Société Psychanalytique de Montr

views updated

SOCIÉTÉ PSYCHANALYTIQUE DE MONTRÉAL

Around 1968 and 1969 it became obvious that for linguistic and geographic reasons, among others, sections based on a federal model were needed within the Canadian Psychoanalytic Society. In the Francophone community, the growing number of candidates and the emergence of a strong nationalist sentiment meant that the training program in English had become an anachronism. In and around Toronto, with the increase in the number of psychoanalysts between 1959 and 1969, there was no longer any reason why candidates should have to travel every week from Toronto to Montreal for their training, as had been the case for ten years.

The Canadian Psychoanalytic Society thus created Francophone and Anglophone sections for Montreal, called respectively the Société psychanalytique de Montréal (SPM) and the Canadian Psychoanalytic Society/Quebec English. A third section was created for Ontario: Ontario Branches. As early as May 1965, the Canadian Institute of Psychoanalysis communicated its intention of setting up a training program in French, beginning in 1967. Initially, the three sections used the same training program that the institute had established in 1959, which corresponded to the program used by the British Institute of Psycho-Analysis. This four-year program consisted of conferences; clinical, technical, and theoretical seminars; and three supervised analyses. Considering the program to be too classical, the new wave of French-speaking psychoanalysts trained in Paris in the 1960s began to question it toward 1970.

In September 1969 a few Paris-trained French-speaking psychoanalysts created the Groupe français de Montréal (Montreal French Group). Some English-speaking colleagues quickly saw this as a desire for separation that was inspired by the political movement Souveraineté-Association. After the initial euphoria, the new group quickly found itself confronted with the harsh political realities of the Canadian Psychoanalytic Society: the requirements, programs, and traditions of the Canadian Institute of Psychoanalysis were very different from what they had known in Paris, and they aspired to greater autonomy than their Anglophone colleagues were willing to grant them. The Société psychanalytique de Montréal diverged from the other two sections of the society mainly over training issues: differences in the teaching program, a refusal to allow the institute to intrude in personal analyses, a non-evaluative concept of training, ongoing seminars that could be run by nontrainers, and above all, the creation of the category of authorized analysts, which allowed nontrainer analysts to analyze candidates after five years of membership.

It is important to point out that as early as 1965 those concerned had agreed on how the three Canadian sections would be constituted, and that in the winter of 1965/1966 the three future sections had established a common ground. At this stage the Francophone members of the institute expressed their fears that "due consideration for the needs of the sections in terms of geographic and cultural autonomy was hardly compatible with the maintenance of organizational unity." Nevertheless, in 1968 the three sections of the institute were created, and in 1969 those of the society were created. On October 9, 1969, the members of the Francophone group unanimously adopted the name Société psychanalytique de Montréal (Psychoanalytic Society of Montreal), although the name was not officially adopted by the Canadian Psychoanalytic Society until 1972. At this point some members favored a complete separation in the Canadian Psychoanalytic Society, while others feared the isolation that such an early separation might lead to. Another attempt to launch the idea of a separation was again rejected by the members in the mid-1990s.

In the fall of 1967, the first monolingual French training program got its start. There were 8 analysts and 9 students. Twenty-one years later (1988), 95 students had completed their training in French. The first elected council of the Société psychanalytique de Montréal held its inaugural meeting on November 24, 1969. Dr. Jean-Louis Langlois was the first president. During this meeting Roger Dufresne put forward the idea of ongoing seminars with a view to enhancing collaboration between the institute and the society, and the members voted in favor of an annual scientific colloquium to be held every spring, an idea that was dear to André Lussier.

The teaching at the institute was initially didactic and continued the tradition of the 1959 program. This situation continued until 1972, when ongoing open seminars directed by both members and nonmembers of the institute were made available to candidates. Work in such small groups best fostered the free and open exchange of ideas. The great originality of these seminars was that they consisted of older members, younger members, and students. The only requirement retained was study of Freud's texts, spread out over four years, the training being dispensed by any member who expressed the desire to do so, whether a training analyst or an ordinary member. In addition, stress was placed on supervision (which was seen as more helpful than evaluation) and particularly on the training analysis, later considered to be the core of training. For this reason the position of reporting analyst was abolished, in order to protect the transference of the training analysis from third-party institutional interference. In this context, the training analysis was considered a personal analysis in which the desire to become an analyst also had to be analyzed. As part of the commitment of candidate analysts, as soon as candidates are accepted, they are required to attend all scientific meetings.

This teaching model became the obvious choice among alternatives as the result of debate at international precongress meetings on training, the influence of the Francophone analytic groups, and the workshop "The current situation for psychoanalysis," launched in February 1970 by four Paris-trained members: Jean Bossé, Claude Brodeur, Roger Dufresne, and Jean-Louis Saucier. Every second Wednesday they reflected on the nature of the analytic process and on the relationships between psychoanalysis and society, psychoanalysis and medicine, psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic institutions, free treatment and direct payment by insurers, training analysis and personal analysis, training seminars and ongoing seminars, and supervision as assistance versus evaluation. Also important was the first annual scientific congress of the French section, in June 1970, on the theme "the transmission of psychoanalysis." The reflections arising from these debates led to many policies later adopted at administrative meetings. Even in 2005 the structures of the Société psychanalytique de Montréal remain profoundly marked by the principles that made their appearance at that time.

Early on, the society found itself confronted with considerable challenges, particularly the establishment of the Quebec social security system. Psychoanalyst-physicians in Quebec had to decide on the medical or nonmedical character of psychoanalysis. At stake was the issue of state payment for analyses conducted by psychiatrists and whether there would be two categories of analysts: analysts with medical degrees and those without. Sufficiently aware of the obstacles that arise when the state interferes in treatment and because a second-class status would make it practically impossible for nonphysicians to practice, the French and English Quebec societies, after intense debate, bravely affirmed the nonmedical character of psychoanalysis. The Toronto Psychoanalytic Society made the opposite decision. This is one indication that many Canadian analysts, as well as many American analysts, considered psychoanalysis a subspecialty of psychiatry, and it provides a glimpse of the cleavage existing in the Canadian Psychoanalytic Society with regard to the nature of psychoanalysis.

The questioning was then extended to society-institute relations, to training in accordance with the Anglo-Saxon model (so different from the prevalent models in Paris), and to the centralizing influence of the Canadian Psychoanalytic Society, which delegated only the scientific program to sections, without providing any financial resources to organize scientific life or set up a library. During the three decades from 1967 to 1997, the financing and administration of the sections was partly autonomous and partly centralized. Up until the foundation of the Société psychanalytique de Montréal, all theoretical references were to works in English, with the exception of Freud's works, which had to be read in English. The authors to whom Paris-trained analysts referred seemed to be unknown. The difficulty of establishing a French-language library was the beginning of a long and arduous struggle toward administrative and financial autonomy for the sections—a struggle that reached its conclusion only in 1997 when they acquired complete autonomy in these domains.

The Société psychanalytique de Montréal was distinctly different from other Canadian psychoanalytic societies. First, it was open to diverse influences, but gravitated toward French psychoanalytic thinking. When founded in 1969, the society had 29 members, 13 of whom had trained in Paris, 3 in the United States, 1 in London, and 12 in Montreal. Second, it choose an open training program, unlike what was practiced in the other sections of the Canadian Psychoanalytic Society and in the United States. The Société psychanalytique de Montréal, like the Canadian Psychoanalytic Society/Quebec English, is the fruit of diverse contributions arising from several theoretical models following in the wake of Freud. As a result, points of dissent and rupture tend to be situated more around language and culture, or around questions of training and modes of transmitting psychoanalysis, rather than around schools and the theoretical rifts that found them. From a long cohabitation with English-speaking analysts, Franco-phone analysts have developed the arts of compromise and gentlemen's agreements, which have enabled them so far to avoid the rifts that are so common in Europe. As a North American Franco-phone society, the Société psychanalytique de Montréal serves as a point of convergence between European and American influences.

The Société psychanalytique de Montréal and the Canadian Psychoanalytic Society/Quebec English share the same building, which is also the headquarters of the Canadian Psychoanalytic Society. Relations between the two sections have always been characterized by respect and courtesy. Some members of each section are greatly esteemed by those of the other. Ever since the establishment of the sections and in varying ways, there have always been candidates on either side who have gone to the other side for their supervision or analysis, just as from time to time some analysts, after their training, request transfers to the other section. Moreover, members of the French section attend meetings of the Anglophone section more frequently than the converse.

In spite of all this, apart from differences over common issues that were resolved for a time, relations between the two sections have long been characterized by mutual incomprehension and distance. Though not applicable to all members, the most tenacious preconception is that the Francophones indulge in abstract philosophy and literature and are not clinically oriented, whereas the Anglophones are pragmatically engaged in psychiatry and psychology, but not psychoanalysis. These prejudices have not, however, prevented friendships and collaborations from developing between individuals. Moreover, by incarnating an external enemy against which cohesion had to be maintained, each society may perhaps have enabled the other to avoid internal divisions. Scientific relations with other sections are more tenuous. Even so, some members of the Société psychanalytique de Montréal are regularly present at the annual scientific congresses of the Canadian Psychoanalytic Society and play an active part in the different study committees of the umbrella organization.

Thirty years after its foundation, the Société psychanalytique de Montréal has more than quadrupled in size despite the inevitable departures. The society prides itself on having opened its doors to nonphysicians, which has enriched it with points of view from associated disciplines and consequently has enabled it to get a clearer grasp of the specific nature of psychoanalysis. The ongoing seminars of the society have exceeded the wildest hopes. They have enabled analysts, after their training is complete, to remain in contact with reflective networks of analysts of all ages. These seminars also serve to counterbalance the more impersonal relations that set in as the society grew larger. Analysts thus have a forum where they can discuss questions that arise in individual practice. Unfortunately, the society has not succeeded in providing an analytical presence in Quebec's main regions outside of Montreal and Quebec. As a result, the society has often been reproached for being closed.

In spite of the risks involved, the Société psychanalytique de Montréal, always supposing that its window onto society is compatible with its nature, has sought in the 1990s to maintain a higher social profile. The public conferences (Françoise Boulanger conferences, Julien Bigras roundtables), the open-house days, the project for an institutional psychoanalytic clinic, and the creation of a permanent communications committee are all signs of a new desire to be open to society.

Jacques Vigneault