Search

There has been a long tradition of psychoanalysis in the community in France. The first psychoanalysts working in public institutions did so in places such as the network of the Offices publics d'Hygiène sociale (OPHS), initially intended to treat tuberculosis, infant mortality, etc., after the Second World War. The introduction of psychiatric care in the community mobilized a genuine interpenetration of psychoanalysis and psychiatry. In 1953, the SPP founded the Centre de Consultations et de Traitements Psychanalytiques, and in 1955 Victor Smirnoff created a children's centre. In 1958, Philippe Paumelle created the Association de Santé mentale du 13ème arrondissement de Paris (ASM 13), a pilot project, implemented in 1960 as "district psychiatry", which is France's national policy of community psychiatry. In the consultation centres of these psychiatric districts, called centres médico-psychologiques (CMP), psychotherapy is provided by clinical psychologists, who are largely psychoanalytic in orientation. In 1972, Pierre Marty and Michel Fain created what would become the Institut de Psychosomatique in 1978. In 1974, ASM 13 created its own Centre de psychanalyse with Jean and Évelyne Kestemberg, specialising in psychotic and borderline pathologies. The activities and theoretical contributions of these psychoanalytic public centres are presented in this paper, with attention to: the distinction between treatment and consultation; the introduction of a new approach to psychosomatics; the description of a psychotic relation to the object as fetish; the research about free treatment and its implications. Currently, the situation of psychoanalysis in France is divided between the medical authorities who reject psychoanalysis in the name of evidence-based medicine, and the persistence of psychoanalysis in both public and private practice. More generally, it appears that the central issue at stake is the conception of the 'psychic human being' and psychic causality in Western societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The way that anthropologists understand the Oedipus complex, in particular, is a good example of how they understand psychoanalysis in general. Indeed, it has crystallized a set of reactions marked by ignorance, misunderstanding, distortion and screening out and at the same time has provoked suspicion among anthropologists as to psychoanalysis, according to the preconceptions of the various schools of thought and authors implied, and this from the very first contacts up to nowadays. In what way did the psychoanalysts contribute to this and what representation did they, in turn, elaborate of anthropology? The purpose of this paper is to expose the epistemological and historical conditions of the emergence of this debate, and then to develop it by following chronology up to the 1950s and 1960s, while differentiating three major cultural areas, Great Britain, the USA and France, in order to get a clearer picture. From that point on, we will try to diversify our inquiry and to formulate some interpretative hypotheses. In particular, we think that a traumatic event may have inaugurated and organized the history of the relationship between the two disciplines, producing a situation of acculturation with multiple impacts, if we identify them with two cultures coming into contact: what is at stake here is Totem and Taboo in which Freud carries through the first major psychoanalytical approach of the interpretation of ethnographic facts, that leads him to transplant the universality of the Oedipus complex to the very root of the first social institutions and to pinpoint the presence of unconscious processes in their genesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal of this paper is to present the way in which an analyst trained in the French Model at the Paris Psychoanalytical Society and working at its policlinic, the Jean Favreau Centre for Consultation and Treatment (CCTP), approaches the question of indication. After a brief examination of Freud 's 1905 text on indication I will discuss certain concepts, such as representation and tertiary processes, which form the basis of our listening to today's patients. After presenting certain elements of the French Model I will then discuss a period which was a turning point in French psychoanalysis. Psychodrama, a psychoanalytically inspired treatment modality developed in France, which is useful when the capacity to represent is limited will be introduced. Two clinical illustrations of consultations at the CCTP will then follow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]