Available in French only at www.LacanianWorksExchange.net /Authors A-Z or Authors by Date

p761-784 of La psychanalyse d’aujourd’hui, Work published under the direction of S. Nacht, Preface by E. Jones,

in collaboration with M. Bouvet, R. Diatkine, A. Doumic, J. Favreau, M. Held, S. Lebovici, P.Luquet, P. Luquet-Parat, P. Male, J. Mallet, F. Pasche, M. Renard,

and J. de Ajuriaguerra, G. Bordarracco, M. Benassy, A. Berge, M. Bonaparte, M. Fain, P. Marty, P.C. Racamier, M. Schlumberger, S. Widerman ; P.U.F ; 1956

Commentaries on Jacques Lacan & Sacha Nacht

– For a historical perspective of Jacques Lacan’s relationships with this group, see the end of this post and the end note of ‘Seminar IV The Relation from Object (La relation d’objet) & Freudian Structures (1956-1957) : from 21st November 1956 : Jacques Lacan’ at this site /4 Jacques Lacan (19561121).

– What is concealed by the so-called “Cht” and why? : 9th March 2019 : Réginald Blanchet on this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Blanchet)

Linked texts

Other texts from the Sacha Nacht Collection

* Clinical analysis : 1956 : Maurice Bouvet. See this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Bouvet)

* (this text) Evolution de la psychanalyse : 1956 : Maurice Bénassy. See this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Bénassy or Index of Authors)

* La Psychanalyse des Enfants : 1956 : Serge Lebovici, René Diatkine, Jean Alphonse Favreau, Patrick Luquet et J. Luquet-Parat (Catherine). See this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Lebovice, Diatkine, Favreau, Luquet, Luquet-Parat or Index of Authors’ texts)

* La thérapeutique psychanalytique (Psychoanalytic Therapy) : 1956 : Sacha Nacht. See this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Nacht or Index of Author’s texts)

* Importance du rôle de la motricité : 13th November 1954 (Paris) : Pierre Marty & Michel Fain. See this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Marty or Fain or Index of Author’s texts)

Cited by Jacques Lacan

– 21st November 1956 Seminar IV : p3 of Earl’s Court Collective translation :

ECp3 : I believe I will give you a consistent [suivi] testimony – not precisely by indicating it, for you to get inside what can be called a kind of collective work, recently published[11], to which, indeed, the term ‘collective’ is applied particularly well. Throughout this work, you will see the valorisation, perhaps not always very satisfactory in its mode of expression – surely it will be strikingly monotonous and repetitive – you will see promoted that object relation which is expressly posited in the article titled “Evolution de la psychoanalyse”,[12] and as this last term of this development you will find in the article “Clinique psychanalytique’’[13] a way of presenting clinical practice which is entirely centred on this object relation [relation d’objet]. Perhaps I will even give some of the ideas at which this presentation may arrive.

[Footnote 11] Lacan refers to the collection of papers in the 1956 edition of La psychanalyse d’aujourd’hui published by the Presses Universitaires de France under the direction of Sacha Nacht, with contributions from Maurice Bouvet, Ernest Jones, Marie Bonaparte, Maurice Bénassy et al. For further commentary on this collection, see Lacan’s 1958 paper “The Direction of the Treatment and the Principles of its Power,” (10th July 1958)”, www.LacanianWorks.org /4 Jacques Lacan (19580710).

[12] See Maurice Bénassy, “ Evolution de la psychanalyse,” in Maurice Bouvet et al., La psychanalyse d’aujourd’hui, ed. Sacha Nacht (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1956). This text

[13] See Maurice Bouvet, “La clinique psychanalytique, la relation d’objet,” in La psychanalyse d’aujourd’hui, ed. Sacha Nacht (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1956), pp. 41-121. Published in English as “Clinical Analysis, The Object Relationship,” in Psychoanalysis of Today, ed. Ruth Emma, trans. R. J. Hilton (London and New York: Grune & Stratton, 1959), pp. 19-77. (See www.LacanianWorks.org ).

&

– 21st November 1956, EC Collective p7-8,

This emphasis placed over [sur] the environment, this reduction which all analytic experience gives, has something which is a kind of return to the well and truly objectifying position which sets in the first groundwork [au premier plan] the existence of a certain individual and a more or less adequate relation [relation], more or less adapted to its environment; this is something that is articulated in these terms from page 761 to page 773 of the collection we were just talking about. [NOTE From the beginning of Bénassy’s text to the end of its Troisième Periode, IV Nouvelle théorie des mécanisme de défense du Moi]

– 21st November 1956 Seminar IV, P8 EC Collectives’ translation :

Within the observation of Little Hans, we are told, the parents appear without their own personality. We are not forced to subscribe to this view, but the important thing is what follows: this has to do with the fact that this was “before the 1914 war, in a period when Western society, sure of itself, did not question its own survival. If, since 1926,[25] on the contrary, the focus is of anguish[26] [d’angoisse] and the interaction of the organism and the environment, this is also because the foundations of society have been shaken, and the anguish [l’angoisse] of a changing world is experienced daily, so that individuals see themselves differently. In this period, even physics struggles to find its footing, and relativism, uncertainty, probabilism seem to deprive objective thought of its self-confidence”.[27]

[Footnote 27] : p773-774 of ‘Evolution de la Psychanalyse’ : 1956 : Maurice Bénassy. See www.LacanianWorks.org

P773-774 of Bénassy’s text,

La psychanalyse freudienne insiste donc à l’heure actuelle sur l’importance des relations primitives mère-enfant. Elle ne fait ainsi que mettre l’accent sur ce qui est la tendance véritable de la psychanalyse depuis 1920-26. Elle envisage avant tout l’environnement. Dans la psychanalyse d’avant 1920, après avoir mis en valeur l’importance de la vie fantasmatique, l’intèrêt s’attachait surtout à I’appareil mental, plutôt qu’aux caractéristiques de l’environnement. Dans certaines observations célèbres, comme celle du petit Hans, les parents semblent des agents sans personnalité propre. Mais c’était avant la guerre de 1914, d l’époque où la société occidentale, sûre d’elle-même, ne se posait pas de question sur sa propre pérennité.; au contraire depuis 1926 l’accent est mis sur l’angoisse, et l’interaction de l’organisme et de l’environnement; c’est aussi que les assises de la société ont été ébranlées, l’angoisse d’un monde changeant est vécue chaque jour, les individus se reconnaissent différents. C’est l’époque même où le physique se cherche, où relativisme, incertitudes, probabilisme semblent ôter à la pensée objective sa confiance en elle-même.

Internet translation of p773-774,

Freudian psychoanalysis therefore currently emphasizes the importance of primitive mother-child relationships. In so doing, it is merely emphasizing what has been the real trend in psychoanalysis since 1920-26. First and foremost, it considers the environment. In pre-1920 psychoanalysis, after emphasizing the importance of phantasmatic life, the focus was on the mental apparatus, rather than on the characteristics of the environment. In some famous observations, such as that of little Hans, parents appear to be agents with no personality of their own. But this was before the 1914 war, when Western society was self-confident and did not question its own survival; on the contrary, since 1926, the emphasis has been on anguish [l’angoisse], and the interaction between the organism and the environment; it’s also when the foundations of society have been shaken, the anguish [l’angoisse] of a changing world is experienced every day, and individuals recognize themselves as different. It’s a time when physics is searching for itself, when relativism, uncertainty and probabilism seem to be robbing objective thought of its self-confidence.

Related texts

Seminar IV The Relation from Object (La relation d’objet) & Freudian Structures (1956-1957) : from 21st November 1956 : Jacques Lacan. See this site /4 Jacques Lacan (19561121)

Notes on 21st November 1956 Seminar IV : 28th February 2017 : Julia Evans, see this site /5 Other Authors A-Z (Evans or Index of Julia Evans’ texts)

Historical perspective:

The relationship between Sacha Nacht & Jacques Lacan

Adapted from ‘Chronology: p209 to 211 of Dany Nobus: ‘Jacques Lacan and the Freudian Practice of Psychoanalysis’: Routledge: 2000:

1952, Summer: Sacha Nacht (1901-1977), president of the SPP, presents his views on the organisation of a new training institute (Institut de Psychanalyse).

1952, December: Nacht resigns as director of the Institute, and Lacan is elected new director ad interim.

1952-1953: Lacan’s seminar on Freud’s case of the Rat Man.

1953, 20 January: Lacan is elected president of the SPP. Creation of the Société Française de Psychanalyse (SFP) by Daniel Lagache (1903-1972), Françoise Dolto (1908-1988) and Juliette Favez-Boutonnier (1903-1994); Lacan joins soon after.

Then …

1959, July: the SFP renews its request for affiliation to the IPA. Nomination of a committee of enquiry.

1961, August: the SFP is accepted as an IPA Study Group on the condition that Lacan and Dolto are progressively removed from their training positions.

1963, August: the IPA stipulates that the SFP will lose its status if Lacan continues to be involved in training matters.

1963, 19 November: a majority of SFP members decide to accept the IPA recommendation.