[The-Lacanalyst] As a temporary conclusion

Wed Nov 26 18:59:23 UTC 2025

Dear Christopher,

It sounds like you are misoriented in what I stated in my last missive. Perhaps I was not clear. Let me rephrase things.

There is nobody at PLACE who offers psychoanalysis to the public, licensed or non-licensed, in fact, people all across the U.S. use the title of psychoanalyst to practice psychoanalysis with others without any license or any
offer or demand. For example, there are professors who teach analysis in US universities and hold reading groups, are they under the jurisdiction of the Behavioral Board of Psychology? I do not think so, but they call themselves psychoanalysts. A group of people who get together to practice analysis in an educational setting – not therapeutic – are they offering psychoanlaysis analysis to others? I do not think so, and this is what I hear as being your fundamental disorientation. Such people are practicing psychoanalysis, but the difference with what you are implying, forgive me if this is not so, is that such people are either practicing analysis on people or they are attempting to diagnose people or ‘offer’ services. Is that what you think a psychoanalyst does or who what defines their title? If so, I think this is a very limited notion of how to isolate the psychoanalytic act.

In fact, everyone working in such a situation like PLACE or other associations, or a Lacanian reading group, or a university course, etc. is really working as an analysand. Sure there are a few professors who may want to be entitled psychoanalyst, but I think this is even too much. It is much more important, if one is trying to establish a position, to become an analysand, not an analyst! There is nobody at PLACE going around calling themself an analyst or trying to diagnose others or interpret their dreams. And for good reason, the analyst is only an effect, and not a professional status. I do agree, with you, however, if someone would pose themself as a psychoanalyst offering services to others, not only would they not be working through PLACE – who only supports analysands – but they would not be doing analysis. At least, in the manner of Lacan (the short session is precisely about this).

In any case, I hope this short response will clarify things for you. To be clear: if someone were trying to offer psychoanalysis as a service that diagnoses and treats other people, then they would be liable by the jurisdiction in valor in the state of CA. But that is not the only modality or, as far many are concerned, the best way to bring psychoanalysis into the public.

Best,

Scully Robert

> On Nov 26, 2025, at 10:27 AM, Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA via The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'm back from travels, but still dealing with Centurylink internet/broadband issues.
> Hm...
> 
> I disagree, Scully. It will take one anonymous phone call to the Board of Psychology in California stating that psychoanalysis is being offered to the public by non-licensed people at PLACE and you will be investigated by the state and potentially sued for providing mental health services (psychoanalysis - which is how it is defined in California statutes) without being licensed to do so in CA State. I am not predicting the outcome... Perhaps even nothing comes of it... but trust me... chances are you will not enjoy yourself for some  months... and you will dish out on a lawyer... (I do notrecommend defending yourself... US judges hate that and they have a lot of power regarding their decisions.... they have a completely free range to decide the outcome).
> 
> As I have stated before, I don't care what risks people take to do whatever they want in life, but I completely disagree with the statement that absence of a license requirement means a legal permission to practice. I also don't see much point arguing about it. I do have a license, so this particular item is not relevant to me at all and I don't need anybody to convince me about it at all. Please do with yourselves as you wish. 
> 
> Note for Jacques: There is no national level licensing for anything here. Each state regulates and licenses their own professionals, so whenever you compare France to the US, be aware that you are speaking about 50 different sets of statues, laws, and regulations (not just one). Please also clearly differentiate between criminal law and lawsuits and civil lawsuits (which can be filed by anybody for any reason, and you can't just ignore it...) in the US. I can hold you in court proceedings for years... years... if I have a good reason to be pissed at you and I have enough money to pay a lawyer to keep pushing you to the brink of financial ruin (so you agree to what I and my lawyer wants).
> 
> We (US) are a case-based law, once a case is decided in court, it is from that point on considered a law... so once CA State said (in a case as adjudicated by a CA judge) that practicing psychoanalysis means practicing mental health for which a state license is required, it will be considered when someone takes you to court for practicing psychoanalysis without a license to do so.
> 
> One thing for sure: someone has to be a complainant. So - if you know what you are doing and why, and with whom... nobody complains, nobody gets sued... but it takes one anonymous phone call to send CA State your way for some truly unexpected fun... and the argument put forth here so far would - most likely - not fly, but... I am not a lawyer, so please... talk to lawyers about it, not psychoanalysts.
> 
> Otherwise - indeed  - psychoanalysis is impossible anywhere, so what are we actually getting together to talk about... how impossible it is to do what we are not doing? Sounds like a good topic to me. The impossibility of nothing(ness).
> 
> Happy (US) Thanksgiving! Gotta go hunt for a wild turkey... 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 9:53 AM Tate via The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
> Dearest Jacques and Folks,
> 
> In your last emails, there is always a looming question of risk. I will respond to your
> question on the risk of working analytically in the US. I then have a question of my
> own about the risk of working analytically in France that I hope you will respond to.
> 
> But first, in response to the following:
> 
>> If you confirm this approach is possible in the USA without the major danger of
>> being sued by IPA or any other Health dept, for me it is good to hear this. And
>> Therefore the use of the concept of lacanalyst is useless. If you confirm
>> that someone with no specific diploma can put a plaque on his door mentioning
>> "Psychoanalysis" in California and can receive public and won't have
>> legal problems that's fine and great for me.
>> 
>> This is not what I heard when I talked to Aviva, Kris or John. That's the reason
>> why I tried to invent a counter measure.
> 
> I can confirm that in the US, anywhere but New York (and maybe Mass.), there is no law
> restricting the use of the title psychoanalyst and you need no license to practice. The proof of the pudding is 
> you will find at PLACE people working as analysts who have no diploma, no license, and not sued (if that is your
> worry), for the last 20 years. Some of them, besides myself, were even present at the time before last
> meeting on Zoom. The problem of working legally with the prevailing laws in CA was resolved a long time ago, at
> least for those working at PLACE. This is not the problem today.
> 
> I am not saying some people will not have problems actually establishing an analytic practice – this impossibility
> is intrinsic whether you are in France or the US – in fact, some people have so many problems that all that
> they can think of doing is to get a psychology degree, or some kind of therapy degree, or a psychiatry degree,
> then try to improvise something around that. Unfortunately, if this professional basis is used as the standard for
> an entry to the US public, then such entries are themselves phobic, and it is no surprise that people would
> be scared. But I do not think they should be scared of being sued, I think the problem is much worse: they 
> should be scared of the s’autotorize which I described in my last missive. I think R. Bauknight is just one
> warning among others of what not to do in this manner when trying to enter into a psychoanalytic discourse:
> no doubt, she had a psychoanalytic transfer and threw great parties, but was there any analysis? In the end,
> there are people who work at PLACE who do have psychology degrees and the rest, but it just takes a little
> more time to work and show what is at stake to get beyond the crazy and fears.
> 
> In the end, Jacques, for me and others, since  the questions that are being asked about the Laws in the US have
> been resolved, I would ask today not how to game the US system, but how to establish fundamentally that
> one is, or has, ever worked as an analyst in the first place? If it is only the s’autotortize that is appealed to here, then, again, there
> is more than a risk of being sued, there is the risk of crazy (knowing full well that analysis is part of its own clinic). 
> 
> So, if you will permit my question to you Jacques. We know that Lacan started a ’Section Clinique’ in France
> whose intention was to make room for the entry of psychoanalysis into psychiatry in France. But in fact, we know just the
> opposite happened: psychiatry entered into psychoanalysis and never left (even though Lacan disbanded the school and the clinic).
> 
> Today, we find, and I have been told by many that the problem of practicing Lacanian analysis  in France is that the two Apostles, 
> Melman and Miller, have maintained a professionalization and psychiatrization of analysis that holds its participants captive in a Lacanian Ghetto, 
> with little or no work of consequence. That is why I left and it is why Vappereau also left. 
> 
> So this is my question to you: do you agree that the psychiatrization of Lacanian analysis in France has
> made it impossible to work at analysis in France? 
> 
> I would be relieved if you could answer this question.
> 
> Best to you and friends,
> 
> ScullyRobert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 26, 2025, at 3:32 AM, Jacques B. Siboni via The-lacanalyst <the-lacanalyst at lutecium.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear friend
>> 
>> To give a kind of temporary conclusion, I'll just advance my personal vision.
>> When I work as psychoanalyst I would not accept that any health department ask
>> me to produce a diploma or license to prove I have the right to practice analysis.
>> 
>> Of course as long as a patient puts forward this license demand to me, I consider he is
>> legitimate to do so, but on the way I direct the cure he is in the process of
>> preliminary sessions and not actual analysis.
>> 
>> If you confirm this approach is possible in the USA without the major danger of
>> being sued by IPA or any other Health dept, for me it is good to hear this. And
>> Therefore the use of the concept of lacanalyst is useless. If you confirm
>> that someone with no specific diploma can put a plaque on his door mentioning
>> "Psychoanalysis" in California and can receive public and won't have
>> legal problems that's fine and great for me.
>> 
>> This is not what I heard when I talked to Aviva, Kris or John. That's the reason
>> why I tried to invent a counter measure.
>> 
>> All the best my friend
>> 
>> Jacques
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> The-lacanalyst mailing list
>> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org
>> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
> 
> -- 
> The-lacanalyst mailing list
> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org
> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst
> 
> 
> -- 
> Kristopher Lichtanski, PhD, LMHCA
> Psychotherapy. Coaching. Consultation.
> Serendipity Healing Arts Center, LLC
> 1.206.451.7020
> -- 
> The-lacanalyst mailing list
> The-lacanalyst at lutecium.org
> https://lutecium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/the-lacanalyst