You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
I hesitated for a long time and consulted widely before proposing this paper to the Bulletin de la Société psychanalytique de Montréal and to the Canadian Journal of Psychoanalysis. I felt that an homage with the idealization it usually contains would not be quite proper by a spouse. At the same time, I wished to share with others the insights and some of the reflections that Louise evoked in me.
First, before arriving at Louise the psychoanalyst, I want to say a few words about her indirect contribution to the foundation of the Société psychanalytique de Montréal. A few colleagues and I returning from Paris wished to introduce into our institute the main features of the French model of transmission of psychoanalysis that we considered closer to the psychoanalytic endeavour than the Anglo-American model that prevailed at the time in all branches of the Canadian Psychoanalytic Society and that seemed to us too academic. There was first the opening of our institute to non-psychiatric candidates. But above all, there was our conception of analysis as personal rather than didactic and our wish was to preserve it from the intrusion of the institution, hence our opposition to the obligation to change analysts when the first one is not a training analyst. It was a long and arduous struggle, so strong was the opposition of the leading voices of the English branches and of some members of our own institute. There were also numerous other problems regarding transmission and administrative and financial matters on which I have written elsewhere (Garron, 1994; Dufresne, 2005, 2008, 2009). Louise shared my views and my objectives. Far from complaining about my many absences during the