英：desire of the analyst; 法：desir de l'analyste
“分析家的欲望”是一个歧义性的措辞，它在拉康的著作中似乎摇摆于两种意义之间：
- 被归于分析家的欲望正如分析者会把知识归于分析家，所以他也会把欲望归于分析家。因此，分析家不仅是一个假设知道的主体 (SUBJECT SUPPOSED TO KNOW), 而且还是一个“假设欲望的主体”(subject supposed to desire)。因而，“分析家的欲望”这一措辞便并非指涉于分析家精神中的真实欲望，而是指涉于分析者归于他的欲望。
分析家贯穿治疗始终的任务，都是在于使分析者不可能确定自己知道分析家想要从他那里得到什么：分析家必须确保他的欲望对于分析者而言“始终保持着某种未知”(S11,274)。如此一来，分析家的被假设的欲望就变成了分析过程的驱动力，因为它使分析者不断地工作，不断地试图去发现分析家想要从他那里得到什么；“分析家的欲望归根结底便是在精神分析中运作的东西”(Ec, 854)。通过给分析者呈现出一个谜一般的欲望，分析家便占据了大他者的位置，主体向其询问“你要什么”(Che vuoi?“你想从我这里得到什么”)，其结果便是主体的基本幻想在转移中显现出来。
- 专属于分析家的欲望“分析家的欲望”这一措辞的另一层意义，指的是必定在其指导治疗的方式上驱策分析家的欲望。相比于肯定性的定义，这种欲望更倾向于否定性的定义。它当然不是一种对于不可能的欲望 (S7,300)。它也不是一种旨在“行善”或“治愈”的欲望；相反，它是一种“对于治愈的不欲望”(S7,218)。
它不是一种让分析者认同分析家的欲望，“分析家的欲望…趋向的恰恰是认同的对立面”(S11,274)。分析家欲望的不是认同，而是让分析者自身独特的真理在治疗中显现，这一真理绝对不同于分析家的真理：分析家的欲望因而是“一种旨在获得绝对差异的欲望”(S11,276)。正是在“专属于分析家的欲望”这层意义上，拉康希望把分析家的欲望的问题定位于精神分析伦理学的核心。
分析家要如何被这个专属于其功能的欲望所指导呢？根据拉康的说法，这只能凭借一种训练性分析而发生。成为一个分析家的基本要求与必要条件 (sine qua non), 便是要亲身经历分析性的治疗。在此治疗过程中，某种欲望经济学上的突变将会产生在这位未来分析家 (analyst-to-be)的身上；他的欲望将会得到重构与重组 (S8,221-2)。只有当这发生的时候，他才能够恰当地起到作为一个分析家的功能。
(desir de I'analyste) The phrase 'the desire of the analyst'is an ambiguous one thatseems to oscillate in Lacan's work between two meanings:
A desire attributed to the analyst As well as attributing knowledge to the analyst, so also the analysand attributes desire to the analyst. The analyst is therefore not only aSUBJECT SUPPOSED TO KNOW but also a 'subject supposed to desire'. Thus thephrase 'the analyst's desire'does not refer the real desire in the analyst's psyche, but tothe desire which the analysand attributes to him.
The task of the analyst throughout the treatment is to make it impossible for theanalysand to be sure that he knows what the analyst wants from him; the analyst mustmake sure that his desire 'remains an x'for the analysand (S11,274). In this way theanalyst's supposed desire becomes the driving force of the analytic process, since it keepsthe analysand working, trying to discover what the analyst wants from him;'the desire ofthe analyst is ultimately that which operates in psychoanalysis' (Ec, 854). By presentingthe analysand with an enigmatic desire, the analyst occupies the position of the Other, ofwhom the subject asks Che vuoi? ('What do you want from me?'), with the result that thesubject's fundamental fantasy emerges in the transference.
A desire proper to the analyst The other sense of the phrase 'the desire of theanalyst'refers to the desire which must animate the analyst in the way he directstreatment. This is easier to define negatively than positively. It is certainly not a desire forthe impossible (S7,300). Nor is it a desire to 'do good'or 'to cure'; on the contrary, it is'a non-desire to cure' (S7,218). It is not a desire that the analysand identify with theanalyst; the analyst's desire... Tends in a direction that is the exact opposite ofidentification' (S11,274). Rather than identification, the analyst desires that theanalysand's own unique truth emerge in the treatment, a truth that is absolutely differentto that of the analyst; the analyst's desire is thus 'a desire to obtain absolute difference' (S11,276). It is in the sense of 'a desire proper to the analyst'that Lacan wishes to locatethe question of the analyst's desire at the heart of the ethics of psychoanalysis.
How is it that the analyst comes to be guided by the desire which is proper to hisfunction? According to Lacan, this can only occur by means of a training analysis. Theessential requirement, the condition sine qua non for becoming an analyst, is to undergoanalytic treatment oneself. In the course of this treatment there will be a mutation in theeconomy of desire in the analyst-to-be; his desire will be restructured,reorganised (S8,221-2). Only if this happens will he be able to function properly as an analyst.