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 (passele passant) In 1967tells 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, three years after founding hiS SCHOOL on the basis of psychothe 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' (the Ecole Freudienne de ParisLacan, or EFP1967: 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 instituted a new kind's School, and corresponded to the title of A.M.E. (Analyste Membre de L'Ecole).
of procedure in It was solely the School recognition that a person's analysis had reached its logical conclusion, and that this person could extract an articulated knowledge (Lacan, 1967savoir)from this experience. The procedure was called 'pass thus concerns not a clinical function but a teaching function; it is supposed to testify to the capacity of the pass'passant to theorise his own experience of psychoanalytic treatment, and thereby to contribute to psychoanalytic knowledge.
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). Unsuccess- ful 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 organis- ations 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.
(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).
