I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to the Executive Committee and its President, Jan Abram, for inviting me to this 60th anniversary celebration of the FEP. I served on the FEP’s governing bodies for 10 years, from 1998 to 2008. First as a member of the Council when I was President of the APF (French Psychoanalytic Association) from 1998 to 2000. (Alain Gibeault was then President of the FEP.) Then as Vice President of the Executive Committee led by David Tuckett, and finally as President from 2004 to 2008.
During these terms, I participated in the decision-making processes of the Assembly of Presidents and then those of the Executive Committee. In these bodies, voting is the instrument of democratic governance. The freedom exercised there is political, according to Hannah Arendt’s conception. In her book The Crisis of Culture, she emphasizes that one is free when one can act, speak, and participate in communal life. It is this freedom that brings us together today.
We, as European psychoanalysts, are extremely fortunate to live in democratic countries. Yet democracy, like psychoanalysis, is regularly under attack—from both outside and within. Externally, psychoanalysis is threatened by the interference of certain governments, the insurance system, and the proliferation of various forms of brief psychotherapy. But it is also weakened from within by a lack of confidence among analysts themselves, who question its method and its metapsychological foundations.
Democracy is a complex ecosystem in which any change—such as current climate change or migration flows—alters the overall balance. Changes in the environment elicit reactions from social groups and their governing bodies. Democracy is therefore constantly at risk of losing its balance. Today more than ever, it is confronted with the need to recognize and impose limits on hegemonic desires, as well as on the exercise of arbitrary authority stemming from a desire for narcissistic omnipotence. Almost everywhere, we see the emergence of a model of unchecked freedom of action, of the accumulation of power and wealth, which is becoming the shared ideal of all social groups. In the face of this drift, the democratic ideal establishes a moral code. Albert Camus said, “A man must restrain himself,” which implies a constant effort to counter natural tendencies toward aggression, rivalry, and hatred. Democracy, like psychoanalysis, deals with ambivalence in the hope that libido—both individual and collective—will find new ways to subdue the death drive.
What is this common ground between psychoanalysis and democracy that provokes such attacks? It consists of pillars and, above all, a shared structure based on the interrelation of three concepts. This ternary dimension stands in opposition to binary, all-or-nothing thinking and allows us to grasp the complexity characteristic of both the psyche and the organization of social and political groups.
The elements of democracy were defined by the French Revolutionaries of 1789. They rest on three principles: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, which constitute the moral foundation and the political framework.
Liberty is expressed through respect for fundamental rights: freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of enterprise, freedom of religious or philosophical commitment, and freedom of sexual choice. But this freedom is not absolute; it can only be exercised in accordance with the law and with respect for the rights of others—a necessary condition for living together in society.
Equality means that all citizens are subject to the same laws and enjoy the same rights, regardless of their origin, religion, wealth, or gender. In a democracy, this entails the fight against social, economic, and cultural inequalities.
Fraternity gives democracy a human and solidarity-based dimension. It implies tolerance and respect for differences. Without this bond of solidarity, freedom risks turning into selfishness, and equality into rivalry.
These three values are inseparable: freedom underpins individual responsibility, equality ensures justice, and fraternity unites citizens around a common purpose. These values are, of course, ideals stemming from the ideal ego -third instance produced by the development of the psychic apparatus through its interaction with the id, reality, and the social demands faced by the ego.
From its very inception, psychoanalysis was conceived by Freud as the relationship within every human being between three instances: initially the unconscious, the preconscious, and the conscious; and then, beginning in 1920, the id, the ego, and the superego/ideal self. These two ternary frameworks enable us to understand the conflicts between the three instances and the various forms of psychic functioning. When applied to the object relationship, this ternary dimension opens up the field of “tri-ness” “tiercéité” as developed by André Green. This “tri-ness” “tiercéité” constitutes the fundamental matrix of symbolization. Green emphasizes the necessity of a third element to mediate and ensure the relationship between the other two. The Oedipal formation is present from the outset. The object’s other establishes psychic triangulation and constitutes an organizing component of the psyche.
The functioning of psychoanalysis also rests on three pillars: the method, which includes the setting, transference, and the institution.
The method is what allows for the investigation of mental processes that would otherwise be inaccessible. It is based on the rule of free association prescribed to the patient, which corresponds to the analyst’s floating or suspended listening. It sometimes takes time before the analysand can allow themselves to exercise this freedom of speech, which comes up against resistances and cultural, social, and educational obstacles to the exercise of this freedom. The method of free association is what makes psychoanalysis unique. It enables one to combat the constraints of the unconscious and to discharge drive impulses. This same method can be practiced in a group setting, as outlined in the FEP Working Paper (WP) titled “The Specificity of Psychoanalytic Treatment,” which I created during my presidency, and which remains in effect today. The instruction to “say whatever comes to mind” implies the recognition of freedom of expression. This freedom of speech and thought is grounded in the ethical principle of respecting confidentiality. Totalitarian regimes that condemn psychoanalysis allow only a “ready-made” form of thought, not freedom of thought.
The framework, in a formal and technical description, can be defined by: the number of weekly sessions, their regularity, and their duration; by the position—lying down or face-to-face—depending on the analysand’s psychic functioning (the capacity for representation as opposed to the need for visual perception of the analyst); by the stability of the location; and finally, by the payment terms—particularly payment for missed sessions—which guarantees the continuity of the analysis. It is the framework that enables regression in all its formal, topical, and temporal aspects.
The framework that fosters freedom of speech and thought implies a prohibition against acting out in situ: freedom to say anything, but a prohibition against acting it out.
Transference is undoubtedly the most powerful force in psychoanalysis. It is the unconscious repetition of childhood relationships and sexuality. Understanding transference allows us to grasp the various aspects of the subject’s alienation. It is the transference-based reenactment that enables us to identify aspects of the past acting unconsciously, which constitute an obstacle to freedom. This is the most difficult aspect of psychoanalytic treatment, as it triggers the analyst’s own unconscious conflicts.
A third element is indispensable to psychoanalysis: the existence of a third party, whether a colleague or an institution. This is undoubtedly what makes it possible to escape “folie à deux.” The reference to a third party opens up possibilities for symbolization.
For democracy, the reference to Fundamental Law serves to guarantee respect for the values embodied in the three principles: liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Finally, democracy and psychoanalysis both grapple with the truth—the truth of facts for democracy, and psychic truth for psychoanalysis. In today’s political world, “post-truth” reigns: fake news has replaced the truth of facts. Psychoanalysis remains in the service of truth—a truth that evolves over the course of analysis through the psychic work of after-the-fact “après-coup” reflection.
Freedoms are a conquest—a conquest of democracies and an individual conquest in the endeavor of disalienation promoted by psychoanalysis.