Communiqué
Voici la première page de LNA 9. Le numéro sera envoyé le 31 juillet aux médias et aux ministères; il sera adressé fin août aux abonnés, ainsi qu’aux listings ECF et Uforca; au mois de septembre, il sera diffusé en librairie par Le Seuil.Sa parution est annoncée dans “Le Point” d’aujourd’hui, p. 52.
Certains textes sont d’ores et déjà accessibles sur le nouveau site du Nouvel Äne, www.lnaglobal.org
Jacques-Alain Milller Ce 24 juillet 2008
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Comunicado
Esta es la primera página de LNA 9. El número será enviado el 31 de julio a los medios y a los ministerios, se remitirá a fines de agosto a los abonados, así como a los listings ECF y Uborc: en el mes de septiembre será difundido en las librerías por Le Seuil.
Su aparición se anuncia en "Le Point" de hoy, p. 52.Algunos textos están desde ahora accesibles en el nuevo site del Nouvel Äne, http://www.lnaglobal.org/
Su aparición se anuncia en "Le Point" de hoy, p. 52.Algunos textos están desde ahora accesibles en el nuevo site del Nouvel Äne, http://www.lnaglobal.org/
Jacques-Alain Milller
24 de julio 2008
Traduccion: Silvia Baudini
____________________________
TO THE READER, by Jacques-Alain Miller
From Le Nouvel Âne, Issue 9
This issue of Le Nouvel Âne wouldn’t have been designed, written and put together in the heart of summer if I hadn’t received, at the end of June, the leaked text of a ministerial draft order which, in favour of the bill on the title of psychotherapist, was programming the beginning of the end of psychoanalysis.
You think I’m crying wolf when there’s no wolf to be seen? That I’m tilting at windmills? Let me tell you that all over Europe the fanatical administrations that run us as ‘populations’ and inspire those that govern us are relentlessly tormented by a determined desire to do away with psychoanalysis. In the United Kingdom, the government is preparing to regulate ‘talking therapies’ to the point that on 12 July, the Daily Telegraph announced that psychoanalysis is to be ‘outlawed’ as of 2011 (this article is included below). Pressed to intervene, 10 Downing Street issued a response: ‘Statutory regulation exists to protect the public from poorly performing practitioners,’ it said.
Let’s stay calm: the worst hasn’t yet come to pass. But no one can ignore any longer the totalitarian dream that a number of European bureaucrats harbour, a dream that goes as far as regulating private conversation between two adults at the home of one or the other. Suppressing psychoanalysis in one fell swoop, through law and regulation, making its practice illegal, delinquent, and prosecutable: all of this had therefore been thought through, willed, and prepared in Spring 2008 in our dear England.
Albion in the grip of profligacy
In the French imagination, Albion is perfidious, that’s agreed. But it’s also the country of common sense and decency, albeit with an upper storey to let. It’s the principle of Orwell’s ethics: they don’t believe in ideas – and scarcely in beliefs – which are kept at home, in private; the spirit is positive, pragmatic, they swear only by facts, leaving ideology to the continentals, especially to the Frogs who are always ready to get stirred up over the doubtful daydreams of the Germans; and so on. This cliché is old hat now.
In the grip of profligacy, doped up on electronics, intoxicated like its sisters on the continent by its new power, Her Majesty’s bureaucracy is taking to an unbridled constructivism, installing the most widespread society of surveillance any Western democracy has ever seen, and it means to change homo britannicus to the core, remodelling his everyday emotional and mental life.
This is coming to fruition, and not by chance, under the reign of Labour, the party that has become the political expression of the top civil servants, like the Socialist Party in France: cameras anywhere and everywhere, evaluation of anything and everything, programmed happiness, faith that the best is calculable, all of this is nothing but the contemporary and degenerate form of the good old totalitarianism of yesteryear, under a capitalist regime. The English are doubtless a reasonable people, but when they get intoxicated, they get more intoxicated than the rest. The intelligentsia, which has never had the weight on the island that it has in France – there’s no ‘writer’s sacrosanct’ (Paul Bénichou) – is apathetically watching the liquidation of its traditional ways without budging, and letting the sorcerer’s apprentices of the London School of Economics do as they please. The likes of Peter Laslett will rise again tomorrow to tell us about The World We Have Lost.
The British have the docility of islanders when it comes to autochthonous power: think of Japan’s extraordinary top to bottom mutation during the Meiji era: with his accession at the age of fifteen, Mutsuhito declared that, ‘the ways of former times have been abolished forever’, and, notwithstanding opposition from the samurais, Amen, his will was done. It won’t be the same in the United Kingdom however: in the long term the intrinsic madness of the projects of our new doctrinaires will consign these authoritarian utopias to the dustbin of history. You can read Willem H. Buiter’s enlightening article in this issue on the dangers of ‘neo-paternalism’.
From Italy to France
Since Freud, and in conformity with his long-lasting wish, psychoanalysts have never sought to have their skills recognised and regulated by State apparatuses; they created their own institutions and authorisations, both national and international (the IPA in 1910; the WAP in 1992). Throughout the twentieth century, the practice of psychoanalysis, then the practice of the psychotherapies that derive their inspiration from it, have spread on a major scale, to the point of penetrating all the large population masses in developed societies. Since the end of the last century, the European countries have been under instruction to define the profession of psychotherapy to meet the requirements of freedom of establishment in the Union.
In Italy, the law was voted on the initiative of senator Ossicini, himself a psychologist and psychoanalyst, and member of the SPI (Italian Psychoanalytic Society). Fifteen years down the line, one can observe that each of the currents and undercurrents of the discipline can enable the capacitation of an Institute or Institutes of training in psychotherapy, in conformity with its own designs, while fitting into a framework fixed by the State. An independent commission freely grants the capacitations; there exist some three hundred such Institutes, in healthy competition with each another.
In France, the question was to remain dormant until 2003 when Bernard Accoyer, then vice-president of the UMP party, took the initiative of a law claiming to define the psychotherapies. This law was unanimously voted in by the National Assembly. The daily newspaper Libération devoted its front page to it and also published my frontal opposition to the text of the bill, a text voted after its first reading, along with my intention to undertake a campaign in the public eye.
This campaign, which saw the creation of Le Nouvel Âne and the ‘Forums of the Shrinks’, which benefited from the support of numerous intellectuals and artists, including Bernard-Henri Lévy and Philippe Sollers, was greeted with a resounding echo in the media; it persuaded Jacques Chirac’s entourage to intervene; Accoyer announced on 3 December of that same year that he was abandoning his claim to define psychotherapies by law, and himself asked the Senate to modify his amendment.
In fact, the law that was finally voted bore only on the title of psychotherapist. But it also stipulated that on the list of psychotherapists, the following would be included by law: doctors, psychologists, and psychoanalysts regularly listed in their associations’ directories.
From decree to draft order
It remained to draft the implementing decree. A path fraught with pitfalls, now that the text of the law was not limpid and contradictory interests were being mobilised around the question. Philippe Douste-Blazy, the new Minister for Health, wanted to meet me; he would abstain from having a decree drafted. His successor, Xavier Bertrand, also wanted to meet me, and invited me to work with the director of his cabinet, Mr Castex, on the drafting of a decree that would be acceptable to the professions concerned. This was done, but the text was rejected at the Council of State during the last days of the Villepin government.
Under pressure from Accoyer, who had become President of the National Assembly, the director of Mrs Bachelot’s advisors put the decree back on the drawing board. The drafted text, albeit a step backwards with regard to the Bertrand project, constituted an acceptable compromise.
Now, with the Council of State getting ready to approve the decree in July, along came the draft ‘conditions of contract’ order, on Sunday 29 June, which is set to follow immediately the vote on the decree. Utter stupefaction. You can read the text of this order in this issue [English translation to follow], along with the commentaries that it has inspired from the most distinguished professors in Psychiatry and Psychopathology.
The debate erupts
Once averted, the editorial committee of the weekly news magazine Le Point offered me a forum for debate straight away. ‘Death to the Shrinks?’ was published on 3 July. On Monday 7th, Le Figaro, under the signature of Catherine Petitnicolas, echoed the unfavourable reactions of the shrinks: ‘Shrinks Take Fierce Stand Against Decree Project’. The next day, Le Monde wrote ‘Shrinks Condemn Inauguration of State Psychotherapy’ and ‘the debate over the decree regulating the status of psychotherapy is erupting again’ (Cécile Pieur). On the 10th, Accoyer, who signs off as ‘President of the National Assembly’ replied to me in Le Point: ‘Who wants the death of the shrinks? Certainly not the legislator! Claiming neither to provide the framework for psychological care, nor to put psychoanalysis into question in any way whatsoever, the legislator wanted the bill of 9 August 2004 to protect people by filling in the legal loophole by which anyone and everyone can declare themselves a psychotherapist, without any guarantee of training or competence.’ There you can recognise an argument from four years ago. About the draft order, he didn’t breathe a word.
At the same time, Mrs Bachelot’s head advisor, Mr Leclerc, assured me by phone that it was a ‘chief clerk’ at the Ministry of Higher Education that had penned the project, and he would be refusing to add the Ministry of Health’s signature. He added that, according to his sources, Mrs Pécresse’s advisors are not favourable to this project as it stands. On their immediate request, I agreed to meet the Director General for Health, Professor Didier Houssin, and Mrs Elvire Aronica, one of the advisors, on 8 July, and I presented my way of thinking, handing them a seven-point ‘Note’. The Vice-Director of the DGS [Direction générale de la Santé] called me on 9 July, so that she could inform me of the complexities of inter-ministerial work.
The following day, I found out the name of the project’s author: Professor Lécuyer, the well-known cognitive psychologist (to whom the previous issue of Le Nouvel Âne devoted two pages, 44-5), a specialist in eye movement in babies; before retiring in September, he wanted to accomplish one last crime, by trying to kill off clinical psychology and psychoanalysis once and for all.
The preparation of the summer LNA was launched. Texts were to be submitted before Sunday 13 July.
No other way than via the President?
Accoyer wanted a law. He’s got one – even if it’s not exactly what he wanted at the start. He wants the decree. It’s well on the way. But the draft order? The Lécuyer project? Is he for that, this man so mindful of the safety of his fellow citizens? Let him read the texts collected in this dossier, and he will see the risks that this text is incurring for public healthcare just to satisfy a camarilla’s condemnation. Will he cast aside the objections of Professor Briole from the Val-de-Grâce Hospital? Will he cast aside the objections of Professors Abelhauser, Castanet, Gori and Maleval? That would be very disappointing. Very disappointing indeed for the idea we have of our national representatives. Yes, there will have to be an order, but not this one: an authentically liberal text, respectful of the liberties of civil society, the realities of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, and above all, patients’ interests.
I won’t hide from the LNA reader that I have alerted the advisors to the President of the Republic. Having agreed to take part in the first of those ‘intellectual lunches’ with the President that are proving so controversial today, I’ve kept a contact on the inside. And above all, lest we forget, there is une analysante at the Élysée Palace. We are living under a President whose power is very far-reaching. Our Constitution wants that. Really, will everything have to go via Nicolas Sarkozy? And as for his role in this affair, will he be up to that prince who appears on the stage in the last act of Tartuffe, ‘enemy of fraud […] that all the art of impostors cannot deceive’?
In the 12 July issue of Elle magazine, Carla Bruni quotes ‘a magnificent sentence’ from Jacques Lacan: ‘Love happens by chance’. Ah! How cunning one must be to recognise a profound structural truth in such a simple comment. Yes, love is unthinkable without the contingency of encounters. And it may well be that, by chance, psychoanalysis, which has had so many bad encounters, has had a good one this time.
14 July 2008
Translated from the French by Adrian Price
From Le Nouvel Âne, Issue 9
This issue of Le Nouvel Âne wouldn’t have been designed, written and put together in the heart of summer if I hadn’t received, at the end of June, the leaked text of a ministerial draft order which, in favour of the bill on the title of psychotherapist, was programming the beginning of the end of psychoanalysis.
You think I’m crying wolf when there’s no wolf to be seen? That I’m tilting at windmills? Let me tell you that all over Europe the fanatical administrations that run us as ‘populations’ and inspire those that govern us are relentlessly tormented by a determined desire to do away with psychoanalysis. In the United Kingdom, the government is preparing to regulate ‘talking therapies’ to the point that on 12 July, the Daily Telegraph announced that psychoanalysis is to be ‘outlawed’ as of 2011 (this article is included below). Pressed to intervene, 10 Downing Street issued a response: ‘Statutory regulation exists to protect the public from poorly performing practitioners,’ it said.
Let’s stay calm: the worst hasn’t yet come to pass. But no one can ignore any longer the totalitarian dream that a number of European bureaucrats harbour, a dream that goes as far as regulating private conversation between two adults at the home of one or the other. Suppressing psychoanalysis in one fell swoop, through law and regulation, making its practice illegal, delinquent, and prosecutable: all of this had therefore been thought through, willed, and prepared in Spring 2008 in our dear England.
Albion in the grip of profligacy
In the French imagination, Albion is perfidious, that’s agreed. But it’s also the country of common sense and decency, albeit with an upper storey to let. It’s the principle of Orwell’s ethics: they don’t believe in ideas – and scarcely in beliefs – which are kept at home, in private; the spirit is positive, pragmatic, they swear only by facts, leaving ideology to the continentals, especially to the Frogs who are always ready to get stirred up over the doubtful daydreams of the Germans; and so on. This cliché is old hat now.
In the grip of profligacy, doped up on electronics, intoxicated like its sisters on the continent by its new power, Her Majesty’s bureaucracy is taking to an unbridled constructivism, installing the most widespread society of surveillance any Western democracy has ever seen, and it means to change homo britannicus to the core, remodelling his everyday emotional and mental life.
This is coming to fruition, and not by chance, under the reign of Labour, the party that has become the political expression of the top civil servants, like the Socialist Party in France: cameras anywhere and everywhere, evaluation of anything and everything, programmed happiness, faith that the best is calculable, all of this is nothing but the contemporary and degenerate form of the good old totalitarianism of yesteryear, under a capitalist regime. The English are doubtless a reasonable people, but when they get intoxicated, they get more intoxicated than the rest. The intelligentsia, which has never had the weight on the island that it has in France – there’s no ‘writer’s sacrosanct’ (Paul Bénichou) – is apathetically watching the liquidation of its traditional ways without budging, and letting the sorcerer’s apprentices of the London School of Economics do as they please. The likes of Peter Laslett will rise again tomorrow to tell us about The World We Have Lost.
The British have the docility of islanders when it comes to autochthonous power: think of Japan’s extraordinary top to bottom mutation during the Meiji era: with his accession at the age of fifteen, Mutsuhito declared that, ‘the ways of former times have been abolished forever’, and, notwithstanding opposition from the samurais, Amen, his will was done. It won’t be the same in the United Kingdom however: in the long term the intrinsic madness of the projects of our new doctrinaires will consign these authoritarian utopias to the dustbin of history. You can read Willem H. Buiter’s enlightening article in this issue on the dangers of ‘neo-paternalism’.
From Italy to France
Since Freud, and in conformity with his long-lasting wish, psychoanalysts have never sought to have their skills recognised and regulated by State apparatuses; they created their own institutions and authorisations, both national and international (the IPA in 1910; the WAP in 1992). Throughout the twentieth century, the practice of psychoanalysis, then the practice of the psychotherapies that derive their inspiration from it, have spread on a major scale, to the point of penetrating all the large population masses in developed societies. Since the end of the last century, the European countries have been under instruction to define the profession of psychotherapy to meet the requirements of freedom of establishment in the Union.
In Italy, the law was voted on the initiative of senator Ossicini, himself a psychologist and psychoanalyst, and member of the SPI (Italian Psychoanalytic Society). Fifteen years down the line, one can observe that each of the currents and undercurrents of the discipline can enable the capacitation of an Institute or Institutes of training in psychotherapy, in conformity with its own designs, while fitting into a framework fixed by the State. An independent commission freely grants the capacitations; there exist some three hundred such Institutes, in healthy competition with each another.
In France, the question was to remain dormant until 2003 when Bernard Accoyer, then vice-president of the UMP party, took the initiative of a law claiming to define the psychotherapies. This law was unanimously voted in by the National Assembly. The daily newspaper Libération devoted its front page to it and also published my frontal opposition to the text of the bill, a text voted after its first reading, along with my intention to undertake a campaign in the public eye.
This campaign, which saw the creation of Le Nouvel Âne and the ‘Forums of the Shrinks’, which benefited from the support of numerous intellectuals and artists, including Bernard-Henri Lévy and Philippe Sollers, was greeted with a resounding echo in the media; it persuaded Jacques Chirac’s entourage to intervene; Accoyer announced on 3 December of that same year that he was abandoning his claim to define psychotherapies by law, and himself asked the Senate to modify his amendment.
In fact, the law that was finally voted bore only on the title of psychotherapist. But it also stipulated that on the list of psychotherapists, the following would be included by law: doctors, psychologists, and psychoanalysts regularly listed in their associations’ directories.
From decree to draft order
It remained to draft the implementing decree. A path fraught with pitfalls, now that the text of the law was not limpid and contradictory interests were being mobilised around the question. Philippe Douste-Blazy, the new Minister for Health, wanted to meet me; he would abstain from having a decree drafted. His successor, Xavier Bertrand, also wanted to meet me, and invited me to work with the director of his cabinet, Mr Castex, on the drafting of a decree that would be acceptable to the professions concerned. This was done, but the text was rejected at the Council of State during the last days of the Villepin government.
Under pressure from Accoyer, who had become President of the National Assembly, the director of Mrs Bachelot’s advisors put the decree back on the drawing board. The drafted text, albeit a step backwards with regard to the Bertrand project, constituted an acceptable compromise.
Now, with the Council of State getting ready to approve the decree in July, along came the draft ‘conditions of contract’ order, on Sunday 29 June, which is set to follow immediately the vote on the decree. Utter stupefaction. You can read the text of this order in this issue [English translation to follow], along with the commentaries that it has inspired from the most distinguished professors in Psychiatry and Psychopathology.
The debate erupts
Once averted, the editorial committee of the weekly news magazine Le Point offered me a forum for debate straight away. ‘Death to the Shrinks?’ was published on 3 July. On Monday 7th, Le Figaro, under the signature of Catherine Petitnicolas, echoed the unfavourable reactions of the shrinks: ‘Shrinks Take Fierce Stand Against Decree Project’. The next day, Le Monde wrote ‘Shrinks Condemn Inauguration of State Psychotherapy’ and ‘the debate over the decree regulating the status of psychotherapy is erupting again’ (Cécile Pieur). On the 10th, Accoyer, who signs off as ‘President of the National Assembly’ replied to me in Le Point: ‘Who wants the death of the shrinks? Certainly not the legislator! Claiming neither to provide the framework for psychological care, nor to put psychoanalysis into question in any way whatsoever, the legislator wanted the bill of 9 August 2004 to protect people by filling in the legal loophole by which anyone and everyone can declare themselves a psychotherapist, without any guarantee of training or competence.’ There you can recognise an argument from four years ago. About the draft order, he didn’t breathe a word.
At the same time, Mrs Bachelot’s head advisor, Mr Leclerc, assured me by phone that it was a ‘chief clerk’ at the Ministry of Higher Education that had penned the project, and he would be refusing to add the Ministry of Health’s signature. He added that, according to his sources, Mrs Pécresse’s advisors are not favourable to this project as it stands. On their immediate request, I agreed to meet the Director General for Health, Professor Didier Houssin, and Mrs Elvire Aronica, one of the advisors, on 8 July, and I presented my way of thinking, handing them a seven-point ‘Note’. The Vice-Director of the DGS [Direction générale de la Santé] called me on 9 July, so that she could inform me of the complexities of inter-ministerial work.
The following day, I found out the name of the project’s author: Professor Lécuyer, the well-known cognitive psychologist (to whom the previous issue of Le Nouvel Âne devoted two pages, 44-5), a specialist in eye movement in babies; before retiring in September, he wanted to accomplish one last crime, by trying to kill off clinical psychology and psychoanalysis once and for all.
The preparation of the summer LNA was launched. Texts were to be submitted before Sunday 13 July.
No other way than via the President?
Accoyer wanted a law. He’s got one – even if it’s not exactly what he wanted at the start. He wants the decree. It’s well on the way. But the draft order? The Lécuyer project? Is he for that, this man so mindful of the safety of his fellow citizens? Let him read the texts collected in this dossier, and he will see the risks that this text is incurring for public healthcare just to satisfy a camarilla’s condemnation. Will he cast aside the objections of Professor Briole from the Val-de-Grâce Hospital? Will he cast aside the objections of Professors Abelhauser, Castanet, Gori and Maleval? That would be very disappointing. Very disappointing indeed for the idea we have of our national representatives. Yes, there will have to be an order, but not this one: an authentically liberal text, respectful of the liberties of civil society, the realities of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, and above all, patients’ interests.
I won’t hide from the LNA reader that I have alerted the advisors to the President of the Republic. Having agreed to take part in the first of those ‘intellectual lunches’ with the President that are proving so controversial today, I’ve kept a contact on the inside. And above all, lest we forget, there is une analysante at the Élysée Palace. We are living under a President whose power is very far-reaching. Our Constitution wants that. Really, will everything have to go via Nicolas Sarkozy? And as for his role in this affair, will he be up to that prince who appears on the stage in the last act of Tartuffe, ‘enemy of fraud […] that all the art of impostors cannot deceive’?
In the 12 July issue of Elle magazine, Carla Bruni quotes ‘a magnificent sentence’ from Jacques Lacan: ‘Love happens by chance’. Ah! How cunning one must be to recognise a profound structural truth in such a simple comment. Yes, love is unthinkable without the contingency of encounters. And it may well be that, by chance, psychoanalysis, which has had so many bad encounters, has had a good one this time.
14 July 2008
Translated from the French by Adrian Price
LNA n°9
Este número de LNA no hubiera sido concebido, redactado, editado en el corazón del verano, si yo no hubiera recibido, a fines de junio, el texto “fuga de información” de un proyecto de decreto ministerial que, a favor del decreto de aplicación de la ley sobre el título de psicoterapeuta, programaba de hecho el comienzo del fin del psicoanálisis.
¿Ustedes creen que yo grito que viene el lobo cuando el lobo no está allí? ¿Que lucho contra molinos de viento? Sepan que las administraciones exaltadas que, en toda Europa, nos administran en tanto que “poblaciones” e inspiran a nuestros gobiernos, no cesan de ser perforadas por el deseo decidido de terminar con el psicoanálisis. En el Reino Unido, el gobierno se prepararía para regular las “terapias por la palabra” de tal modo que el Daily Telegraph del 12 de julio anuncia desde ahora que el psicoanálisis será puesto fuera de la ley, “outlawed”, a partir de 2011 (esta entrevista es retomada en este número, p. 4). El 10 Downing Street, al que se le solicitó intervenir, dio a conocer su respuesta: “Las directivas reglamentarias tienen como función proteger al público de los practicantes mediocres”.
Seamos zen: lo peor no llegó aún. Pero nadie puede ya ignorar el sueño totalitario que anima a numerosos burócratas europeos, y que llega al punto de regular la conversación privada de dos adultos en el domicilio de uno de ellos. Suprimir el psicoanálisis de un plumazo, por la ley y el reglamento, volver ilegal su ejercicio, delictivo, pasible de los tribunales; esto se habrá pensado, querido, preparado, en la primavera de 2008, en nuestra querida Inglaterra.
Albion atrapada por el libertinaje
En el imaginario francés, Albion es pérfida, por supuesto, pero es también el país, de baja estatura, del common sense y de la decency, principio de la ética de Orwell: no se cree allí en las ideas. y apenas en las creencias – se las guarda at home, en la esfera privada; el espíritu es positivo, pragmático, no se jura más que por los hechos, abandonando la ideología a los continentales, especialmente a los Frogs (las ranas, los franceses), siempre listos para entusiasmarse con las dudosas ensoñaciones de los alemanes, etc. El cliché está de ahora en mas en desuso
Atrapada por el libertinaje, dopada por la electrónica, embriagada como sus hermanas del continente por su potencia nueva, la burocracia de Su Majestad se entrega a un constructivismo desenfrenado, instala la sociedad de vigilancia más extendida de las democracias occidentales, y entiende que cambia el homo britannicus en lo que tiene de más profundo, remodelando su vida cotidiana, emocional, psíquica. Esto se expande, y no es por azar, bajo el reino del Laborismo, vuelto la expresión política de la clase de los altos funcionarios, como el PS en Francia: cámaras en todas partes, la evaluación a más no poder, la felicidad programada, la fe en el cálculo de lo mejor, todo esto no es nada más que la forma contemporánea y degenerada, bajo el régimen capitalista, del buen viejo totalitarismo de antaño. Los ingleses son un pueblo razonable sin duda, pero cuando se embriagan, son los más ebrios de todos. Apática, la intelligentsia, que nunca tuvo en la isla el peso que tiene en Francia, aquí ningún “escritor consagrado” (Paud Benichou), asiste sin reaccionar a la liquidación de las maneras de ser tradicionales y deja hacer a los aprendices de brujos de la London School of Economics. Un Meter Laslett se levantará mañana para contárnoslo. Este mundo que nosotros hemos perdido.
Los británicos tienen la docilidad de los insulares con respecto al poder autóctono: piensen en la extraordinaria mutación del Japón en la era Meiji, bajo el modo top-bottom: en su advenimiento a la edad de 15 años, Mutsu-Hito declara que “los usos de los tiempos antiguos son abolidos para siempre” y, a pesar de la oposición de los samurai, Amen, su voluntad fue hecha. Sin embargo, no ocurrirá lo mismo en el Reino Unido: la locura intrínseca de los proyectos de nuestros nuevos doctrinarios condena finalmente estas utopías autoritarias a los basureros de la historia. Leeremos con provecho en este número el artículo de Willem H. Buiter sobre los peligros del “neo - paternalismo”.
Un poco de Italia en Francia
Después de Freud, y conforme a su anhelo constante, los psicoanalistas no trataron jamás de hacer reconocer y regular sus competencias por los aparatos del Estado; crearon sus propias instituciones, y habilitaciones, nacionales e internacionales (IPA en 1910; AMP en 1992) A todo lo largo del siglo 20, la práctica del psicoanálisis, luego la de las psicoterapias que se inspiran en él, se expandió a gran escala, hasta alcanzar en las sociedades desarrolladas a las grandes masas de población. Luego del fin del último siglo, los países europeos se ocuparon de definir la profesión de psicoterapeuta, con el fin de satisfacer a las exigencias de libre establecimientos en la Unión.
En Italia, la ley fue votada por la iniciativa del senador Ossicini, él mismo psicólogo y psicoanalista, miembro de la SPI (Sociedad psicoanalítica Italiana). Constatamos, 16 años más tarde, que cada una de las corrientes y sub corrientes de la disciplina tiene la posibilidad de hacer habilitar uno o varios institutos de formación en psicoterapia, conforme a sus concepciones, siempre que se inscriban en un marco de conjunto fijado por el Estado. Una comisión independiente delibera liberalmente las habilitaciones; existen alrededor de 300 institutos, en sana competencia unos con otros.
En Francia, la cuestión permaneció dormida hasta el 2003, cuando M. Bernard Accoyer, entonces vicepresidente del grupo UMP, tomó la iniciativa de una ley que pretendía definir las psicoterapias. Esta ley fue votada por unanimidad por la Asamblea nacional. Liberación le consagró la primera plana; el diario hizo conocer igualmente mi oposición frontal al texto votado en la primera lectura, y mi intención de hacer una campaña en la opinión pública.
Esta campaña, que vio la creación del Nouvel Âne y la de los Forums psi, y que contó con el apoyo de numerosos intelectuales y artistas, entre ellos Bernard Henri Lévy y Philippe Sollers, cosechó un vasto eco mediático; hizo que el entorno de Jacques Chirac se decida a intervenir; M. Accoyer anunció el 3 de diciembre del mismo año que abandonaría su pretensión de definir las psicoterapias por la ley, y pidió él mismo al Senado que modifique su enmienda.
De hecho, la ley finalmente votada se refería solamente al título de psicoterapeuta.
Además, estipulaba quienes estaban inscriptos de derecho en la lista de psicoterapeutas: los médicos, los psicólogos, y los psicoanalistas regularmente inscriptos en el anuario de sus asociaciones.
Después de Freud, y conforme a su anhelo constante, los psicoanalistas no trataron jamás de hacer reconocer y regular sus competencias por los aparatos del Estado; crearon sus propias instituciones, y habilitaciones, nacionales e internacionales (IPA en 1910; AMP en 1992) A todo lo largo del siglo 20, la práctica del psicoanálisis, luego la de las psicoterapias que se inspiran en él, se expandió a gran escala, hasta alcanzar en las sociedades desarrolladas a las grandes masas de población. Luego del fin del último siglo, los países europeos se ocuparon de definir la profesión de psicoterapeuta, con el fin de satisfacer a las exigencias de libre establecimientos en la Unión.
En Italia, la ley fue votada por la iniciativa del senador Ossicini, él mismo psicólogo y psicoanalista, miembro de la SPI (Sociedad psicoanalítica Italiana). Constatamos, 16 años más tarde, que cada una de las corrientes y sub corrientes de la disciplina tiene la posibilidad de hacer habilitar uno o varios institutos de formación en psicoterapia, conforme a sus concepciones, siempre que se inscriban en un marco de conjunto fijado por el Estado. Una comisión independiente delibera liberalmente las habilitaciones; existen alrededor de 300 institutos, en sana competencia unos con otros.
En Francia, la cuestión permaneció dormida hasta el 2003, cuando M. Bernard Accoyer, entonces vicepresidente del grupo UMP, tomó la iniciativa de una ley que pretendía definir las psicoterapias. Esta ley fue votada por unanimidad por la Asamblea nacional. Liberación le consagró la primera plana; el diario hizo conocer igualmente mi oposición frontal al texto votado en la primera lectura, y mi intención de hacer una campaña en la opinión pública.
Esta campaña, que vio la creación del Nouvel Âne y la de los Forums psi, y que contó con el apoyo de numerosos intelectuales y artistas, entre ellos Bernard Henri Lévy y Philippe Sollers, cosechó un vasto eco mediático; hizo que el entorno de Jacques Chirac se decida a intervenir; M. Accoyer anunció el 3 de diciembre del mismo año que abandonaría su pretensión de definir las psicoterapias por la ley, y pidió él mismo al Senado que modifique su enmienda.
De hecho, la ley finalmente votada se refería solamente al título de psicoterapeuta.
Además, estipulaba quienes estaban inscriptos de derecho en la lista de psicoterapeutas: los médicos, los psicólogos, y los psicoanalistas regularmente inscriptos en el anuario de sus asociaciones.
Del decreto al reglamento definitivo
Quedaba por redactar el decreto de aplicación. Camino sembrado de emboscadas, desde el momento en que el texto de la ley no era límpido, y que movilizaba intereses contradictorios en torno a la cuestión. Philippe Douste-Blazy, nuevo ministro de Salud, quiso encontrarse conmigo; se abstuvo de hacer redactar un decreto. Su sucesor, Xavier Bertrand, quiso igualmente encontrarse conmigo, y me invitó a trabajar con su director de gabinete, El Sr. Castex, en la redacción de un decreto aceptable para los profesionales concernidos. Lo que fue hecho, pero el texto fue retocado en el Consejo de estado, en los últimos días del gobierno Villepin. Bajo la presión del Sr. Accoyer, que se había convertido en Presidente de la Asamblea nacional, el director del gabinete de la Sra. Bachelot continúo mejorando el decreto. El texto redactado, si bien dice menos que el proyecto Bertrand, constituía un compromiso pasable.
Sin embargo, en el momento en que el Consejo de Estado se prepara para aprobar el decreto durante julio, me llega, el domingo 29 de julio, el proyecto de reglamento definitivo sobre el “documento técnico” al que debe seguir inmediatamente el voto de este decreto. Estupefacción. Ustedes leerán el texto en este número, y los comentarios que inspiró en seguida a los profesores de psiquiatría y de psicopatología más distinguidos
La polémica se calienta
Alertada, la redacción de Le Point me ofrece inmediatamente una tribuna, « ¿Muerte a los psi ?”, publicada el 3 de julio. Lunes 7, Le Figaro, con la firma de Catherine Petitnicolas, se hace eco de las reacciones del medio psi, todas desfavorables: “los psi con el viento de frente contra un proyecto de decreto”. Le Monde escribe el día siguiente que “los psi denuncian la instauración de una “psicoterapia de estado” y que “la polémica sobre el decreto reglamentando el estatuto de psicoterapeuta se calienta nuevamente”. (Cécile Prieur). El 10, M. Accoyer que firma « Presidente de la Asamblea nacional », me responde en Le Point : « ¿Quien quiere la muerte de los psi ? »!Ciertamente no el legislador! No pretendiendo ni enmarcar el tratamiento psicológico, ni poner en cuestión, de ningún modo, el psicoanálisis, el legislador deseó con esta ley del 9 de agosto de 2004 proteger a las personas, llenando un vacío jurídico por el cual cualquiera puede autoproclamarse psicoterapeuta, sin ninguna garantía de formación ni de competencia.” Habrán podido reconocer un argumento de venta de hace cuatro años. Del proyecto de reglamento definitivo no dijo ni una palabra.
Al mismo tiempo, el director de gabinete de la Sra. Bachelot, el Sr. Leclerc, me asegura por teléfono que es un « jefe de despacho » en el ministerio de Educación superior quien sostuvo la pluma, y que él mismo rechazará la firma de Salud. Agregó que, según sus informaciones, el gabinete de la Sra. Pécresse no es favorable a este proyecto en el estado. Acepté, ante su imperiosa demanda el 8 de julio encontrarme con el Director general de salud, el Prof. Didier Houssin, y la Sra Elvira Aronica, miembro del gabinete, a quienes les expuse mi manera de pensar, dándoles una « Nota » con 7 puntos. El 9 de julio, la directora adjunta de la DGS me llamó para informarme de la complejidad del trabajo interministerial.
El día siguiente, supe el nombre del autor del proyecto; el Prof. Lécuyer, el psicólogo cognitivista bien conocido (al cual el número anterior de LNA le había consagrado dos páginas, 44 y 45) especialista de los movimientos del ojo en el bebé; antes de jubilarse en septiembre próximo, quiso cumplir un último crimen y tratar de matar de una buena vez a la psicología clínica y al psicoanálisis.
Ya se lanzó la preparación de LNA del verano. Los textos están pedidos para el domingo 13 de julio.
¿No hay otra camino más que el Presidente?
M Accoyer quiso una ley, la tiene – incluso si no es exactamente aquella que había deseado inicialmente. Quiere el decreto, es una buena vía. ¿Pero el proyecto de reglamento definitivo? ¿El proyecto Lécuyer ? ¿Está a favor, él tan preocupado por la seguridad de sus ciudadanos? Que lea los textos reunidos en este dossier, y vera los riesgos que ese texto hace correr a la salud pública para satisfacer la venganza de una camarilla. ¿Va a considerar como si fueran nada las objeciones del Prof. Briote, de Val de Grace? ¿a las de los Prof. Abelhauser, Castanet, Gori, Maleval ? Sería muy decepcionante, sí, muy decepcionante para la idea que tenemos de la representación nacional. Si, será necesario un reglamento definitivo, pero no ése: un texto auténticamente liberal, respetuoso de las libertades de la sociedad civil, de las realidades del psicoanálisis y de la psicoterapia, y sobre todo del interés de los pacientes.
No voy a ocultarle al lector de LNA que he alertado al gabinete del Presidente de la República. Habiendo aceptado participar en el primero de esos “almuerzos de intelectuales” con el Presidente que hoy están controvertidos, conservé un contacto en el lugar. Y sobre todo, hay, a no olvidarlo, una analizante en el Elyseo. Vivimos con un Presidente con un poder muy amplio, nuestra constitución así lo quiere.¿Será necesario que, decididamente, todo pase por Nicolas Sarkozy ? ¿Y él, sabrá igualar en este asunto a ese príncipe « enemigo del fraude”(…) y al que no puede engañar todo el arte de los impostores » cuya figura surge en el último acto de Tartuffo ? ¿o bien dejará hacer a los burócratas?
Carla Bruni, en el número de Elle del 12 de julio, cita « una frase magnífica » de Jacques Lacan: “El amor, es por azar ». Ah! Hay que ser sagaz para reconocer en una frase tan simple una profunda verdad de estructura. Sí, el amor es impensable sin la contingencia de los encuentros. Y podría ocurrir que por azar, el psicoanálisis, que ha tenido tantos malos encuentros, tenga esta vez uno bueno.
14 de julio de 2008
Traducción: Silvia Baudini
M Accoyer quiso una ley, la tiene – incluso si no es exactamente aquella que había deseado inicialmente. Quiere el decreto, es una buena vía. ¿Pero el proyecto de reglamento definitivo? ¿El proyecto Lécuyer ? ¿Está a favor, él tan preocupado por la seguridad de sus ciudadanos? Que lea los textos reunidos en este dossier, y vera los riesgos que ese texto hace correr a la salud pública para satisfacer la venganza de una camarilla. ¿Va a considerar como si fueran nada las objeciones del Prof. Briote, de Val de Grace? ¿a las de los Prof. Abelhauser, Castanet, Gori, Maleval ? Sería muy decepcionante, sí, muy decepcionante para la idea que tenemos de la representación nacional. Si, será necesario un reglamento definitivo, pero no ése: un texto auténticamente liberal, respetuoso de las libertades de la sociedad civil, de las realidades del psicoanálisis y de la psicoterapia, y sobre todo del interés de los pacientes.
No voy a ocultarle al lector de LNA que he alertado al gabinete del Presidente de la República. Habiendo aceptado participar en el primero de esos “almuerzos de intelectuales” con el Presidente que hoy están controvertidos, conservé un contacto en el lugar. Y sobre todo, hay, a no olvidarlo, una analizante en el Elyseo. Vivimos con un Presidente con un poder muy amplio, nuestra constitución así lo quiere.¿Será necesario que, decididamente, todo pase por Nicolas Sarkozy ? ¿Y él, sabrá igualar en este asunto a ese príncipe « enemigo del fraude”(…) y al que no puede engañar todo el arte de los impostores » cuya figura surge en el último acto de Tartuffo ? ¿o bien dejará hacer a los burócratas?
Carla Bruni, en el número de Elle del 12 de julio, cita « una frase magnífica » de Jacques Lacan: “El amor, es por azar ». Ah! Hay que ser sagaz para reconocer en una frase tan simple una profunda verdad de estructura. Sí, el amor es impensable sin la contingencia de los encuentros. Y podría ocurrir que por azar, el psicoanálisis, que ha tenido tantos malos encuentros, tenga esta vez uno bueno.
14 de julio de 2008
Traducción: Silvia Baudini
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário