By Serge Frisch, Leopoldo Bleger, Ursula Burkert, Alex Janssen, Eva Schmidt-Gloor, Franziska Ylander
Collegiality: the foundation of institutional democracy.
My Executive[1] and my Council (2012–2016) have made their mark on the history of our Federation, a legacy passed down from our predecessors. Under their leadership, the number of member societies of the EPF increased, the biennial congress became an annual event, and the pre-congress meetings provided a new scientific and democratic impetus, as well as inspiring a growing number of analysts to take part in the congresses.
It is worth recalling that the EPF is a federation of societies, not of individual members, and that the founding members wanted an EPF that was completely independent of the IPA. According to the statutes, the Council is the governing body of the EPF to which the Executive is accountable. Compliance with this fundamental rule is the basis of all democratic institutional functioning.
Rightly or wrongly, we were convinced that European psychoanalysis was the most vibrant and dynamic in the world. We also believed that the EPF Council was a true gem, as it brings together the presidents of all European analytical societies on an equal footing, regardless of the size of the individual societies. Furthermore, the EPF is a scientific, not a political, organisation, which affords the presidents unprecedented freedom of expression to describe the scientific life of their societies, their conception of psychoanalysis as it has developed in their countries under various constraints, and their doubts. This freedom of expression is only possible if the executive works to ensure that the Council is a non-judgemental, non-rejecting space, a place where the presidents do not feel criticised. A space where they can be curious to listen to and learn from their colleagues and interested in understanding the why and how of certain aspects that may seem surprising or even impossible within their societies; in understanding the implications not only today and now, but also for the future of psychoanalysis.
But freedom of expression does not in any way imply consensus. I feel a brief look back is necessary.
Psychoanalysis was born out of conflict. This notion of conflict is essential, and we must restore its rightful place. Freud fought against the medical establishment, but also against some of his closest collaborators. Let us also recall, a few years later, the major controversies in London between the Kleinians and the Anna Freudians. Or, for that matter, the ‘civil wars’ between Lacanians and Freudians in France, or the numerous disputes concerning training, the number of sessions, the role of training analysts, the Eitingon, French or Uruguayan models, and so on and so forth. One question arises: should psychoanalysis be professionalised, or should candidates be trained in a science (Wallerstein 1972)? This raises the fundamental question of how to train analysts and to what end? Without this conflict, psychoanalysis would not exist or would, at best, be nothing more than common-sense psychology.
A certain degree of tension is essential to institutional life so that a process of analytical thought can unfold within it.
Any psychoanalytic society is an anti-marginalisation endeavour, enabling analysts to meet, discuss, bicker and develop ideas both collectively and in opposition to one another. Admittedly, we need institutions to contain institutional madness, but we must not forget that this institutional normalisation is a pathology in the making. ‘The more institutions lay down rules and constraints to normalise themselves, the more they seek to ignore their pathological nature—or, shall we say, their healthy and indispensable institutional madness’? (Etienne Balibar[2]) How can we prevent the EPF from becoming a normative, superego-driven institution, to allow a certain madness to develop its creativity?
There is often talk of a malaise within our institutions. Could this malaise be the consequence of avoiding conflicts in which disagreements are expressed – something I would link to the notion of ‘common grounds? These ‘common grounds’, where ‘everything goes’, flatten complexity.
The insidious impact of neoliberalism on our analytical institutions
Today, under the influence of neoliberalism—which seeps in like a gas everywhere—calls for the individual’s autonomy from the collective are emerging, and many analysts are now only reluctantly affiliated with institutional structures because they no longer seem to believe in communal life within their society. The illusion of an analytical life without institutions, without a common scientific policy, is taking hold. Our psychoanalytic societies are fragmenting, and an ‘every man for himself’ mentality is replacing the desire or need to live together. In other words, the individual analyst is increasingly becoming a consumer of society rather than an active member.
The political ‘we’ – that is, collegiality, capable of acting collectively – is being lost. The function of psychoanalytic societies is thus reduced to the collective, indeed technical and regulatory, management of scientific and training activities. This is the very essence of neoliberalism, which is not tied to any particular form of society and ‘which defines behaviours and characterises a regime of interaction between people, yet without any vision of being together […], a sign and effect of a void in the social imagination’ (Rosanvallon[3], 2018, p. 380). The nineteenth century operated through constraints and prohibitions, whereas today neoliberalism operates through ‘likes’ – not to make people docile, but to make them dependent. The stability of the neoliberal system stems from the fact that it is not composed of antagonistic classes or conflicts.
Science is questioned, challenged and called into question. It is asked to show greater modesty, to fall into line and to submit to the dictates of public opinion; the phrase ‘I get the impression’ becomes an absolute truth stronger than scientific truth.
We prefer to replace bitter discussions with gentler ideas, which act as mental comfort blankets. Yet psychoanalysis demands boldness: the courage to open oneself up to alternative ways of thinking, to test and challenge them. To paraphrase Bachelard, practising psychoanalysis means thinking against one’s own brain; in other words, it means putting to the test certain ideas that lazily parasitise our minds.
The idea that everything is relative has taken hold: psychoanalysis is seen as just one of many psychotherapies, no more true or false, nor any better, than the others. So why go to the trouble of undertaking such a demanding training programme? Have analysts lost their pride in being analysts?
The ‘that’s just the way it is’ has replaced the ‘why is it that way?’.
A few years ago, the IPA decided, under pressure from North and Latin American colleagues, and against the wishes of most European societies, to reduce the minimum number of weekly analysis sessions for candidates in training under the Eitingon model from 4 or 5 to 3. The argument was that there were no longer enough analysands willing to commit to 4 or 5 sessions. The ‘that’s just the way it is’ approach prevailed, and the IPA moved from 4 to 3. No need to think about it.
It is the figures that count. There is no longer any need for metapsychology. The numbers may speak for themselves, but they say nothing, offer no explanation; they are meaningless. The narrative disappears; it is the zero of thought. Doubt, analytical non-knowing and complexity are antithetical to accounting.
When figures claim to think for us, reflection becomes superfluous. The ‘that’s just the way it is’ is a form of not knowing, since we do not know why it is so. Whereas narrativity opens the way to the discovery of the unknown, the improbable. The ‘that’s just the way it is’ is the zero degree of knowledge. And then the figure renders theory superfluous and distances us from psychoanalysis.
Let us now consider how these reflections have influenced our conception of democracy at the level of the Executive, the Council and, subsequently, the structures of the Federation.
At the level of the Executive.
I wish to re-emphasise the importance of collegiality, which I wish to promote at every level of our Federation.
It was very important to me to present to the Council only those proposals on which there was unanimity within the Executive. It seemed clear to me that if we could not achieve this unanimity within the Executive, it was because certain aspects of the proposal had not been sufficiently thought through. And the points of contention within the Executive Committee always came up again at the Council. When presenting the proposals, we always outlined our discussions and the reservations held by some members, and finally how we had reached a unanimous position. I believe the Council sensed that, amongst ourselves, we were very composed, had thoroughly weighed up the pros and cons of each proposal, and were being completely transparent.
At Council level.
The Executive, which manages the Federation on behalf of the Council, thinks about the EPF every day, whereas the presidents often have a more distant connection between the two annual Councils. As the Executive Committee – and particularly the Chair – has access to information that most chairpersons do not, I would begin each Council meeting by presenting a detailed summary of the information I had obtained or the issues that had arisen over the previous six months within the analytical sphere. This was also a way of bringing new chairpersons, who were attending the Council for the first time, into the discussions.
We decided that the executive would brief the chairmen on each project, but that the vote would only take place during the following Council meeting, so that the chairmen could discuss the matters amongst themselves and with their board of directors. In this way, the chairmen did not feel they were being presented with a fait accompli or pressured into making hasty decisions. The presidents found this approach to be highly respectful and democratic.
Based on my previous institutional experiences, I had realised that it was easy to stifle any lively discussion by focusing on technical or administrative aspects. The danger, therefore, was to eliminate any analytical discussion. We therefore decided to debate one scientific issue and one institutional issue at each Council meeting. At each Council meeting, we asked two presidents to explain, in 10 minutes, their society’s position on a topic we had chosen. In 10 minutes, our colleagues were forced to focus their remarks on the essentials, and the differences became immediately apparent. These exchanges were so interesting, rich and, above all, respectful that we had considered compiling them into a book. Unfortunately, we did not have the time to do so.
The topics covered related to the selection of candidates, certain aspects of their training, the handling of ethical issues, as well as the functioning of their institutes, the extent to which public authorities influence training or the practice of psychoanalysis, the place – or lack thereof – of psychotherapy within analytical institutions, and so on. My executive committee and I therefore wished to demonstrate that it was possible to discuss our institutions analytically by highlighting the differences, and to show that it was healthier to debate these issues rather than trying to drown out the differences in a weak consensus, in bland ‘common ground’, or to pretend that we were all in agreement, that we were all the same analysts.
Let us now turn to the structure of the EPF.
At the start of my term of office, I realised that the EPF had no legal status and that, as a result, its bank assets could have been frozen. We found solutions to this problem by becoming a tax-exempt company under Swiss law. I regret that this very secure status has since been changed.
I shall briefly touch upon the changes to the constitution, noting only that, prior to my presidency, some members of the Executive were elected for four years, others for six or even eight years. Because of this method of election, there was a new election almost every year and a new member had to join the Executive, which led to instability. I proposed that the entire executive be elected for a four-year term, which has led to greater cohesion and efficiency within the executive.
We realised that, apart from the New Member Seminar and the Forum on Education, the EPF did not offer any permanent working groups for its members. We therefore set up an annual conference for university students, who all too often no longer hear anything about psychoanalysis at university, as well as an annual seminar for new training analysts.
One of the major successes of my term in office was the Council’s decision to purchase the EPF House, which would belong to the European societies. Symbolically, every president has their own key to enter this building. It is the place where we are meeting today. Our aim, or our dream, was to offer European analysts a neutral venue where they could meet freely for clinical groups, intervision sessions or more theoretical discussions.
The idea was that the EPF would make these premises freely available, without nit-picking control by the governing bodies. I have always viewed this as an extension of psychoanalysis.
A House Committee, currently under the leadership of Joëlle Piccard, was set up and enshrined in the EPF’s statutes. Its aim was not only to manage the House but, above all, to encourage the creation of new research groups. This House Committee was not in competition with the Executive but represented a new body designed to expand the EPF’s activities which the Executive, overloaded by work, could not handle. From our perspective, these activities at the EPF House were absolutely not to be subject to nit-picking administrative control but were to benefit from a great deal of creative freedom, even a touch of madness.
I would not wish to overlook the fact that, for the first time in the history of the EPF, we appointed an administrator, namely Frank Goderniaux, and a House manager, namely Zack Khalfi. Both have been with the EPF for over 10 years and have outlasted every president.
For my executive committee, fostering exchanges, discussions and even some friction between colleagues from different European societies was, on the one hand, a means of advancing analytical democracy and the development of psychoanalysis.