L'APF : Présentation

I-Key choices

The Association psychanalytique de France (APF), was founded on June 9, 1964, and as stated in article 3 of its statutes, its ‘object is to contribute to Freudian exploration and research in psychoanalysis and to train psychoanalysts according to its own specific standards’. It is a component society of the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA).
The statutory options which bring together the members of the APF were established on the basis of a movement whose history is traced in the section called ‘A conquest’. Thereafter we define the provisions which concretely result from it, in particular from the point of view of training whose practical aspect is described the Training section.
Let us begin by defining the options which have been forged in the course of history and which make the originality of this psychoanalytic movement.

A spirit of research and exploration

Psychoanalysis is not considered as a theory of psychic functioning applied by professionals to the therapeutic treatment of patients but, following the opposite view which remains thoroughly faithful to the Freudian approach, as being first and foremost a process of investigation resulting in a method of treatment, whereas psychological notions acquired in this way only come together secondarily in a theoretical discipline which is never definitively established. Given that it follows this path from the clinical practice to theory, with of course feedback effects, the APF is defined primarily by its research function. The generations of analysts who have taken over from the founders maintain the firm wish to keep alive such a spirit of exploration characteristic of the work of Sigmund Freud and they strongly commit themselves to do so in their own relationship with the unconscious. His unfinished constructions which he often reworked, have never ceased to be 'put back on the job' on the basis of the deepening of clinical practice in the treatment of neurotics, but also in the treatment of patients who are apparently less able to benefit from an analytical approach. Thus, the task remains infinite to think about the dynamic forms of transference, the nature of unconscious representations and resistances, the burial and resurgence of infantile sexuality, the disturbances of the ego subjected to drive attacks, to internal constraints as well as to the demands of reality. Thus, this constitutes a practical and theoretical task, but also the transmission of a work concerning the exploration of this internal and radically foreign land, which is the unconscious.

Training psychoanalysts: the principle of extraterritoriality (non-reporting)

The APF's mission is to train psychoanalysts. But as its founding text specifies, it pursues this objective according to its own "norms". This reference to "norms" may be surprising, but it covers an essential issue. The notion of "specific norms" is to be understood as opposed to the training methods that were formerly imposed in all the component societies of the IPA as being precisely the "general norms" to which it was necessary to adjust and which remain applied in many countries. We will come back to the conditions that led the members of the Association in 1971-1972, under the impulse of Jean Laplanche and J.-B. Pontalis in particular, to radically distance themselves from these models by abolishing didactic analysis, or training analysis, which had been considered until then to be the basis of the curriculum. It imposed on those who planned to become psychoanalysts to undertake, after agreement from the psychoanalytical institution, a treatment with a certified 'didactician' whose function was also to accompany, to support or to curb the realization of this project. In other words, it placed the candidate's analysis under institutional control. It is not difficult to understand to what extent this double function assumed by the analyst, in other words this duplicity, one might say, of the one who receives and focuses the transferential stakes while at the same time holds real power over the fate of the one who gives himself up to him, was of such a nature as to compromise the very possibility of analysis. Moreover, the latter is curiously compromised if it sets itself in the beginning a defined objective by adopting a 'goal-representation' of a professional nature shared by the analysand and the analyst. How can we leave room for the effects of unbinding, for the free play of associations and transference if the analyst is in a position to interfere later in concrete reality with the projects of his patient, the latter being inevitably seized by the concern to be approved? Positively, the suppression of the 'didactic analysis’, which was one of the most striking and innovative acts with regard to the models in force in the international analytic community, came to establish as an intangible requirement of the principle of extraterritoriality (non-reporting) with regard to any form of institutional interference. In concrete terms, this meant that the analyst of a person wishing to undertake training would never again be asked in any way whatsoever by his or her peers to give an opinion on his or her background and aptitudes, nor would he or she have to accompany the person in his or her steps. Personal analysis remains the primary condition for a commitment to training, and no one other than the applicant him/herself will be accountable for it. At the APF, a logical corollary of this 'principle of extraterritoriality (non-reporting)’ is to welcome applicants for training without taking into account their 'couch of origin' so to speak, i.e. without the status and membership of their analyst in any particular society being used as initial selection criteria.

The training course: a culture of freedom

Educated by their experience of the analytic institution (see 'A Conquest'), particularly aware of the risk of all kinds of beliefs and ideologies infiltrating the field of psychoanalysis itself, and knowing to what extent the human mind can be influenced, the founders of the APF wanted to instil a culture of responsibility, freedom and autonomy into this association, which was reflected in their way of conceiving training and teaching. We can identify here a concern to free those who wish to train in the practice of psychoanalysis from the grip of tutors and teachers who, in fact, rather prevent thinking, insofar as they use their power in the institutional setting and above all encourage identifications to the detriment of creativity, doubt, critical thinking and personal reflection. The source of this freedom is, of course, the treatment itself and the effects that can be expected from it, hence the attention paid to preserving as much as possible this private space from any external interference, so that the analysis can truly take place. Yet these requirements brought further implications in the way of thinking about the training 'curriculum'. It is up to the analyst in training to choose his or her 'supervisors' and to ask, at the point he or she deems appropriate, for the validation of his or her work, for which he or she will have to give an account without this task being delegated to the person who has accompanied him or her. As far as teaching is concerned, it is still up to the analyst in training, and to him or her alone, to choose the seminars and working groups in which he or she wishes to participate. The same applies to scientific debates and discussions, in which the trainee is invited to take an active part from the outset. It will also be possible to take on responsibilities in the various teaching or scientific bodies of the Association at an early stage. A large part of the initiative is therefore left to the student. The Institution in turn, is intended to be broadly open to different currents of thought. The requirements and ideals that presided over its foundation remain valid today to ensure the freedom of expression expected of scientific thinking. If psychoanalysis as a "work of culture" cannot be reduced to being just another psychotherapeutic practice, it opens up to fruitful exchanges with the "human sciences" such as linguistics and anthropology, as well as with philosophy, literature and poetry through the language links it establishes with the archaic. We can also include since its origins its relationship to medicine, biology and more recently its attention to the development of the field of neuroscience. Introduced into this forum, analysts in training are invited to make the most of it. The analyst in training is thus free to make his or her own choices, while still being obliged to attend and participate in the teaching offered. In the end, he will have to give an account of his course when, having obtained the validations of two successive supervised treatments, he seeks qualification (in practice, you can refer to the "Training" section).

These are the distinctive features of the APF: a spirit of research and exploration, the principle of extraterritoriality (non-reporting), the personalized management of training by the analysts in training, and a wide openness to the field of knowledge and culture in all its aspects. Perhaps it represents a dynamic and questioning force within the International Psychoanalytical Association of which it is a component society, as stated in the preamble to its statutes. From this point of view, the reference to this third party authority, which was set up by Freud in 1910 to protect psychoanalysis from drifts that were incompatible with its ethical principles, has an essential function and is at the basis of our intercommunity relations. This connection has been an important issue in the history of the APF.

II-A conquest

The history of the APF

The APF’s origins can be traced back to the conflicts which in 1963 blocked the functioning of the Société Française de Psychanalyse (SFP) created ten years earlier by Françoise Dolto, Juliette Favez-Boutonnier and Daniel Lagache. The disagreements within this group focused on both theoretical and practical issues, including the way in which the training of future analysts was being conducted. The differences were so great that they eventually led to the splitting of the Society into two groups. On the one hand, the Association psychanalytique de France was born, and it brought together Daniel Lagache, its first president, the analysts and students of the SFP who questioned Lacan's approach and methods, while Lacan, in turn, brought together his most faithful disciples to create his own École Française de Psychanalyse, soon to be renamed the École freudienne de Paris.
The SFP was itself the result of a first split, which had occurred in 1953 as a result of disagreements, concerning training mainly. In these post-war years, the French psychoanalytic movement, represented exclusively by the Société Psychanalytique de Paris (SPP), was just emerging from clandestinity and silence imposed by the Nazi occupation. Once peace returned, almost everything had to be rebuilt. The generous help of Marie Bonaparte as well as Austrian and German analysts who had emigrated to the United States proved invaluable in the creation in Paris of an Institute for the training and teaching of psychoanalysis. It was the functioning of this Institute that gave rise to conflicts of power and controversy, which eventually led to a rupture.
The clashes were centered around the leaders Sacha Nacht and Jacques Lacan. The former, who was then director of the Training Institute, wanted to impose a training model on the Society. This provoked the protest of students supported by a group of full members, including Jacques Lacan, who was then president. The crisis broke out in June 1953. Finding himself in a minority, Lacan was forced to resign from his position. Juliette Favez-Boutonnier, Françoise Dolto and Daniel Lagache, who were opposed to Nacht's initiatives, resigned from the SPP, and they announced the creation of a new Groupe d'études et de recherches freudiennes, which became the famous Société française de psychanalyse (SFP). Its teaching was immediately organized mostly on the basis of clinical seminars. They were joined by Lacan and by half of the analysts in training at the SFP, among whom were many of his own analysands. From them would come those who, ten years later, would preside over the destiny of the APF.
Faithful to the Freudian heritage, the SFP wanted at the same time to open up, on the scientific level, to a great plurality of contributions. The enthusiasm it generated was to remain a source of pride and nostalgia for those who participated in this journey. Great figures marked this period, such as those of the "troika", which included Wladimir Granoff, Serge Leclaire and François Perrier. The new society created a journal, entitled La Psychanalyse, which published papers that are still read with great interest today.
But the founders of the SFP paid little attention to the fact that by resigning from the SPP they would at the same time leave the international psychoanalytic community represented by the IPA. Some people, with Lacan's consent, worked hard to try to regain their place by seeking recognition of the SFP as a component society of the organization. This proved unsuccessful. The efforts made in this direction, particularly initiated by Granoff, came up against what the executive bodies of the International Association stigmatized as "the insufficiency of the group's training and teaching capacities", given the predominant place Lacan had taken in the training of the SFP. Among the practices that raised questions, the variable duration sessions, based on the principle of 'scansion', were often put forward. If they constituted a contentious point, it later turned out that, within the SFP itself, another of Lacan's practices was even more difficult to accept. The 'master' proposed to his analysands to participate in his seminar, irrespective of the transferential effects that resulted from this confusion of settings and roles, which favored the establishment with his 'patient-pupils' of a relationship of power that was difficult to reconcile with the analytic ethic as well as with the very principles of the method.
In 1961, at the Edinburgh Congress, the executive bodies of the IPA nevertheless agreed to recognize the SFP as a "study group" (according to a classification still in force which made it the first level of integration). In return however, they imposed on it to be monitored by an "ad hoc committee" in charge of measuring its aptitude to respect a set of precise directives concerning the course of the training. Lacan was invited to comply with these requirements, or else he would have to resign as a didactic analyst. While the majority of the SFP found this pressure from the IPA on one of its most prominent members unacceptable, they decided to pause and hope that Lacan would show some flexibility. Lacan though remained intractable, which only worsened the situation and made the divisions within the SFP irreversible. In 1963, at its congress in Stockholm, the IPA renewed its recommendations and insisted that Lacan no longer appear on the list of full members entitled to didactic analysis and supervised treatments, which were then the core of the training curriculum. In October of the same year, following a proposal by Daniel Lagache, Georges Favez, Juliette Favez-Boutonnier and Wladimir Granoff, the SFP ratified the removal of Lacan from the list of analysts entitled to didactic analysis, by means of a " resolution " followed by a vote in the General Assembly. Such were the conditions in which the second split mentioned above occurred in 1964. Founded by Jean Laplanche, Jean-Claude Lavie, and Daniel Widlöcher, the Association psychanalytique de France brought together those analysts who had wished to rejoin the IPA by accepting its principles. Meanwhile the École Freudienne de Paris brought together, under the guidance of Lacan, those who had refused to submit to the requirements of the international body.
In addition to the personalities mentioned above, the new association included other prominent figures such as Didier Anzieu, Jean-Bertrand Pontalis, Victor Smirnoff among others. Guy Rosolato joined them in 1967, after resigning from the École Freudienne de Paris. A little later, in 1969, when Lacan introduced the 'pass' as a means of recognition as an analyst, several of Lacan's followers, including Piera Aulagnier, François Perrier, Jean-Paul Valabrega and Nathalie Zaltzman, broke away from him and they established a new society, called the Fourth Group or the organization psychanalytique de langue française (OPLF). The OPLF never applied for membership of the IPA and some of its members split from it (from 2005) to establish the SPRF (Société psychanalytique de recherche et de formation), which has since been recognized by the IPA.

The disagreements over the training of analysts thus played an essential role in this tumultuous time. Although Lacan criticized the influence of the 'master's discourse', he was nonetheless its incarnation. As he was able to combine the roles of analyst, trainer and teacher, he became the absolute authority for some. The foundation of the APF was the expression of a radical distancing from those forms of subservience that perpetuated alienation to transferential objects. This rupture was a particularly challenging act of freedom for many of the founders of the Association, who had been analyzed by Lacan. Their choice has never ceased to produce its effects, from the abolishment of didactic analysis to the conception of a teaching being part of an analytic training or finally by the modalities of stance in the public debate that are specific to the APF.
The APF's ideal, while ensuring its independence and originality, has always been to make room for diverse points of view in a spirit of critical tolerance. This obviously does not prevent, quite the contrary, that different currents have been formed internally, giving rise to sometimes lively confrontations, all the more so as they were carried by strong opinions (in reference to the basic principle: first clinical practice, then theory) and producing substantial contributions. The association was nevertheless able to tolerate and overcome these divergences, even when they jeopardized or threatened to paralyze the life of the Training Institute.
If some of Lacan's practices were disavowed, the "return to Freud" that he had originally strongly supported had lasting effects for the APF. The famous "Vocabulaire de psychanalyse" published by J. Laplanche and J.-B. Pontalis in 1967, at a time when Freudian texts were only partially available in French, is part of this development. The two authors continued this translation work. Pontalis was published by Gallimard and Laplanche by PUF with his new translation of the Complete Works, which shows his concern to remain as close as possible to the original text, not in order to make it sacred but on the contrary to be able to "make it work". Laplanche's "Problématiques" are part of this same movement. The same can be said of the work of Granoff or Rosolato, or of the teaching of analysts such as Robert Pujol and Jean-Claude Lavie, whose Lacanian lineage is demonstrated in particular by the attention they pay to language in the treatment. We can also find an echo of this in the way in which some of them have taken up the question of signifiers that are not simply linguistic, such as Jean Laplanche's "enigmatic signifiers" in his "theory of generalized seduction" (he would later prefer to speak of "enigmatic messages"), Guy Rosolato's "demarcation signifiers", or Didier Anzieu's "formal signifiers" linked to his conception of "ego-skin" and psychic envelopes. Daniel Widlöcher paved an original approach around "co-thought" and "presentation of action", which are two areas which foreshadow contemporary debates. Many other contributions, of course, have enriched the thinking, such as those of D.W. Winnicott, to mention only this author, whose writings have been made available to the greatest number of people through translations, especially that of Michel Gribinski.
Since its origins, the APF has invested heavily in written communication and it produced an abundance of books and papers, which are regularly updated on its site. Among the reviews published by some of the members of the APF, the Nouvelle Revue de Psychanalyse published from 1970 to 1994 under the direction of J.- B. Pontalis is one of the most vivid expressions of the spirit of openness and research left as a legacy to those who came after. The orientations of this journal which brought a wind of freedom and creativity to the field of psychoanalysis were : to choose themes from words that are believed to be simple in the common language in order to escape from listed theoretical notions (such that the questions command the answers), to induce the disturbance of thinking without which thinking leaves room for belief ; to put the foreigner to the test by engaging the transference broadly to authors coming from outside (whether it be outside their country, their discipline or their singular thought) ; to avoid both the exegesis of texts and the application of a science ; to free oneself from any allegiance to an institution as well as to the word of a master ; to make the dynamics of the unconscious sensitive ; to try to make one's work intelligible without claiming to master it. Other reviews followed thereafter, each bearing its own originality, which kept something of this inexhaustible heritage. Let us quote ‘Le fait de l'analyse’ which gave way to ‘Penser, rêver’ under the direction of Michel Gribinski, then ‘L'inactuel’, under the direction of Marie Moscovici, or ‘Les libres Cahiers de la psychanalyse’, under the direction of Jean Claude Rolland and Catherine Chabert. The collection ‘Connaissance de l'inconscient’ at Gallimard, founded by J.-B. Pontalis and taken over for a time by Michel Gribinski, has published a large number of reference works, while the ‘petits bleus’ (Petite bibliothèque de psychanalyse) published by the P.U.F. under the direction of Jacques André has generated sufficient interest to escape the editorial difficulties that affect psychoanalytical writings today. These evocations only give a very partial view of the works published in other collections by J. Laplanche, P. Fedida, G. Rosolato, L. Kahn, E. Gomez Mango, J.-Cl. Rolland, D. Widlöcher, P. Merot, C. Chabert to mention but a few. Under the initial direction of André Beetschen, followed by L. Kahn and then P. Merot, the APF published ‘the APF Annual’, which is an annual collection of lectures given at its colloquia and Saturday debates. Since 2019, the APF has decided to create a biannual review ‘Le présent de la psychanalyse’, which is currently directed by J. André, whose project is to promote a certain orientation of psychoanalysis. It is not limited to the APF but it reflects what prevails as the sharpest areas of the Freudian work, it revisits the central question of the training of the psychoanalyst and it also resorts to various authors in a multidisciplinary way as to remain faithful to the spirit of the APF.

III-Organization

A brief description of the organization. The APF, like any association, consists of active members and honorary members.
The active members are divided into two categories:

• members (47 in 2024).
• full members (35 in 2024).

Some of these members have also been elected honorary members as a means of recognition for their contribution to the association. Since the origins of the APF, eight members have received this distinction: A. Anzieu, J-L. Lang, J. Laplanche, J-C. Lavie, J-B. Pontalis, R. Pujol, G. Rosolato and D. Widlöcher.

Active members of the APF, both full members and associate members, are ipso facto members of the International Psychoanalytical Association. Among the component societies of this IPA, the categories differ. The members of the APF have the same status as the full members of other societies. APF members are ipso facto trainers (training analysts in the IPA classification) in the same way as "training members" of other societies (or "trainers", for those who have retained this function).
Full members, elected by their peers, are on the list of practicing analysts at the Training Institute, and are the only ones entitled to carry out curricular supervision. Some administrative functions are incumbent upon them. They meet as a College several times a year to elect new members, to approve the curricula of analysts in training and to deal, at the request of the Board of Directors, with any important problem affecting the life of the association. If circumstances so require, the College meets as an Ethics Committee.
Members participate in the scientific activity of the Association and its policy (in particular in the context of the General Assemblies), they may exercise teaching functions, in particular by leading seminars, and take part in a certain number of administrative responsibilities within the Board of Directors and various committees.

• Honorary members (28 in 2024)
• Psychoanalysts with an approved curriculum (43 in 2024). In the APF, the term "qualified analysts" is equivalent to that of adherent or associate members in other societies.
• Analysts in training in the APF (145 in 2024).

Classifications
API		APF	Dans d’autres sociétés composantes
Full members	Training analysts	Titulaires	« Titulaires formateurs »
	members	Sociétaires	Titulaires
Associate members		Analystes au cursus homologué	Membres adhérents ou Associés
Candidates		Analystes en formation	Elèves, candidats

An important role is played by the Board of Directors, whose members are elected for two years and include a President, two Vice-Presidents, a General Secretary, a Scientific Secretary and a Treasurer. They are responsible not only for managing the day-to-day business of the APF but also for proposing guidelines and leading the life of the Association, in particular by programming and carrying out scientific and teaching activities, to which various committees contribute (Scientific Committee and Teaching Committee), which are set up at each renewal of the Board. The APF also has a newsletter for strictly internal use, entitled "Documents and Debates", written under the direction of one of the vice-presidents. The APF also had a Publications Committee which periodically published a collection of the main lectures given during the year (‘L'annuel de l'APF’). Today, an Editorial Committee is in charge of the biannual review ‘Le présent de la psychanalyse’.

The president of the APF is the director of the Training Institute, which includes all the full members, who designate 9 members from among themselves to form the Training Committee. It is up to this committee to decide on applications to the Training Institute (admission to the course), and on whether or not to validate supervisions, and sometimes also to postpone them. The Teaching Committee, attached to the Institute, is more directly concerned with the setting up of seminars and working groups proposed by the Institute and with ensuring the coherence and coordination of seminars and working groups proposed by members or analysts in training. It publishes the program of these activities which is sent each year to all members and analysts in training. The ordinary General Assembly to which all members are invited meets once a year to hear and vote on the various activity reports presented by the Board.
The functioning of the institution and the responsibilities of each one are specified in the statutes of the Association and in its regulations.

APF Board of Directors 2023-2025

 
President - Dominique Suchet
Vice-Presidents – Sylvie de Lattre – Frédéric de Mont-Marin
Secretary General – Paule Lurcel
Scientific Secretary – Philippe Valon
Treasurer – Philippe Quéméré – François Hartmann
Past President - Claude Barazer
Secretariat – Caroline Reliquet