At the opening ceremonies, Claude Ryan, Minister of Cultural Affairs, speaking as the representative of the Government of the Province of Quebec, discussed the importance of governments encouraging the independent development of psychoanalysis, referring to its development ideally outside of political and economic pressures.
Pursuing this thought, Mr. Ryan, whose background is humanistic, maintained that the development of psychoanalysis promotes the values of freedom, justice and peace. In context, it was moving to think of psychoanalysis as an oeuvre which, though focused on the individual and the singular, also has important repercussions for the common good of nations. And his thought seemed especially appropriate to this 35th meeting of psychoanalysts representing the nations of the world. It fits the theme of “Analysis Terminable and Interminable” in many ways. First, it points to a social dimension which preoccupied Freud at the time he wrote this paper: his concern with the death instinct, war, and the growing Nazi power. Second, it touches on a topic lying at the outside border of the field of psychoanalysis: the position of psychoanalysis among the humanities.
During the course of the Montreal meetings, an issue arose testing the borders between personal and common concerns, and drawing much attention in the press conference: the issue of nuclear warfare.
International Psychoanalysts Against Nuclear Weapons, a relatively unknown organization formed in Hamburg in 1985, held its second meeting in Montreal, parallel to the Congress of the IPA. My understanding is that, at this point at least, the IPANW is loosely structured, its purpose being not a political one but a reflective one, which distinguishes it from most of the other organizations concerned with nuclear disarmament. Its membership is restricted to psychoanalysts from around the world, most specifically from IPA. This organization seems to understand the unconscious, as well as the conscious, motivations that led to the establishment and current reinforcement and escalation of nuclear defense.
We have to remind ourselves that nuclear missiles are built by humans for the purpose of defense, behooving us to decipher the motives lying behind these activities. This seemed to be the message conveyed by the participants of a panel on nuclear disarmament, and I will devote the rest of this article to a consideration of that panel.
Dr. John Sloane from Toronto delivered the introduction to this nuclear disarmament panel. Drs. Eero Rechardt from Helsinki and Moses Laufer from London presented papers on psychoanalytic views of nuclear risk, and Dr. Marcel Hudon, from Montreal, served as discussant.
Rechardt, in reviewing the evolution of the philosophy of nuclear strategy, described three doctrines: the balance of terror; limited nuclear war; and effective defense. “The essential point in all these scenarios is to invent a technology and strategy that would prevent the use of nuclear weapons … The outcome, however, has been the escalation of armament.” A prevailing fear is the factor of human error. Rechardt's thesis is that the “deadlock in strategic thinking … is based on psychological limitations common to all human beings irrespective of political orientation.” His group in Finland has been in contact with the Tampere Peace Research Institute. They have used as primary data both the odd bit of news and the more sophisticated information on world nuclear strategy. Central to Rechardt's concerns is that we “simply cannot imagine or conceive of the final destruction that would accompany a nuclear disaster, and that is a limitation of our human psyche.” We may call it the ultimate use of denial against the ultimate threat of annihilation. According to Rechardt, all human beings sooner or later are confronted by what he calls the “incomprehensible” or as Nietzsche put it, the “abyss” … “The most incomprehensible of all is the total non-existence of selfness, the annihilation of every self.”
But, Rechardt explains further, it is, not truly a “denial”, a defense that is brought into play; it is, rather, a lack of “tools” in the human psyche required to fathom such destruction. He refers to the sense of extreme vulnerability inherited from the thermonuclear age.
Sloane pointed to the role of “the unconscious sense of helplessness” as a powerful source of defensive activity leading to the need for power. And Laufer emphasized the excitement of sharing secrets as an antidote to the sense of helplessness.
I cannot do justice to these contributions, nor to the audiences participation; I think especially of Dr. Marie Briehl's comments from the floor. But I would like to quote Rechardt again, in the press conference this time, saying: “We can't say how to remedy … that falls into the realm of politics … but we can recognize that we don't understand.” And that is the beginning of reflection.
It seems to me that psychoanalysts have a special expertise in unraveling the hidden motivations propelling men in their creative as well as destructive trajectories, and that the threat of annihilation by nuclear disaster, accidental or intentional (is there any “accident” possible in such a case?), would warrant our attentive investigation.
Freud, in his paper “Civilization and its Discontents” paved the way to such exploration, and it was in this same spirit that the forum was conducted at Montreal. In spite of the name of the organization, which contains the word “against”, implying a taking of position (but could one ever be in favor, in this instance?) the debate was not polarized according to any political view. It reflected instead a genuine effort at understanding, and a sincere interest in, and a hopeful attitude for, humankind. This is not a good time to look the other way, nor to forget.