|
|
J E P - Number 10-11 - Winter-Fall 2000 |
State of Psychoanalysis Worldwide Introduction to Estates General of Psychoanalysis (July 8, 2000) Elisabeth Roudinesco |
Keywords: Freud – French Revolution – Dictatorship – Psychoanalysis and Psychiatry – Psychoanalytic Institutions Summary On the occasion of the meeting of the Estates General, it is appropriate to emphasize that psychoanalysis puts into question the paternal function, and is thereby incompatible with all forms of sovereignty. Psychoanalysis opposes state terror and discrimination: in the face of the death drive, it mourns the loss of mastery and acknowledges guilt. The analysis of the solitary, uprooted subject that Freud inaugurated has been transmitted through discipleship and filiation, and while it has succeeded largely in Western, urban environments, it has spread throughout the world, proliferating in many Schools and diverse institutional settings, without being dominated by any single organization or hegemonic thought system. A contemporary renewal of the practice of psychoanalysis might take into account new forms of parenting and family relations, reconsider the treatment of homosexuality and the definition of perversion, and confront demands for diagnosis and therapy in changing social systems, while remaining open as a critical instrument. Psychoanalysis was invented by a Jew of Haskala, in
the heart of a Mitteleuropa still laboring under the ancient feudal system to
which the Revolution of 1789 had put an end the previous century.
Psychoanalysis was intended to re-evaluate symbolically a paternal function
whose deconstruction it had also contributed. By means of its nocturnal vision of mankind submerged by the
tragedy of Oedipus, it presented the world with a fascinating Utopia, a new
science of the unconscious. In
other words, Freud and his early disciples, the pioneers of the Wednesday
Psychological Society[1],
attempted to change Man, not by means of social revolution, but through an
awakening of consciousness: a consciousness able to admit that its freedom
could be bound to the fate of dreams, sex and desire, to the destiny of a
failing reason. In
forty-one countries, psychoanalysis has had an impact since the early twentieth
century; however, in only thirty-two of these has it succeeded in sometimes
becoming a powerful institutional movement, at times becoming an establishment
limited to a particular group or a number of individuals. It should not surprise us that it has
spread, with few exceptions (for example Japan and India), in the areas of
Western civilization (Europe, North and South America, Australia, Israel, Lebanon),
with considerable variables depending on the country. Born
in the wake of industrialization, weakening religious conviction, and the
decline of traditional patriarchy—that is, the lowering of autocratic,
theocratic and monarchic powers, and therefore the advent of democracy and the
emancipation of women—it dispensed its teachings, founded its
associations and created its training institutes in large cities whose
inhabitants are for the most part severed from their roots, withdrawn into a
diminished family nucleus and plunged into anonymity and cosmopolitanism. Favorable to the exploration of
intimate depths, psychoanalysis is nourished by a conception of the
subjectivity which presupposes a solitude of man confronted with himself in
renouncing all forms of tribal ascendancy. The
device of the couch in this sense is no more than the clinical translation of
that detachment: a private discussion with oneself before an otherness reduced
to its most simple expression. As
for transference, the main concept established by Freud, it is no more than the
transposition, at an intersubjective level, of an ascendancy which has become
undone in reality, the power of which the subject reconstructed in his
imagination for the purpose of the therapy. Considering
that these Estates General make reference to those of 1789 and that in the
program's illustration the king's throne has been eliminated, in this way
pointing at the absence of monarchic sovereignty in the interests of that of
people—people like the psychoanalysts who gathered together today to speak
of the future of psychoanalysis—I cannot resist asking whether or not
that discipline is regicidal, whether the theory it puts into practice in order
to comprehend the origin of societies assumes or not the existence of an
original murder. Freud
preferred the English type of constitutional monarchy to the republican
sovereignty of Year II established by the French Convention (June 24, 1793): the first in his opinion
incarnated a culture of the Ego[2],
a puritan Ego capable of mastering its passions, a moral rectitude, an ethic of
constraint. The other, on the
contrary, represented the territory of the hither, the aesthetic of disorder,
of the libido and the driven masses--in other words, a bursting in of forces
which, although uncontrollable, were not lacking seduction. This is a distinction between the
masculine, with admiration for Cromwell, on the one hand, and the feminine,
with fascination for Charcot and the demonstrations at the
Salpétriêre Hospital, on the other. Beyond
this English/French bipolarity, and the admission of the sexual difference in
his cultural choices, Freud constantly stresses, from Totem and Taboo to Moses[3], that the murder of the father was always
necessary for the edification of any human society. However, once that act was accomplished, society did not
abandon murderous anarchy unless
that act was followed by a sanction and a reconciliation with the image of the
father. In other words, Freud
believed in the necessity of murder and the necessity of its prohibition, and
at the same time in the necessity of the act and in the recognition of guilt
sanctioned by the law. He believed
that all human society is affected by the death drive and that that drive
cannot be eliminated. However, he
also asserted that any civilized society is based on the supposition of the
existence of pardon, mourning, and redemption[4]. Can
we consequently deduct that psychoanalysis is at the same time regicidal (based
as it is on the Freudian thesis on the necessity of the act of murder) and
hostile to all forms of inflicted death—torture or death
penalty—since that act, although repeated in the history of revolutions,
must be followed by punishment which tends to abolish the possibility of crime
and therefore of capital punishment[5] In the same way, and to return to the
question of what defines the conditions of the exercise of psychoanalysis in
the world, we could say that it has no nationality, knows no frontiers,
although its manner of establishment will inevitably bear the cultural traits
of the country of adoption. It is
therefore not essentially 'sovereignist', as it does not recognize the sacred
nature of sovereignty—of the nation or its chief—although, historically,
its modes of transmission have always been in support of the principle of
filiation or "apostolic succession", as Michael Balint put it[6]. It is, in other words, a system of
initiation into knowledge and practice from a master to his/her disciple
through the didactic treatment.
Nevertheless, because it does not acknowledge that holy sovereignity,
psychoanalysis as a discipline assumes the uprooting of the subject when
confronted with himself, a decentering of the subject, as Freud put it, an
interior exile which implies three narcissistic humiliations: no longer being
at the center of the universe, no longer being outside the animal world, no
longer being master of one's own house[7]. One
does then understand why psychoanalysis has become established in all the
nations of the world subsequent to the psychiatric gesture called
"Pinelian", after Philippe Pinel, in the 18th century and ratified by
the French Convention,
which gave form to the removal of madness from the world of demonic possession
and religion[8]. One also understands why it has always
been persecuted in countries where the civil state did not exist—and even
more so by those political regimes which had suppressed the entire body of
basic freedoms characterizing that civil state: first of all, the Nazi regime
designated it as a "Jewish science", and as such it was victim of an
extermination in spite of the spread of its concepts and its vocabulary; later,
the Stalinist regime stigmatized it as a "bourgeois science" from 1949
on, even after twenty years had passed since it had disappeared from Soviet
territory. Michel
Foucault emphasized rightly in 1976 that, in line with his rupture with the
theories of heredity-degeneracy, Freud, as a reaction to the great wave of
racism of his times, had given as a principle of sexuality "La loi—the law of alliance, of the
forbidden consanguinity, of the Sovereign-Father". Briefly, he had assembled around the
question of desire all the ancient order of power, and he added:
"psychoanalysis has been essentially—except for a few
exceptions—in a practical and theoretical opposition with fascism"[9]. This
Foucaultian judgement which I embrace is directed to the discipline
itself. It is as a discipline that psychoanalysis is essentially
incompatible with the dictatorial forms of fascism and with any of the forms of
discrimination associated with it (racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, etc.),
and it remains independent of certain representatives of psychoanalysis who, in
particular historical circumstances, were not up to what this discipline
demanded, to the point of collaborating with the regimes persecuting it[10].
It
is good that psychoanalysis demonstrates that the destructive drive, murder,
violence, hatred of oneself and the other, are the passionate invariants of the
human condition which must be fought even when it indicates their infinite
repetitiveness. The
double process of detachment from sovereignty and of extrication from a
symbolic function of the father characterizes the very movement of
psychoanalysis. The evolution of its institutions is testimony of it. For the early Freudians, psychoanalysis
was the property of a founding father who referred to his own group as a
"savage horde". Those
who left him assumed the role of dissidents and no longer belonged to the
elected few. The
sovereign function of power was delegated by Freud to the International
Psychoanalytical Association (IPA) in 1910. That was the only legitimate authority of psychoanalysis for
nearly twenty years, which was directed not by the founder who continued to
incarnate its creative force, but by his disciples of the first
generation. That oligarchic type
of power well suited a type of psychoanalysis which was still molded in the
image of the theatrical production of a classical or Shakespearean sort:
somewhere between the city of Thebes and the kingdom of Denmark. With
the scissions which would occur in 1927, the IPA gradually ceased being the
vehicle of psychoanalytical sovereignty, remaining however—at least for a
while—its only legitimate authority. Actually, those who seceded did not leave the community, in
which the living Freud was still the main actor, but attempted to create other
internal currents within that community.
The scissions in the years between the World Wars was symptomatic of the
impossibility for psychoanalysis to be entirely represented by a single
government. That period of
scissions reflected what was the very essence of Freudian invention: the
decentralizing of the subject, the abolition of Mastery, the overthrow of
monarchic authority. This
is why, after the Second World War, the IPA was no longer considered to be the
only institution able to gather together the whole of psychoanalytical currents
in one indivisible community. At
that point, not only other associations which were attempting to coexist within
a single empire, but groups which rejected the very principle of belonging to a
single unity emerged. They made
claims for both the disappeared father and his doctrine and an abandonment of
his system of thought. These
scissions signaled the transformation of psychoanalysis into a mass movement. The
present situation reflects the history which we have inherited. At this point, we know that no
International can claim to be the incarnation of the absolute legitimacy of
psychoanalysis. Consequently, all
its institutions have felt the influence of the mourning for a sovereignty lost
forever or engendered by the interminable mourning of the figure of a master to
whom some would wish to be faithful at the risk of transforming that figure
into a sham. Therefore
we have now no single
International but many Internationals
which group together some of the numerous associations—which are not
homogenous or in perpetual mutation: presently at least four in addition to the
IPA[11]. As regards associations, schools,
societies, they number in the hundreds worldwide and represent around 30,000
listed practitioners, added to which are the independents, in constant
progression, either belonging to no institution or more than one. The success enjoyed by psychoanalysis was challenged
by incessant attacks. During the
first half of the 20th century, it was assimilated to a pan-sexualism and
blamed for a lowering of civilized behavior. It was accused of corrupting morals and sowing discord
within families. After 1960, when
the Western world became more liberal in sexual matters, psychoanalysis was
condemned for its alleged clinical ineffectuality, for its unscientific
nature. After having been banished
from the realm of right-thinking citizens for its rebel spirit, it was excluded
from the academy of notables of science because of an attachment, considered
conservative, to the traditions of Greek and Judeo-Christian humanism. These criticisms are the sign of the force of
psychoanalysis. However, although
its institutions are not in danger, its teachings are widely threatened in the
universities, in ways varying according to the country. It is in regression in Europe; it is
limited to the Humanities
Department (literature, philosophy, sociology, history) in the United States; while in Latin
America—above all in Brazil—it has been strongly established in all
the trainings of clinical psychologists (that is, in the Psychology
Departments, which explains the vitality of the Latin American psychoanalytical
movement which is today comparable to the ancient Diaspora coming from
Mitteleuropa). As an answer to the attacks, psychoanalysis could well adopt the famous phrase Mirabeau
addressed—on May 5, 1789—to the Deputies of the Third Estate (soon
to be called "députés des communes"): "Il leur suffit de rester
immobiles pour se rendre formidables à leurs ennemis”(“It is enough for them to
stay immobile to become formidable for their enemies")[12]
. Despite the fact that the death of psychoanalysis has
been regularly announced, psychoanalysis has in fact spread out into many
currents of thought—obviously some Freudian ones, but above all the
numerous interpretations of that current.
Certain schools bear the name of their founding masters (Anna Freud,
Melanie Klein, Jacques Lacan), while others instead choose a label, a
conceptual belonging. One could
list five main principles (besides classic Freudianism), divided in the various
geographical areas I mentioned above: Ego Psychology, Self Psychology,
Kleinism, Existential analysis, AnnaFreudism, Lacanism, each is in turn divided
into various branches. The
expansion is so vast that one might ask if there still exists a
psychoanalytical community and whether the practitioners of the unconscious
around the world still wish to communicate in a transversal way, beyond their
respective schools. The
19th century was the century of psychiatry, and the 20th was the century of
psychoanalysis. What is by now
referred to as the crisis of psychoanalysis is no more than a crisis linked to
the definition of its specific nature in the world, in the 21st century where
already now one is a witness to a great multiplication of psychotherapies: a
thousand are presently accounted.
Their success is due in part to the fact that psychiatric knowledge is
bogged down in the cognitivist behaviorist classifications which reduce man to
a sum of syndromes, as demonstrated by the interminable, so-called
"diagnostic" debates which have stormed for the past twenty years
regarding the DSM (Statistical and Diagnostic Manual of Mental Illness, adopted by the World Health Organization)[13]. However, that success is also the
consequence of a transformation of Western society—the cult of happiness,
the quest for health, the interest in the body and the privileges accorded to
the achievements of a narcissistic individual. In other words, the theme of "personal
development" has in the Western world—notably in the middle
classes—substituted political or social commitment, so calling into
question a subjectivity which is at the same time subversive and
universalizing. Adapted
to each case, each group, each individual, and therefore adopted by the middle
classes anxious about their well-being, these therapies were developed slowly,
first in the United States beginning in the 1960s, then about ten years ago in
most Western countries. At the
same time, as the world evolved towards a global economy with no other enemy,
after the defeat of Communism in 1989, the fantasy raised by the Self became
sovereign in its own home and projected its fantasies onto another which
incarnated what is foreign to oneself, foreign to the homeland, to what is
intimate, to the nation itself[14]. Unlike psychoanalysis, but on the same
terrain in which it is practiced, these therapies lead to the belief that
individual will is more powerful than the weight of the past, that it is far
more determinant for the destiny of the subject than repression or the
anchorage in an unconscious genealogy. If
psychoanalysis must by now define its identity rigorously, while perpetuating
the strength of its concepts, it cannot do so by closing itself within a dogma
or a fake unity. In other words,
if it is to survive as a clinical practice, it cannot avoid taking into account
the real state of psychic suffering, which is generally treated by
psychotherapies, and which has followed the transformation of the Western
family, a transformation which was partly brought about by psychoanalysis. Starting
from these remarks, the reflection in progress in these Estates General could
result in some propositions regarding (among others) the future of a new
psychoanalysis which we wish to create.
I would summarize these propositions in the form of the following questions: 1
- How is the Treatment-Type to be considered—the armchair-couch
model—in a world where the demand for efficacy goes hand in hand with a
conscious will of the users themselves (patients and practitioners of
psychiatry, medicine and psychotherapy) to avoid exploration of the
unconscious? 2
- How is a clinical knowledge to be created which would escape the present
classification of psychiatry and without abandoning the essence of Freudian
definition? In the case of the
treatment of madness in a world where each subject will have more and more
access to his medical files, should the nosographic frame, already denounced by
Michel Foucault, be maintained, even though is in danger today more than ever
of being assimilated to a discriminatory judgement? 3
- Can homosexuality be still considered a perversion and can one continue,
contrary to the evolution of Western societies, to exclude even
in-a-non-officially way homosexuals from the profession, as it is the case in
certain psychoanalytic associations?
In the same train of thought, should there not be more reflection on the
manner in which psychoanalysis should take into account the statute of the
child and the new forms of family organization (co-parenthood, homo-parenthood,
artificial insemination) which already exist and are disapproved of by a
considerable number of practitioners? 4
- How should the future of psychoanalysis be considered, both in the various
countries where it has not yet been rooted and in Europe where it is enjoying a
new success, notably after the fall of the Communist regimes? Will the new psychoanalysis of the 21st
century be exported to these countries, following a post-colonial or a
globalizing model, in the manner of an interpreting machine, or instead will it
succeed in becoming a critical instrument, critical at the same time of its own
dogmas as well of those schools of thought which resist its expansion? In
conclusion, I should like to extend my heartfelt thanks to René Major,
as it is thanks to his passion for psychoanalysis and his tolerant and
democratic spirit that this magnificent event was made possible. [1] The Minutes of
the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society, I, 1906-1908, edited by Herman Nunberg (New York: International
Universities Press, 1962); Ibidem, II, 1908-1910, edited by Herman Nunberg (New
York: International Universities Press, 1967); Ibid., III, 1910-1911, edited by
Herman Nunberg (New York: International Universities Press, 1967); Ibid., IV,
1912-1918, edited by Herman Nunberg (New York: International Universities
Press, 1975).
[2] See Carl Schorske,
Thinking with History
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998). [3] Sigmund Freud, Totem
and Taboo (1912-1913), SE, XIII, pp. 1-158; Moses and Monotheism:
Three Essays (1939), SE, XXIII, pp. 1-137. [4] See Jacques
Derrida, “Le siècle du pardon”, interview with Michel
Wieviorka, Le Monde des débats, December 1999. [5] See on this
subject Elisabeth Roudinesco, “Freud et le régicide.
Eléments d’une réflexion”; it will be published on Revue
germanique internationale
in September 2000. And Myriam Revault d’Allones, D’une mort
à l’autre (Paris:
Payot, 1955). [6] Michael Balint, Primary Love and Psycho-Analytic
Technique (London: 1952). [7] Sigmund Freud, A
Difficulty on the Path of Psycho-Analysis (1916), SE, XVII, pp. 137-144. [8]See Jacques Postel, Genèse de la
psychiatrie. Les premiers écrits de Philippe Pinel (1981) (Le Plessis-Robinson:
Synthélabo, 1998).
[9] Michel Foucault, La
volonté de savoir (Paris:
Gallimard, 1976), p. 198. [10] See René
Major, De l’éléction. Freud face aux idéologies
américaine, allemande et soviétique (Paris: Aubier, 1986). Elisabeth Roudinesco and Michel
Plon, Dictionnaire de la psychanalyse (Paris: Fayard, 1997). [11] See Dictionnaire
de la psychanalyse,
op.cit. [12] Albert Soboul, Histoire
de la révolution française, vol. 1, De la Bastille à la Gironde (1962)(Paris: Gallimard, 1972), p. 148. [13] See Stuart Kirk
and Herb Kutchins, The Selling of DSM: The Rhetoric of Science in Psychiatry (New York: Aldine de Gruyter,1992). [14] See Christopher
Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism. American Life in an Age of Diminishing
Expectations (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1991). |
|
|