𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 ‘𝗣𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀’ 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗗𝗲𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻

There is a possible temptation for analysts to occupy cynical positions by resisting group formations, which means to identify with waste; or, as Jacques-Alain Miller has put it: ‘to have no law but the enjoyment of the One [and] to refuse the bond of love.’ However, this is counterposed to another temptation: precisely to form segregationist groups of waste whose knowledge mimics the ‘family delusion.’ If the psychoanalytic institution — the School and its organs — disrupts group hierarchical and fraternal effects then what exists outside of the School, even among those who champion its cause?

There is a question of the relationship of the psychoanalytic institution to the universe within which it is situated, one that is not satisfactorily resolved by invoking notions of ‘extimacy.’ The world has gone missing, and there arise, outside of the institution, the possibility of fraternal groups whose delusional knowledge persists (e.g., two psychoanalysts practice together at an NGO, become close friends, perhaps romantically involved, and then gossip imperceptibly produces its effects). These social bonds, external to the school, and, indeed opposed to them, shouldn’t necessarily be discouraged — yet it is the goal of the institution to disrupt them rather than to perpetuate them. I suggest that this is a part of the politics of the institution.

One’s commitment to psychoanalysis necessitates that the psychoanalytic world be introduced into the wider universe as the model for a political social bond not predicated upon exploitation, patriarchy, or racism. Let this be a part of the measure of what constitutes a full psychoanalytic experience: it is necessary to defend psychoanalysis from the psychoanalytic delusion.