalytic community in Turkey.
Do you have plans to develop future projects around the themes of art, desire, and psychoanalysis?
Certainly! Perhaps this interview will inspire me to revisit my unfinished work on psychoanalysis and literature. I might even expand its scope a bit further and delve deeper into the relationship between psychoanalysis and art. Why not?
Interviewee: Oğuzhan Nacak
@psikanalizsohbetleri
