[The-Lacanalyst] A theoretical an practical questioning

[Tate]

Dearest Jacques,

I will try to make my response and argument clearer by addressing your reply and concerns below.

> 1-- There is absolutely now (NO) warranty in the practice of psychoanalysis; and the fact
> the analyst has a MD, or PhD or no university diploma does not make a difference.
> An analyst gets authorization only from himself (and a few others, namely his
> analysands). When he receives authorization from university or Health Dept or
> organization, and he believes he is acting by this means, he is a fraud.

1’ - (Correcting your  ’now’ to NO warranty in the above) I agree with what you say above, but then we need to ask
how can someone, whether in France or the US, assume responsibility for such a ‘liberty’?

Notice, if before psychoanalysis was rendered impossible because of over-regulation, medicalization,
and academization, today we are in an inverse problem: if anyone can authorize him/herself,
per the lacanian s’autotorize, then it becomes possible to do and say no matter what in the name of 
a liberal profession of psychoanalysis. Indeed, if one does not hear the irony and warning in ’s’autotorize’
then one begins to go places that not even angels dared to go before. This is why, in the lack of
any diploma, health agency, or cultural tradition, there has to be, nevertheless, some kind of structure, 
so the field does not dissolve into chaos, each professional improvising an analysis till they die or go crazy.
So, I asked what those more necessary laws are by which those practicing analysis can found an analysis, not simply
manage one according to the conventions of their culture or legislative and juridical systems. It seems
nobody in this list is asking this primary question and simply assuming it is a question, in the first instance, of local
and national laws, or inversely, someone ‘'authorizing themself’. If this more fundamental question of the Law is not asked, 
the rest becomes just gossip.

> 2-- For more than 20 years I am amazed of the differences between the statute of
> psychoanalysts in France and many other countries. These differences render logically
> impossible the praxis of psychoanalysis in most countries. Psychoanalysts believe they
> act as analysts although they are just representants  of the discourse of the master
> and of the university. I am, by exchanging we all of you, experimenting the (vain?) possibility to port the discourse of the analyst in your country.

2’ – ‘Your country’ ? – as I have a double-nationality, I have practiced analysis in France for 15 years, and in the U.S. 20, 
while currently setting up a framework in Germany. As a consequence, I have discovered this impossibility of analysis to be something 
intrinsic, and not something relative to such and such a culture or geography. Indeed, the impossible becomes a lot more effective to deal with,
in this way, since it makes room for a Clinic of the Real. In fact, I believe it was Freud who said there were three impossible professions: Education, 
Government, and Psychoanalysis. 

No doubt, each country has its own exceptionality, but the impossibility is itself structural – not conventional,
and again, I repeat, I know many associations and would be analysts in France, that, in spite of a generally
better set of legislated laws, are nonetheless no better off. In fact, I think if you or others care to ask why Vappereau
left France, we may begin to get some insight into the problem. One should even ask why Vappereau coined special
names for the two Apostles of psychoanalysis in France, Miller and Melman, and why he viewed them and their
Associations as creating an impossibility to the practice of psychoanalysis in France today. I am not inventing this, it is written
in black and white in Vappereau's articles. I am not sure if I agree with him or not, I am just saying, for Vappereau
Lacanian analysis had become impossible in France for very different reasons than in the U.S.( If I left
France in 2000, it was also because I found a kind of sclerosis had set in after the 90s.)

Until then, I would pose back here in the U.S., if the structural basis of an association is set up precisely, it is no more difficult to 
work in the US than it is in France: there are different sets of impossibilities each requiring a particular judo move.
Just to be clear, people do not need a license in the US to practice psychoanalysis and you do not need to worry about getting 
sued, on the condition that the psychoanalytic structure people are working within is set up properly. If it is not, if it remains
at the level of someone trying to do a job, getting insured, and analyzing others, I would propose there is something a lot more worrisome than getting sued, 
since any analyst with such liberal conditions on the verge of becoming ‘bat crazy’ – I have met more than my share both in France and the U.S. and Germany. 

To conclude, If people would like to get in on the irony of the word play in French of s’autotorize –  it is there, in the 
s’auto-tort-ize = to do oneself harm. A whole generation of future analysts is coming along, and if this wordplay is not heard, 
and it becomes simply a question of people either authorizing 'themself’ or getting diplomas and licensed, then there is surely no hope for the US 
or France.

In saying the above, please forgive me if it sounds too direct; with more time and a better medium, it could be better put.

Until then, 

Scully R.







> On Nov 26, 2025, at 12:01 AM, Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear Scully Robert
> 
> I am not so sure I catch all of the implications of your answer. It leads to two
> considerations
> 
> 1-- There is absolutely now warranty in the practice of psychoanalysis; and the fact
> the analyst has a MD, or PhD or no university diploma does not make a difference.
> An analyst gets authorization only from himself (and a few others, namely his
> analysands). When he receives authorization from university or Health Dept or
> organization, and he believes he is acting by this means, he is a fraud.
> 
> 2-- For more than 20 years I am amazed of the differences between the statute of
> psychoanalysts in France and many other countries. These differences render logically
> impossible the praxis of psychoanalysis in most countries. Psychoanalysts believe they
> act as analysts although they are just representants  of the discourse of the master
> and of the university. I am, by exchanging we all of you, experimenting the (vain?) possibility to port the discourse of the analyst in your country.
> 
> Of course in France there are some analysts belonging to a subsidiary of the IPA,
> they use the same rules than in the US. Here we speak of the Freudo-Lacanian approach
>  of psychoanalysis.
> 
> Very best
> 
> Jacques
> 
> On 11/25/25 3:47 PM, Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst wrote:
>> Dear friends and colleagues
>> 
>> I had a very interesting discussion with Aviva, which pinpointed
>> the major differences between psychoanalysis in France and the USA.
>> 
>> I wish to have you opinion on this.
>> Let's put it this way, you are licensed by the state as psychiatrist,
>> psychologist, social worker etc. You spend the evening with a very good
>> friend of yours and he says he cannot carry on and he is going to kill
>> himself. You do your best to help him change his mind and you go to
>> sleep without telling anyone. The next
>> morning you hear he is dead, unfortunately. My first question is
>> can you be sued? due to the fact you, when you are in your office,
>> try to cure people and have got a license to do so.
>> 
>> I imagine (and hope) that you can argue that what happened that evening was totally
>> PRIVATE and was independent of your profession.
>> 
>> In France situation of psychoanalysis is close to this one, it is a PRIVATE
>> relationship between two humans. I mean, not only in the evening but in your
>> office as well. No one has the right to intermix with it.
>> There is an analyst and an analysand who agree to use a certain apparatus
>> aimed to facilitate a work of speech (Freudian talking cure). The fact that
>> you might be a licensed psychologist
>> or psychotherapist of psychiatrist does not make a difference as long as
>> the process with your analysand is analytic and not therapeutic. We know
>> some people did kill themselves when in analysis with Lacan or other
>> analysts but of course they were not sued.
>> 
>> When we talk about lacanalysis we mean this. Because Aviva says that even in the
>> case of a private practice with a patient she can be sued. Of course in
>> the regard of psychoanalysis it is a nonsense.
>> 
>> I'd love to have your vision of this scheme as it seems to be a thorn in the
>> side of psychoanalysis in your country.
>> 
>> All the very best
>> 
>> Jacques
>> 
>> PS can you meet on Friday 5 at 1400 UTC?
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> The-lacanalyst mailing list
> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org
> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lutecium.org/pipermail/the-lacanalyst/attachments/20251126/5eb368e0/attachment-0003.htm>