I only recently noticed that Nosubject.com has been offline... for some time. My apologies. The site is now back online. -- August 2017

Pass

From No Subject - Encyclopedia of Lacanian Psychoanalysis
(Redirected from Passe)
Jump to: navigation, search

pass (passe)In 1967, three years after founding hiS SCHOOL of psycho-analysis (the Ecole Freudienne de Paris, or EFP), Lacan instituted a new kind of procedure in the School (Lacan, 1967). The procedure was called 'the pass' and was essentially an institutional framework designed to allow people to testify to the end of their analysis. The main idea behind this was Lacan's argument that the END OF ANALYSIs is not a quasi-mystical, ineffable experience,but must be (in accordance with the basic principle of psychoanalysis)articulated in language.

The procedure was as follows: the person seeking the pass (le passant) tells two witnesses (les passeurs), who must be in analysis at the time, about his own analysis and its conclusion, and these two witnesses then relay this account (separately) to a jury of seven (some of whom have succesfully been through the pass themselves). The jury then decides,on the basis of the two accounts, whether to award the pass to the candidate. There were no pre-established criteria to guide the jury, since the pass was based on the principle that each person's analysis is unique. If the the candidate was uccessful, he was accorded the title of A.E. (Analyste de L'…cole).

Unsuccessful candidates were not to be prevented from seeking the pass again if they wished to do so. The pass was designed to be the means by which a person might seek recognition by the School of the end of his analysis. The pass was not an obligatory process; whether or not an analyst decided to seek it was entirely up to him. It was not a qualification to practise analysis, since 'the authorisation of an analyst can only come from himself' (Lacan, 1967: 14) (see TRAINING). Nor was it a recognition by the School of the member's status as an analyst; this recognition was granted by another, wholly independent means in Lacan's School, and corresponded to the title of A.M.E. (Analyste Membre de L'Ecole).

It was solely the recognition that a person's analysis had reached its logical conclusion, and that this person could extract an articulated knowledge (savoir) from this experience. The pass thus concerns not a clinical function but a teaching function; it is supposed to testify to the capacity of the passant to theorise his own experience of psychoanalytic treatment, and thereby to contribute to psychoanalytic knowledge.

Jacques-Alain Miller comments that it is important to distinguish between

(i) the pass as an institutional procedure (as described above) and (ii) the pass as the personal experience of the end of one's analysis, the passage from being an analysand to being an analyst, which may be testified to by 'the pass' in the

first sense of the term (Miller, 1977). In the 1970s the institution of the pass became the focus of intense controversy within the EFP. While some supported Lacan's own views that the pass would yield important contributions to knowledge of the end of analysis, others criticised it for being divisive and unworkable. These debates became even more heated in the final years of the EFP, before Lacan dissolved his School in 1980 (see Roudinesco, 1986). Of the various Lacanian organisations which exist today, some have abandoned Lacan's proposal, while many others retain the institution of the pass as a central part of their structure.

Lacan invented the pass to clarify and formalize the transition between analysand and analyst: "This dark cloud that covers this juncture I am concerned with here, the one at which the psychoanalysand passes to becoming a psychoanalyst—that is what our School can work at dissipating" (Lacan, 1995).

Lacan's foundation of theÉcole freudienne de Paris (Freudian School of Paris) on June 21, 1964, was marked by the originality of its membership categories. No longer were there permanent members or didacticians, since an analysis could be recognized as didactic only after the fact by the analysand in question becoming an analyst. There were three categories of membership: analyst of the school (a title initially given to all the former permanent members of the Société psychanalytique de Paris [Paris Psychoanalytic Society] and the Société française de psychanalyse [French Society of Psychoanalysis]), member analysts of the school (who were nominated by a reception committee that guaranteed the "competence" and "regularity" of the candidate's analytic practice), and practicing analysts (who declared their own practice to be analytic, although it was not guaranteed by the school).

Internal conflicts soon developed within the school over training and clinical ability. In an attempt to overcome this crisis, François Perrier proposed, on March 31, 1967, in an address to the analysts of the school, the formation of a college of analysts of the school, which would be devoted to "the clinic as a career and a vocation" (1994). This initiative did not receive any support from Lacan, who wrote up an alternative plan under the title "Proposition of 9 October 1967 on the psychoanalyst of the school" (1995). The procedure that Lacan proposed involved having a candidate give an account of an analysis in which the candidate was the analysand before three "passers," who had been nominated by their own analysts. The passers would then report about their sense of the analysis to an acceptance committee, which could then allow the candidate to pass from analysand to analyst.

This initiative gave rise to a lively debate within the school. As early as 1968, Piera Aulagnier, Maud Mannoni, François Perrier, and Jean-Paul Valabrega made their objections known (later published in Analytica, 7 [1978]). And when Lacan put the proposal to a vote for inclusion in the school's statutes during the Lutetia (Paris) session, Piera Aulagnier, François Perrier, and Jean-Paul Valabrega resigned from the school.

Nevertheless, the pass was put into practice. It seemed that Lacan expected the pass to be not an "experiment in unconscious knowledge," but a "revelation." Thus the pass had nothing to do with analysis. In 1974, in a letter to three of his Italian adherents (Giacomo Contri, Muriel Drazien, and Armando Verdiglione), Lacan recommended that they create an Italian group, "including the principle of the pass for those who apply for it" (1982). In Italy the pass was thus proposed at the outset before the school was functioning.

On January 7 to 8, 1978, during the Deauville session on the pass experiment, Lacan heard much discussion on the value of the pass. He mostly heard objections to the procedure, notably from Ginette Raimbault and Serge Leclaire. So he closed the session with these words: "I had wanted to hear testimonials about how it's working. And obviously I didn't hear any. The pass really is a complete failure" (Lettres de l'école, April 1978).

Lacan's declaration that the pass was a failure seemed to indicate that it is impossible to pinpoint within the analytic situation the passage from analysand to analyst. Thus analysts must resort to the other way of recognizing a psychoanalyst, namely an ability to maintain the analytic position as verified by a supervised analysis. This leads to the hypothesis that one is an analyst only in the analytic situation.

JACQUES SÉDAT

See also: École de la Cause freudienne; École freudienne de Paris; France; Quatrième Groupe (O.P.L.F.), Fourth group; Training analysis; "Unconscious, The." Bibliography

   * Lacan, Jacques. (1970). Discours prononcé par J. Lacan le 6 décembre 1967 à l'École Freudienne de Paris. Scilicet, 2-3, 9-29.
   * ——. (1977). Sur la passe. Ornicar? 12-13.
   * ——. (1982). Note italienne. Ornicar? 25, 7-10.
   * ——. (1995). Proposition of 9 October 1967 on the psychoanalyst of the school. (Russell Grigg, Trans.). Analysis, 6, 1-13. (Original work published 1968)
   * Perrier, François. (1994). La chaussée d'Antin (new ed.). Paris: Albin Michel.


def

pass (passe)

In 1967, three years after founding hiS SCHOOL of psychoanalysis (the Ecole Freudienne de Paris, or EFP), Lacan instituted a new kind of procedure in the School (Lacan, 1967). The procedure was called 'the pass' and was essentially an institutional framework designed to allow people to testify to the end of their analysis. The main idea behind this was Lacan's argument that the End of Analysis is not a quasi-mystical, ineffable experience, but must be (in accordance with the basic principle of psychoanalysis) articulated in language. The procedure was as follows: the person seeking the pass (le passant) tells two witnesses (les passeurs), who must be in analysis at the time, about his own analysis and its conclusion, and these two witnesses then relay this account (separately) to a jury of seven (some of whom have succesfully been through the pass themselves). The jury then decides, on the basis of the two accounts, whether to award the pass to the candidate. There were no pre-established criteria to guide the jury, since the pass was based on the principle that each person's analysis is unique. If the the candidate was successful, he was accorded the title of A.E. (Analyste de L'…cole). Unsuccessful candidates were not to be prevented from seeking the pass again if they wished to do so. The pass was designed to be the means by which a person might seek recognition by the School of the end of his analysis. The pass was not an obligatory process; whether or not an analyst decided to seek it was entirely up to him. It was not a qualification to practise analysis, since 'the authorisation of an analyst can only come from himself' (Lacan, 1967: 14) (see Training). Nor was it a recognition by the School of the member's status as an analyst; this recognition was granted by another, wholly independent means in Lacan's School, and corresponded to the title of A.M.E. (Analyste Membre de L'Ecole). It was solely the recognition that a person's analysis had reached its logical conclusion, and that this person could extract an articulated knowledge (savoir) from this experience. The pass thus concerns not a clinical function but a teaching function; it is supposed to testify to the capacity of the passant to theorise his own experience of psychoanalytic treatment, and thereby to contribute to psychoanalytic knowledge. Jacques-Alain Miller comments that it is important to distinguish between (i) the pass as an institutional procedure (as described above) and (ii) the pass as the personal experience of the end of one's analysis, the passage from being an analysand to being an analyst, which may be testified to by 'the pass' in the first sense of the term (Miller, 1977). In the 1970s the institution of the pass became the focus of intense controversy within the EFP. While some supported Lacan's own views that the pass would yield important contributions to knowledge of the end of analysis, others criticised it for being divisive and unworkable. These debates became even more heated in the final years of the EFP, before Lacan dissolved his School in 1980 (see Roudinesco, 1986). Of the various Lacanian organisations which exist today, some have abandoned Lacan's proposal, while many others retain the institution of the pass as a central part of their structure.


def

Lacan invented the pass to clarify and formalize the transition between analysand and analyst: "This dark cloud that covers this juncture I am concerned with here, the one at which the psychoanalysand passes to becoming a psychoanalyst—that is what our School can work at dissipating" (Lacan, 1995). Lacan's foundation of theÉcole freudienne de Paris (Freudian School of Paris) on June 21, 1964, was marked by the originality of its membership categories. No longer were there permanent members or didacticians, since an analysis could be...

References


See Also

France


References


  1. Lacan, Jacques. (1970). Discours prononcé par J. Lacan le 6 décembre 1967 à l'École Freudienne de Paris. Scilicet, 2-3, 9-29.
  2. ——. (1977). Sur la passe. Ornicar? 12-13.
  3. ——. (1982). Note italienne. Ornicar? 25, 7-10.
  4. ——. (1995). Proposition of 9 October 1967 on the psychoanalyst of the school. (Russell Grigg, Trans.). Analysis, 6, 1-13. (Original work published 1968)
  5. Perrier, François. (1994). La chaussée d'Antin (new ed.). Paris: Albin Michel.