By Dr. Heribert Blass
In their pre-published argument marking the 60th anniversary of the EPF, colleagues from the current Board of Directors, led by the incumbent President Jan Abram, have provided an excellent, concise overview of the EPF’s historical development. In line with their reference to the EPF’s rise from the ashes of a decimated European continent, I regard the official founding of the EPF in 1966 – despite this following a period of 21 years after the end of the Second World War – as part of a forward-looking response to the devastation and the socio-cultural decline of the preceding war years. A central element of this response lay in the agreement on a resolutely democratic constitution within the resurgent European psychoanalytic movement. The founding of the EPF was dedicated to fostering an equal scientific dialogue between the societies of the European IPA region, which were recognised as being of equal standing, and the EPF has consistently maintained this fundamental democratic orientation throughout its gratifying expansion to its current 44 member societies. Although it was inevitable that, over the past 60 years, conflicts and tensions would arise between various member societies regarding controversial psychoanalytic topics and issues, dialogue amongst them and the endeavour to achieve mutual understanding have always remained guiding principles. As Freud already explained in *Civilisation and Its Discontents* (1930), ambivalence always develops between the individual and the surrounding society; similarly, psychoanalytic societies also experience a tension between the pursuit of autonomy and the simultaneous desire to belong to a unifying community. The only way to deal with this tension peacefully lies in maintaining a democratic discourse amongst ourselves, and in my view, the EPF has, fortunately, repeatedly succeeded in demonstrating the necessary democratic maturity when conflicts have arisen.
However, we are living today – not only in Europe but worldwide – in an era in which the horrors of undemocratic structures seem to be fading ever further into oblivion and democracy as a form of government is coming under increasing pressure. In this respect, it seems appropriate to me, in light of the EPF’s 60th anniversary, to reflect from a psychoanalytic perspective on the psychological conditions necessary for the preservation of democracy, including as a safe space for free thought. I regard the following as essential features of democracy: equality of conditions, as opposed to individual freedom (cf. de Tocqueville 1985 [1835/1840]), the associated principle of universal suffrage, the limitation of elected representatives’ terms of office, and the protection of minorities whilst majority decisions remain valid. This applies to both direct and representative democracy.
Even though sociological and political science research is of essential importance for understanding the current crisis of democracy (Amlinger & Nachtwey 2022, p. 111), and individual research findings cannot simply be applied to group processes, I nevertheless consider it justified to regard the individual psychological conditions for the emergence and maintenance of a democratic attitude as fundamental. After all, it is individuals who form a group, even though we know that a group can regressively alter the basic attitudes of individual people (cf. Freud 1921). In my view, the development of triadic competence, together with the associated ability to recognise difference, constitutes the psychological foundation for the formation and maintenance of a democratic attitude. Triadic competence stems primarily from two sources: on the one hand, a child undergoing a generally healthy development requires the experience of primary maternal preoccupation (Winnicott 1950). This already encompasses an initial capacity for empathy and an understanding of the inner lives of others. On the other hand, however, the child also needs the experience of a paternal presence, which differs from contact with the mother and which, precisely because of its difference and distinctiveness, is positively stimulating and joyful (cf. Blass 2017). The coexistence and interplay of the different relationships with mother and father, together with the experience of a loving bond between the parents, foster a joyful appreciation of difference within the triangular family situation. If the child succeeds in internalising this ‘binocular’ view of both parents and the different forms of relationship with each, difference need not appear threatening. Rather, it can be experienced as enriching. In addition to the internalisation of this pre-Oedipal and Oedipal structure, many children also develop a sibling complex. According to Kaës (2021), this complex psychologically organises narcissistic and object-related desires, as well as hatred and aggression ‘vis-à-vis this “Other” whom a subject recognises as a brother or sister’ (ibid., p. 61, transl. HB). In this context, the fact of being born of the same parents binds the siblings to the persistence of shared, unconsciously incestuous and aggressive conflicts. According to Kaës, sibling bonds in the broader sense arise from belonging to a community that identifies with common ancestors or a shared defining experience, as is the case with comrades-in-arms, religious or political groups. In line with this definition, our psychoanalytic societies, as well as the EPF and IPA, are likely to fall into this category.
However, I would like to add to these ‘endogamous’ siblings the eminently important role of ‘exogamous’ friends. The basic triangular relationship within the family broadens when the child, beyond the family, has their first experiences with a friend as a stranger. A friend can be both: at an early narcissistic level, they can be experienced as a doubling of one’s own self, as in ‘he is like me’ or ‘I want to be like him’. At an object-relations level, however, they can appear to be the exact opposite – exciting and desirable – precisely because they are ‘completely different from me’. Friendship occupies an intermediate position between a narcissistic duplication of one’s own self and a recognition and appreciation of the other. It is precisely this dual meaning that is embodied in the ancient Greek concept of ‘philia’, which, deriving from the verb ‘philein’ (‘to love’), expresses an attraction both to the similar/same and to the other. The appreciation of the unfamiliar is reinforced by the fact that philia explicitly encompasses hospitality: the guest is afforded special protection against one’s own aggression towards the stranger.
Experiencing friendship as an encounter with the stranger can foster a skill that is essential for the preservation of democratic processes. I am referring to the ability to compromise. Very often, compromises get a bad press, as they are frequently seen as a sign of weakness. In fact, however, the ability to compromise combines a commitment to one’s own views and interests with a fundamental recognition of the validity of differing positions. The ability to reach a compromise in the face of controversy allows both oneself and others the space to represent their respective interests. By fundamentally recognising that it is not only one’s own viewpoint that can lay claim to validity, but that other viewpoints may also be valid, conflicting views are neither levelled out nor denied. Rather, this recognition of difference creates the basis for a negotiated balance of interests. The ability to compromise bears a resemblance to ‘philia’, for respect for what is different—which coexists with the pursuit of one’s own interests—helps to curb destructive, hostile impulses. In the mediation of highly polarised and deadlocked political positions, constructive progress can often only be achieved when the opposing parties involved succeed in ‘listening to how the other is right’ (Shapiro 2020; see also J. Lord Alderdice 2021). Such an attitude, which acknowledges differences, helps to establish and maintain democratic structures. There is certainly no need to elaborate on the fact that this way of thinking is also significant for democratic coexistence within our national and international psychoanalytic organisations. During my time as EPF President from 2020 to 2024, I found that discussions within the EPF Council at the time largely fostered such an open-minded atmosphere, and I would like to highlight as a particular experience the fact that, alongside weathering the restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic, we were able to witness the courage of our Ukrainian and Russian colleagues in jointly reflecting on their personal situations and those of their societies following the start of the Russian attack on Ukraine. I see it also as an expression of democracy that we were able to organise an interdisciplinary Symposium on Time that included speakers from neighbouring sciences.
My experiences within international psychoanalysis have taught me that, whilst we all look to Freud as the founder of psychoanalysis, our diversity means we must continually engage with what is culturally foreign to us. For this reason, I consider the image of friends in a collegial relationship to be more appropriate for us than the ‘sibling’ metaphor just mentioned, even though the history of psychoanalysis contains several examples of malignant regression into incestuous and destructive entanglements. Adherence to triadic democratic principles should counteract this ever-present danger.
But one final point: listening to how the other person is right does not mean ‘anything goes’. It does not mean giving undemocratic and authoritarian structures equal weight to democratic constitutions. Triadic competence involves the internalisation of value systems and superego attitudes formed in the Oedipal situation, which establish the prohibition of incest and the prohibition of killing as laws applying to everyone. To put it in classical terms: the Oedipal law also applies to the father himself, for he too is subject to the culturally and socially valid law. An Oedipally integrated superego – in contrast to the narcissistically shaped forms of the ego ideal and the ideal ego – entails a renunciation of omnipotence. The attacks on liberal democracy taking place worldwide today stem largely from a desire for destruction („Zerstörungslust“, Amlinger & Nachtwey 2025) directed at democratically established regulations, because the attackers regard these as restrictive of freedom and responsible for unfulfilled ideal expectations. The attackers may come from the general population or even be democratically elected to positions of leadership. Linked to this desire for destruction is the fantasy of absolute individual freedom, which no longer demands that ‘offended freedom’ (‚gekränkte Freiheit‘, Amlinger & Nachtwey 2022) show consideration for social solidarity, and which thereby becomes libertarian-authoritarian in its own right. The historical example of the end of the German Weimar Republic and the rise of National Socialism in 1933, following democratic elections, cannot, of course, be considered without taking into account the significance of economic and social factors; but, in light of the current resurgence of authoritarian and neo-fascist tendencies, the developments of that time illustrate that it remains a psychoanalytic task to advocate, in the interests of democracy, for triadic competence and the recognition of difference in interpersonal relationships.