Lacanian Psychoanalysis Outside the IPA

Lacanian psychoanalysis outside the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA) designates the ensemble of psychoanalytic institutions, training practices, and professional networks that developed in relation to the work of Jacques Lacan while operating independently of the accreditation, governance, and training standards of the International Psychoanalytical Association. These formations emerged historically from Lacan’s exclusion from IPA-recognized training functions in the early 1960s and subsequently evolved into a plural, transnational institutional field encompassing schools, associations, and coordinating bodies across Europe, Latin America, North America, and beyond.

Lacanian psychoanalysis outside the IPA is not a single organization, doctrine, or unified movement. Rather, it comprises a heterogeneous set of institutions that share a reference to Lacan’s re-reading of Freud while diverging significantly in governance, authorization procedures, and modes of transmission. Key historical reference points include the École Freudienne de Paris (1964–1980), post-EFP schools such as the École de la Cause freudienne, and international coordinating structures such as the World Association of Psychoanalysis. This article examines the institutional conditions of emergence, early organizational forms, and foundational mechanisms of transmission that structured Lacanian psychoanalysis outside the IPA.

Definition and Overview

The expression “Lacanian psychoanalysis outside the IPA” refers specifically to institutional configurations, not to a purely theoretical orientation or a stylistic variation within psychoanalysis. It denotes psychoanalytic practice and training grounded in Lacan’s teaching that is conducted outside the IPA’s system of component societies, training analyst designation, and standardized accreditation procedures.

From an institutional perspective, the distinction between IPA-affiliated and non-IPA Lacanian psychoanalysis concerns questions of:

authorization to train analysts,
governance and legitimacy,
criteria of analytic formation,
and the relationship between psychoanalysis and professional regulation.

While some Lacanian analysts have continued to practice within IPA-affiliated contexts, the institutions examined in this article are those that explicitly declined or were structurally excluded from IPA recognition, and that consequently developed alternative frameworks for psychoanalytic transmission.

Chronologically, the article focuses on developments from 1963–1964 onward, while situating them within the longer history of Lacan’s institutional trajectory. Geographically, it addresses France as the initial site of institutional rupture, followed by the international expansion of Lacanian schools outside the IPA in the late twentieth century.

Institutional Background (1963–1964)

Lacan and IPA-Affiliated Psychoanalysis

Prior to the 1960s, Lacan was fully integrated into IPA-recognized psychoanalysis in France. He was a member of the Société Psychanalytique de Paris (SPP), the French component society of the IPA, and participated in its clinical and training activities. However, beginning in the late 1940s and intensifying in the 1950s, tensions arose between Lacan and the institutional leadership of French psychoanalysis regarding technique, training authority, and the direction of psychoanalytic theory.

These tensions were inseparable from broader transformations within the IPA after the Second World War, particularly the growing influence of ego psychology in Anglo-American psychoanalysis. IPA training models increasingly emphasized standardized technique, fixed session duration, and hierarchical supervision, developments that shaped the Association’s regulatory approach to training analysts.

Variable-Length Sessions as an Institutional Issue

One of the most visible points of contention concerned Lacan’s use of variable-length analytic sessions, often referred to retrospectively as the “short session.” Rather than adhering to a fixed session duration, Lacan ended sessions according to the internal logic of the analysand’s speech. While this practice was defended by Lacan and his supporters as clinically and theoretically grounded, it was regarded by IPA authorities as incompatible with training standardization and supervisory comparability.

Within the IPA framework, disagreements over technique were not merely clinical matters but institutional concerns, insofar as they affected the reproducibility of training and the authority of recognized analysts. By the late 1950s, Lacan’s clinical practice had become a central obstacle in negotiations between French psychoanalytic groups and the IPA.

2.3 The 1963 Decision

In 1963, during negotiations concerning the recognition of a reorganized French psychoanalytic body, the IPA imposed a decisive condition: Lacan was to be removed from the list of training analysts if recognition were to be granted. This decision did not prohibit Lacan from practicing psychoanalysis, but it excluded him from participation in IPA-recognized training and supervision.

Lacan refused to accept this condition. His refusal effectively placed him outside the IPA’s institutional system and precipitated the formation of an independent framework for psychoanalytic transmission. Although the event has often been described as an “excommunication,” historians emphasize that it was a specific exclusion from training authority, not a general expulsion from psychoanalytic practice.

The École Freudienne de Paris as Institutional Prototype

The Founding Act of 1964

In June 1964, Lacan issued the Acte de fondation, establishing the École Freudienne de Paris (EFP). The designation “school” was deliberate: it signaled a form of organization distinct from professional societies and medical associations typical of the IPA. The EFP was conceived as an institutional space dedicated to the transmission of psychoanalysis understood as a theoretical, clinical, and ethical practice, rather than as a credentialed profession.

The founding of the EFP represented the first durable institutional form of Lacanian psychoanalysis outside the IPA. It provided an organizational solution to the immediate problem created by Lacan’s exclusion from IPA training functions while simultaneously articulating a critique of bureaucratic models of analytic authorization.

(A detailed institutional history of the EFP is treated in the subpage École Freudienne de Paris.)

3.2 Organizational Principles

The EFP introduced a number of organizational principles that would become characteristic of Lacanian institutions outside the IPA:

rejection of standardized curricula,
decentralization of authority,
emphasis on collective study,
and experimentation with alternative modes of authorization.

Rather than mirroring IPA training structures, the EFP sought to foreground the subjective dimension of analytic formation, while still maintaining institutional coherence. This tension—between institutional necessity and resistance to institutionalization—would remain a defining feature of Lacanian psychoanalysis outside the IPA.

Seminars as Institutional Infrastructure

A central pillar of the EFP, and of Lacanian psychoanalysis more broadly, was Lacan’s annual seminars (1953–1980). These seminars functioned simultaneously as teaching forums, sites of theoretical elaboration, and mechanisms of institutional cohesion. Attendance was not limited to analysts in training but included philosophers, linguists, and intellectuals, contributing to the distinctive cultural position of Lacanian psychoanalysis.

Following the creation of the EFP, the seminars became embedded within an institutional framework that treated theoretical work as inseparable from analytic formation. This orientation distinguished Lacanian institutions from IPA-affiliated bodies, where theoretical instruction was increasingly subordinated to clinical technique and supervision.

Early Mechanisms of Transmission

Within the EFP, Lacan introduced experimental procedures intended to address the question of how an analyst is formed in the absence of standardized accreditation. Two mechanisms in particular became foundational:

the cartel, a small collective for sustained work and study,
and the pass, a procedure concerned with the articulation of analytic experience.

These mechanisms were not fully stabilized during the EFP period and would later be interpreted and modified by successor institutions. Nevertheless, they established the conceptual and institutional vocabulary through which Lacanian psychoanalysis outside the IPA would address the problems of training and authorization.

(These procedures are examined in detail in the subpage Lacanian Transmission: Cartels and the Pass.)

Fragmentation and Proliferation after 1980

Dissolution of the École Freudienne de Paris

In January 1980, Jacques Lacan formally dissolved the École Freudienne de Paris. The decision, announced unilaterally, reflected Lacan’s growing concern that the School had begun to reproduce precisely the forms of institutional rigidity and doctrinal fixation that it had originally been founded to resist. Rather than allowing the EFP to stabilize into a permanent structure, Lacan chose to terminate it, thereby forcing a reconfiguration of Lacanian institutional life.

The dissolution of the EFP did not entail the disappearance of Lacanian psychoanalysis. On the contrary, it marked the beginning of a period of institutional fragmentation and proliferation, during which multiple schools and associations emerged, each claiming in different ways to sustain Lacan’s project of psychoanalytic transmission outside the IPA. The absence of a single successor institution ensured that Lacanian psychoanalysis would develop along plural and sometimes competing trajectories.

(The circumstances and implications of the EFP’s dissolution are treated in detail in Dissolution of the École Freudienne de Paris.)

Competing Claims to Institutional Continuity

Following Lacan’s death in 1981, the question of institutional continuity became acute. Without Lacan as a unifying figure, no single body could claim uncontested authority over the Lacanian field. Instead, a number of institutions emerged, differing in organizational philosophy, governance, and approaches to authorization.

Among the most prominent was the École de la Cause freudienne (ECF), founded in 1981 under the direction of Jacques-Alain Miller, Lacan’s son-in-law and editor of the seminars. The ECF explicitly presented itself as continuing Lacan’s work within a renewed institutional framework, while also seeking greater organizational stability than the EFP had achieved.

At the same time, other analysts and groups rejected the idea of a single institutional heir, emphasizing instead the necessity of institutional multiplicity as consistent with Lacan’s critique of authority. This divergence set the pattern for subsequent Lacanian institutional history: a field characterized by coexistence rather than unification.

Major Lacanian Organizations Outside the IPA

France and the Post-EFP Landscape

In France, the post-EFP period saw the emergence of several Lacanian organizations operating outside the IPA framework. Alongside the ECF, other associations formed that positioned themselves as independent from both the IPA and from Miller-led institutions. These groups differed in size, structure, and orientation, but shared a refusal of IPA accreditation and a continued reference to Lacan’s teaching.

The French landscape thus became marked by a dual separation: first from the IPA, and second from any centralized Lacanian authority. This internal differentiation has remained a defining feature of Lacanian psychoanalysis in France.

(A comparative overview is provided in Post-EFP Lacanian Institutions in France.)

Latin America

Outside France, Lacanian psychoanalysis developed most extensively in Latin America, where it achieved a degree of institutional and cultural presence unmatched in other regions. Countries such as Argentina and Brazil became major centers of Lacanian training and practice, largely outside IPA structures.

In Argentina, Lacanian psychoanalysis gained prominence within both clinical and academic contexts. The Escuela de la Orientación Lacaniana, founded in 1992, became one of the largest Lacanian institutions globally and operates outside the IPA while maintaining extensive international connections.

In Brazil, the Escola Brasileira de Psicanálise similarly developed as a national Lacanian institution independent of IPA governance. In both countries, Lacanian psychoanalysis became embedded in broader intellectual and cultural life, including universities, publishing, and public discourse.

(Regional developments are examined in Lacanian Psychoanalysis in Latin America.)

Europe and North America

In other parts of Europe and in North America, Lacanian psychoanalysis outside the IPA developed more gradually and often in the form of smaller schools, study groups, and clinical associations. In the United Kingdom, organizations such as the Centre for Freudian Analysis and Research offered Lacanian training independently of the IPA-dominated British psychoanalytic establishment. In the United States and Canada, Lacanian institutions frequently operated at the margins of formal mental health systems, with a strong presence in academic and interdisciplinary settings.

These regional variations reflected differences in national regulatory environments, linguistic accessibility to Lacan’s work, and the relative strength of IPA-affiliated psychoanalysis.

Training, Authorization, and the Question of the Analyst

Absence of Centralized Accreditation

A defining characteristic of Lacanian psychoanalysis outside the IPA is the absence of centralized accreditation. Unlike the IPA, which authorizes analysts through recognized component societies and standardized training criteria, Lacanian institutions developed multiple, internally defined models of formation.

This absence was not accidental but stemmed from Lacan’s sustained critique of professional credentialism in psychoanalysis. For Lacan and his successors, the question of who is authorized to psychoanalyze could not be resolved solely through institutional certification.

6.2 The Cartel

The cartel became one of the most widespread mechanisms of Lacanian transmission. Typically composed of a small number of participants, cartels function as collective units for sustained work on clinical and theoretical questions. They are designed to avoid hierarchical supervision and to emphasize responsibility for one’s own formation.

Across different Lacanian schools, the cartel has been interpreted with varying degrees of formalization, but its basic function—as an alternative to classroom-style instruction—has remained consistent.

The Pass

The pass represents the most distinctive and controversial Lacanian approach to authorization. Rather than certifying competence through examinations or supervised hours, the pass involves a procedure in which an analysand testifies to the effects of their analysis before designated interlocutors. The outcome may include nomination as an Analyst of the School, depending on the institution.

While the pass has been adopted by several Lacanian schools, its procedures and significance vary widely. Some institutions treat it as central to analytic authorization, while others regard it as optional or symbolic.

(For detailed treatment, see The Pass (psychoanalysis) and Lacanian Authorization.)

Relationship to the IPA after 1963

Structural Separation

Following 1963, Lacanian institutions operating outside the IPA maintained a position of structural separation. No Lacanian school founded in the wake of the EFP sought IPA recognition, and the IPA did not revise its training standards to accommodate Lacanian models of formation.

This separation was institutional rather than personal: individual analysts sometimes maintained informal contact across organizational boundaries, but no mechanism for mutual recognition was established.

Occasional Dialogue and Mutual Influence

Despite institutional separation, points of intellectual exchange persisted. Lacanian critiques of ego psychology influenced debates within psychoanalysis more broadly, while IPA-affiliated analysts occasionally engaged Lacanian concepts in clinical and theoretical discussions. These exchanges, however, did not translate into institutional convergence.

Persistent Incompatibilities

At a structural level, the incompatibility between IPA governance and Lacanian institutional philosophy remained unresolved. Differences concerning accreditation, authority, and the role of theory in training continued to preclude formal integration.

Internationalization and Transdisciplinary Influence

Expansion beyond France

From the late 1970s onward, Lacanian psychoanalysis outside the IPA underwent a marked international expansion, developing durable institutional forms across Europe, Latin America, and North America. This process was accelerated after the dissolution of the École Freudienne de Paris, as former members and new adherents sought organizational structures capable of sustaining training and transmission across national boundaries.

A major coordinating role in this expansion was assumed by the World Association of Psychoanalysis (WAP), founded in 1992. The WAP functions as a transnational network linking Lacanian schools while explicitly rejecting the centralized accreditation model characteristic of the IPA. Instead, it provides a framework for coordination, congresses, and shared procedures—most notably variants of the pass—without imposing uniform training standards.

Through this model, Lacanian psychoanalysis achieved a degree of global institutional presence while preserving internal diversity. Member schools retained autonomy in matters of governance and formation, contributing to a decentralized but interconnected Lacanian field.

Linguistic and Cultural Translation

The internationalization of Lacanian psychoanalysis was closely tied to issues of translation and linguistic transmission. While Lacan’s teaching was originally delivered in French and marked by dense wordplay and neologism, the availability of translations—particularly in Spanish, Portuguese, and later English—played a decisive role in expanding access beyond Francophone contexts.

Latin America benefited early from Spanish translations of Lacan’s seminars and writings, facilitating the development of robust Lacanian institutions independent of the IPA. In Anglophone contexts, the dissemination of Lacanian psychoanalysis was slower and often mediated through academic disciplines rather than clinical training institutions.

These linguistic factors shaped regional differences in how Lacanian psychoanalysis outside the IPA was received, institutionalized, and practiced.

Influence beyond Clinical Psychoanalysis

Although this article focuses on institutional history rather than theory, it is notable that Lacanian psychoanalysis outside the IPA exerted significant transdisciplinary influence. Lacanian institutions frequently fostered dialogue with philosophy, literary theory, cultural studies, and political theory, often through seminars, journals, and interdisciplinary congresses.

This openness reinforced the distinction between Lacanian institutions and IPA-affiliated bodies, which tended to emphasize medical or clinical professionalization. For Lacanian schools, engagement with non-clinical disciplines was not ancillary but integral to their conception of psychoanalysis as a discourse embedded in broader cultural and symbolic structures.

Historiography and Scholarly Assessments

Institutional Histories of Lacanian Psychoanalysis

Scholarly accounts of Lacanian psychoanalysis outside the IPA have emphasized its institutional heterogeneity and resistance to standardization. Historians of psychoanalysis have generally treated the Lacanian field not as a unified movement but as a constellation of schools shaped by local conditions, linguistic traditions, and differing interpretations of Lacan’s legacy.

Biographical studies of Lacan have underscored the extent to which institutional conflict—particularly with the IPA—played a constitutive role in the formation of Lacanian psychoanalysis as an alternative organizational model. At the same time, historians have cautioned against reducing Lacanian institutions to a simple reaction against the IPA, emphasizing instead their positive attempts to rethink transmission, authority, and analytic formation.

Debates over Authority and Legitimacy

A recurring theme in scholarly assessments concerns the question of authority and legitimacy in the absence of centralized accreditation. Critics have argued that Lacanian institutions outside the IPA risk fragmentation, opacity, or informal hierarchies that lack transparency. Supporters counter that such risks are inseparable from the refusal of bureaucratic normalization and reflect a principled commitment to the singularity of analytic experience.

These debates have been particularly acute regarding the pass, whose variability across institutions has generated divergent interpretations of its function and value. From a historiographical perspective, the pass is often treated less as a uniform procedure than as a symbolic marker of Lacanian attempts to reconceptualize authorization.

Distinguishing Institutional History from Theoretical Reception

Scholars have also emphasized the importance of distinguishing institutional history from theoretical reception. While Lacanian concepts have circulated widely in academic and cultural contexts, this diffusion does not necessarily correspond to participation in Lacanian clinical institutions.

As a result, the global influence of Lacanian ideas often exceeds the size or visibility of Lacanian psychoanalytic organizations themselves. Historiographical accounts increasingly attend to this distinction, situating Lacanian psychoanalysis outside the IPA within a broader ecology of intellectual and clinical practices.

Contemporary Landscape

Present-Day Institutions

In the early twenty-first century, Lacanian psychoanalysis outside the IPA constitutes a stable but internally differentiated institutional field. Organizations affiliated with the World Association of Psychoanalysis coexist with independent schools and study groups that maintain varying degrees of connection—or deliberate non-connection—to transnational coordinating bodies.

No single institution claims universal authority within the Lacanian field. Instead, legitimacy is negotiated locally through participation in schools, cartels, clinical work, and publication. This pluralism reflects both the historical legacy of post-EFP fragmentation and ongoing debates about institutional form.

Ongoing Debates on Training and Authorization

Contemporary Lacanian institutions continue to grapple with questions that emerged in the wake of Lacan’s break with the IPA: how to transmit psychoanalysis without reducing it to professional certification; how to balance institutional continuity with openness to critique; and how to maintain clinical rigor without standardized accreditation.

These debates are not merely historical residues but active concerns shaping the present organization of Lacanian psychoanalysis outside the IPA.

Position within the Global Psychoanalytic Field

Within the broader psychoanalytic landscape, Lacanian institutions outside the IPA occupy a distinct but enduring position. While remaining institutionally separate from the IPA, they interact indirectly with IPA-affiliated psychoanalysis through shared clinical concerns, overlapping intellectual histories, and occasional dialogue.

More than six decades after Lacan’s exclusion from IPA-recognized training authority, Lacanian psychoanalysis outside the IPA persists as a significant alternative model of psychoanalytic institutionalization—one defined not by unified governance but by ongoing negotiation over transmission, authority, and the place of psychoanalysis within culture.

References