European psychoanalytic Societies are beginning to know now, in their turn, the effects of success: psychoanalysis now occupies a position of honour in universities, hospitals, public health services and the mass media. Certainly, the movement is stronger in some countries than in others, but nearly everywhere psychoanalysts are being asked more and more to extend their activities outside of their specific practices. Likewise, dissident movements are being formed, practitioners who are not properly trained are pretending to practice psychoanalysis, and psychoanalysts themselves are having to respond to a considerable demand for training in psychotherapy. The various psychoanalytic societies do not respond to these problems in the same manner: some play an active role in the training of psychotherapists or associate themselves with universities and other care centers. The majority of Societies manifest a great reserve, while allowing their members individually to play a role in these movements.
The contrast is very great as compared with the situation in the 1950s. After the war, with the exception of the British Society and, to a lesser extent, the Swedish and Swiss Societies, the psychoanalytic movement found itself again in the situation which had existed before the war, with small groups of pioneers united around one or two prestigious figures, forming—each in a relatively isolated situation—small groups of analysts. At that time, the British Society showed itself as a highly developed and remarkably organised society as contrasted with these small groups. Young analysts throughout Europe discovered the important British and American literature (Anna Freud, Hartmann, Kris, Loewenstein, Spitz, etc.) which complemented the works of Freud and of his immediate successors.
Development was unequal: swift in France and Germany—countries which now have several hundred analysts—but more slowly and less importantly in most of the other countries. Now, however, the movement of expansion has gained ground in the Scandinavian countries, which are influenced by the Anglo-Saxon movement, and the Latin countries, where the influence is largely French.
It is, of course, difficult to define the various theoretical inspirations in terms of geographic criteria. One of the characteristics of European psychoanalysis is its theoretical eclecticism, and in each Society one finds a juxtaposition of currents of thought. The influence of the Kleinian school is certainly visible in the Latin countries (France, Spain, Italy, Portugal). More general and more important appears to be the influence of the British “Independent” psychoanalysts (Balint, Winnicott, etc.). The influence of American thinking is equally visible; Kohut and, to a lesser degree, Margaret Mahler, are amongst the best-known authors. One must, however, express regret that because of linguistic barriers and the choices made by publishers, Europeans cannot have more than a partial view of the evolution of American psychoanalytic thinking. This is still almost exclusively identified with ego psychology, except for those who have had first-hand experience of later developments and its present revival. The influence of French psychoanalysis is important, certainly in those countries within the Romance language area, but also in Great Britain and more recently in Scandinavia. It is difficult to describe exactly the nature of the influence: the spirit which follows the discoveries of Freud, a distrust vis a vis too-exclusive theoretical constructions, an interest in new forms of psychopathology, in language and communication.
The attraction exercised by the Lacanian school must be mentioned here. Lacan was involved directly in two splits in France. Each time, the debate has been about his practice, in particular the excessively short sessions (10 to 15 minutes), the active manipulation of the relationship with the analysand, and the focusing of interpretations on the content that is judged “significant”. Paradoxically, in spite of these excesses, it must also be stated that Lacan has exercised an influence which has, to a certain extent, been stimulating in its effect on analytic thinking. The Lacanian movement indisputably occupies an important place in France not solely because of the ease of the training. It has had a bearing on other movements which draw their inspiration above all from perspectives touching on a social revolution, and which judge that psychoanalysis must be, of itself, an instrument of this revolution (Switzerland, Italy). These movements exercise a great power of attraction for those who are not directly interested in psychoanalysis, but use it within a certain ideological orientation. One might think that this is more of a thing of the moment, and that with the inevitable ebb and flow of infatuation with psychoanalysis, these new perspectives, which confuse scientific methodology and political option, will disappear to allow room for new ideologies which will disengage themselves from psychoanalysis.
In spite of these various differences, European psychoanalysis is doing well enough, and one anticipates that it will surmount this crisis of growth, as American psychoanalysis is known to have done in the face of other seductions. But an essential matter, which perhaps American psychoanalysts have not properly appreciated in just measure, is the cultural and linguistic barriers which separate the various European Societies. There is little communication between the German and French psychoanalysts, in spite of numerous personal sympathies and a very lively desire for exchange. Over the years psychoanalytic Societies have been regrouping themselves into regional meetings where a language may be commonly used during a periodic Congress. Thus there have been successively created the Congresses of Romance Languages, of the German language, and the Scandinavian Congress. Within these regional communities, communications are good enough, but they remain very limited between the different groups. Only the British Society keeps up active exchanges with all European Societies.
This cultural peculiarity explains, no doubt, the spirit of independence which animates the Societies. Each is very jealous of its prerogatives (comparable to those of the American Psychoanalytic Association vis a vis the International Association), and intent on remaining master of its own training regulations. When the European Psychoanalytical Federation was created, certain people feared that power would be given to it in the matter of control of training, and took care that the Constitution of the Federation made it solely an apparatus for liaison between the Societies. This is the role that it has filled with some success: it has organised already several European Congresses, and has encouraged the multiplication of exchanges between Societies. European psychoanalytic Societies, now faced with difficulties created by the success of psychoanalysis, e.g., the identity of the analytic community vis a vis other groups, the relationship with governments and with Social Security agencies, are becoming more and more interested in developing their common association, which is the Federation. In order better to engage the participation of the Societies, a new Constitution will be voted on in October, allowing that the Assembly of the Presidents of European Societies will form the Executive Council of the Federation, charged with the
election of the President and the Vice-Presidents of the Federation, who, however, need not belong to the Council of Presidents.
In matters of training, the Federation does not have any responsibility, and the Societies are only answerable to the IPA. That also speaks to a very difficult problem, in that, because of the fact of their isolation, certain Societies have been led to adopt some measures (in regard to number of sessions, criteria of selection, etc.) that are a form of compromise in the face of pressures from the environment. Here again, awareness of a new anxiety is making itself felt, and a new state of mind is being created with Societies becoming less jealously defensive of its training policies and more interested in knowledge of the experiences of others.
Daniel Widlocher
Paris