Revolution in Esprit Français from the Mid-1910S to the End of the 1930S: Three Episodes1 Tomoko SATO2 I Am Honored to Particip

“Deviating with Freud: Discussions with George Makari” 21 March 2019, Seikei University (Tokyo)

Revolution in esprit français from the mid-1910s to the end of the 1930s: Three episodes1 Tomoko SATO2

I am honored to participate in the workshop on Professor George Makari’s book, Revolution in Mind (RM)3. I thank Professor Endo for giving me this opportunity. Today, I would like to discuss the “Revolution in esprit français from the 1910s to the 1930s.” The “esprit français” means the “French spirit” or “French mind.” My talk is directly inspired by Makari’s book, which consists of three parts, including “Part One: Making Freudian Theory,” “Part Two: Making the Freudians,” and “Part Three: Making Psychoanalysis.” While all three parts are quite informative and interesting, Part Three in particular caught my attention the most since it puts different events, which occurred from the mid-1910s to the end of the 1930s, in the same perspective. Indeed, this periodization allowed the author to clearly define what is at stake for the development of the psychoanalytic movement. This persuasively demonstrated how this movement, carried by Freudians, came to spread with those whom we should call psychoanalysts, rather than Freudians, to the Western world. Taking a cue from Makari’s successful demonstration, I propose examining three cases, which took place during the same period in France, in the context of chauvinistic resistance to psychoanalysis and their decline. Through this brief examination, I will attempt to respond, though indirectly, to the invitation written in the announcement of this workshop, for “re-historicization and re-evaluation of psychoanalysis as a radical ‘anti-psychology’—a persistent and daring resistance to modern institutionalizations of the human ‘mind’—in British, French, American, and Central-European contexts.”

I Freud’s theoretical shifts as factors for openness Let us recall some remarks formulated in Part Three of the Revolution in Mind. After Part One and Part Two, dealing respectively with the years from 1885 to the early 1900s and from the early 1900s to the early 1910s, Part Three roughly deals with the period 1914 to 1939, the year of Freud’s death. With this division of periods, which is quite unusual in Freudian studies, Makari clearly shows how the possibility of being a psychoanalyst, without being thoroughly Freudian, appeared when there was only the possibility of being Freudian. We know that by around 1914, Freud had seen more than one important disciple or colleague split off from his circle. Makari points out the crisis, then presaged, in these words, “When Bleuler, Adler, Stekel, and Jung left the fold, they took

1 Revised 22 March 2019. 2 Institute of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Kanazawa University ([email protected]). 3 George Makari, Revolution in Mind: The Creation of Psychoanalysis, New York, HarperCollins, 2008.

1 “Deviating with Freud: Discussions with George Makari” 21 March 2019, Seikei University (Tokyo) with them the possibility that one might be allowed to think, in part, against Freud and his theory of psychosexuality while remaining within the Freudian community” (RM 296-297). Thus, “the Freudians seemed destined to become a tight-knit sect unified by their belief in their leader and an un knowable entity — not God, but a different Ding an sich, the sexual unconscious” (RM 297). According to Auguste Comte, to whom Makari refers, the psychologies, because of their inherent subjective character, cannot but split into differing schools of opinion. It is this fate hovering over several kinds of activities, intended to be a science of the mind, that the Freudians found in front of them. It could have led them to rank among a number of minor schools. However, they overcame it and transformed themselves into psychoanalysts, linked together in the movement to dominate the field of clinical psychology over the 20th century. Makari notes that their successful changes were the result of a number of factors, but proceeded at the instigation of Freud’s theoretical endeavors, especially his undermining of libido theory, which would be revealed to be a determinant (cf. RM 207). Thus, after Freud’s introduction of the “death drive” in 1920 and his increased focus on the aggressiveness after this period, as along with those who agreed with the new theories those who refused to adopt them could stay in the group with their adhesion to the old libido theory. The same is true with the construction of the new topographical or structural theory with the notions of “It (Es),” “I (Ich),” and “Over-I (Über-Ich).” From that time on, psychoanalysis is depth psychology for some and “I” psychology for others (cf. RM 406). It could be interesting to look into the fact that the effects produced in this manner might be unexpected for Freud to the extent that his intention was surely to renew his theories as discoveries were made through clinical practices. Psychoanalysis has developed in a very different manner from natural sciences, as we know, but also in a form that Freud (and Comte) probably had never imagined. Makari gives us a hint that the gap between the possible fate in store for Freudians around 1914 and what they actually followed should constitute an epistemological question (cf. RM 297). Here, following the cue of Makari, I would like to consider some French episodes, which seem to point to this question.

II French chauvinistic resistances and its decline With regard to the development of psychoanalysis, the situation in France from the mid-1910s to 1939 is overshadowed by the technical experiments made by Ferenczi in Budapest and Rank in Vienna, the evolutions occurring in Berlin including the establishment of a formal teaching institute, or the growth of a new and more democratic generation of psychoanalysts (cf. RM 322sq.). There was no upheaval as remarkable as the diaspora of psychoanalysts from Central Europe to London or the North and South Americas. Nevertheless, we can observe a change that marks this period, as the French chauvinistic resistances to psychoanalysis had weakened by the time World War II started.

2 “Deviating with Freud: Discussions with George Makari” 21 March 2019, Seikei University (Tokyo)

In 1913, at the International Congress of Medicine in London, Pierre Janet, the chair of experimental and comparative psychology at the Collège de France,4 presented a report entitled, “La Psycho-analyse.” This report asserted his precedence over Freud concerning some important conceptions, such as “Psycho-analyse” (or Janet’s “psychologie analytique”) and “Komplex” (or “complexus” according to his word).5 In 1914, Angelo Hesnard and Emmanuel Régis published the first introductory book in French of Freud’s work where they alleged French origin of the concept of repression (Verdrängung) and its presence in the works of French psychiatrists, including Albert Pitres (Régis’ teacher), Jules Séglas, Paul Sérieux, Gilbert Ballet, and Ernest Dupré.6 In 1925, a journal, edited under the direction of Hesnard and René Laforgue, named “L’évolution psychiatrique” (Psychiatric Evolution) with the subtitle “psychanalyse-psychologie clinique” was first published. In 1926, la Société Psychanalytique de Paris (SPP), the first French psychoanalytic society, was founded, but certain resistance persisted. We read this phrase in the preface of the first issue of the journal, signed by the editor (“La direction”), “We will therefore apply ourselves to translate and explain the Theory and especially the Techniques of Psychoanalysis, adapting them as much as possible to the mind of our race [Aussi nous attacherons-nous à traduire et à expliquer la Théorie et surtout les Techniques de la Psychanalyse en les adaptant autant que possible à l’esprit de notre race].”7 The resistance often took the form of refusal of too “Germanic” parts of Freudian theory in the name of “esprit français,”8 or, more insidiously, went along with the “reception” proceeding to the reduction of Freudian theory to Janet’s or other French psychologists’, neurologists’, or psychiatrists’ works. Taking into account no affiliation of the group of L’évolution psychiatrique with the International Psychoanalytic Association (IPA) and foreign psychoanalytic journals, we could even be tempted to wonder if Hesnard and others could have ended up forming a new minor sect, borrowing Makari’s words, unified by their belief in an unknowable entity, the “esprit français.” There was another trend that was hardly considered chauvinistic. Élisabeth Roudinesco indicates, within the SPP, a group of didacticians formed around Marie Bonaparte, including Suisse analysts Raymond de Saussure, Charles Odier, and Henri Flournoy. Also, Rudolph Loewenstein, a psychoanalyst of Polish origin, stood against the chauvinistic tendency represented by Hesnard,

4 He stayed at this chair until 1934. 5 Elisabeth Roudinesco, Histoire de la psychanalyse en France I, Paris, Fayard, 1994, p.252. The confrontation between Freudians and Janet dates back to 1907. Cf. RM, p.213sq. 6 Cf. Elisabeth Roudinesco, op. cit., p.275. See also RM, p.305. Makari quotes Ferenczi’s comment on their book, “the ridiculous vanity of making everything essential in [Freud’s] teaching originate from the French.” 7 “Avant-propos,” L’évolution psychiatrique, 1925, p.8. Italics added. 8 Ibid., p.7. See also: Elisabeth Roudinesco, op. cit., p.274sq. On the other hand, we can get a rough idea of the conceptions which seemed to them of great importance, from the discussion held by the Linguistic Commission for the Unification of French Psychoanalytic Vocabulary [Commission linguistique pour l’unification du vocabulaire psychanalytique français] in the SPP. At the first meeting (29 May 1927), the translation of the following concepts were discussed: Verdrängung, Unterdrückung, and at the second meeting (31 May 1927): Ich, Es, Über-Ich, Trieb, Libido, Erotisch, Besetzung, Zwang, Zwangsneurose, Narzismus, Narzistich, Verschiebung, Übertragung, Verdichtung, Deckerinnerung, Hemmung, and Affekt.

3 “Deviating with Freud: Discussions with George Makari” 21 March 2019, Seikei University (Tokyo)

Édouard Pichon, Henri Codet and Adrien Borel,9 and we may add René Laforgue.10 However, if chauvinism became less prominent, not only in the SPP, but in the French psychoanalytic scene after the World War II, it would be difficult to account for this change by only arguing its defeat by Bonaparte’s group. The analysts on her side had left France, while Hesnard and Laforgue stayed in the SPP until 1953, after Pichon’s and Codet’s death and after Borel’s abandonment of psychoanalysis. It is unlikely that the next generation emerging from the 1930s were more keen to receive and develop the formers’ theories and discourses, for we know an adversarial relationship between Bonaparte and Jacques Lacan, one of the representatives of the second generation with Daniel Lagache and some others, and Hesnard’s and Laforgue’s participation in the Société française de psychanalyse, founded in 1953 by Lagache and Lacan. We cannot forget the broad transformation of morals, or mœurs, during the first half of the 20th century. We deem the change that occurred with the implantation of psychoanalysis may require a detailed study, and we try to briefly question three episodes in this context.

1. Marie Bonaparte’s presence Not having got her education in medicine, Bonaparte practiced as a lay analyst. Regarding her, Alain de Mijolla supposes that “without the presence of the princess, psychoanalysis would have remained in France under the sole and strict tutelage of medicine.”11 With her prestigious family lineage, wealth, and close friendship with Freud, she played an important role in the SPP, of which she was one of the twelve founders. She assumed the editorship of the “Applied Part [Partie appliquée],” which was initially named “Non-Medical Part” and distinguished from “Medical Part” of the organ journal of the SPP, Revue française de psychanalyse (RFP). She was very active in submitting papers to the journal. In her article, she disputed some Janetian conceptions.12 More importantly, her contributions were not limited to the “Applied Part,” but also appeared in the “Medical Part.” In short, one can say that by her presence, she made “Applied Part” hardly reducible to the existing French medical literature, as constitutive of psychoanalysis. Of particular interest is the fact that the division of “Medical Part” and “Applied Part” has disappeared since 1938.

2. Lacan’s Style In the SPP, Lacan became an associate member (membre adhérent) in 1934 and a full member (membre titulaire) in 1938. In 1939, Pichon’s article titled, “The Family before Mr. Lacan,”13 was

9 Cf. Elisabeth Roudinesco, op. cit., p.332. 10 Cf. Clément Fromentin, “Pourquoi faire l’histoire de la psychiatrie?: le cas de l’Évolution psychiatrique (1925– 1985),” L’évolution psychiatrique, nº82 (2017), p. 505. 11 Alain de Mijolla, Freud et la France, Paris, PUF, 2010, p.360. 12 Cf. Marie Bonaparte, “L’inconscient et le temps,” Revue française de psychanalyse, t.11, nº1 (1939), p.89-90. 13 Édouard Pichon, “La famille devant M. Lacan,” Revue française de psychanalyse, t.11, nº1 (1939), p.107-135.

4 “Deviating with Freud: Discussions with George Makari” 21 March 2019, Seikei University (Tokyo) published in the RFP with a preamble declaring the recent recognition of his full membership with praise for being “one of the brightest minds of the young French psychiatric generation.”14 The main purpose of Pichon’s article is to review Lacan’s article on the family, which appeared the prior year in the Encyclopédie française.15 The review focuses on Lacanian interpretations of Freudian theories like the Oedipus complex, castration complex, and the conception of the primal horde. The review sometimes provides appreciation and sometimes criticism. However, for the reviewer, it is not the content, but the form or the style that is the most questionable.16 In the preamble, Pichon writes, “It does not seem to me that Mr. Lacan has chosen for his mind [son esprit] that all his hereditary, familial and social formation makes French, an adornment that suits him.”17 According to him, this “adornment [parure]” or “cuirass [cuirasse]” is “made of both sect jargon and personal preciosity,” 18 and “son style is armored [son style est cuirassé]” with “difficulties”19 for reading. He attributes these “difficulties,” especially to the Germanization implied by the author’s use of the word “dialectic,”20 to the references made to the German philosophers Hegel and Marx,21 or the lack of distinction between the words “civilization” and “culture” as found in German.22 Schematically speaking, Pichon’s criticism presupposes the opposition between the style modeled in Germanism and the style proper to the esprit français, while it is also possible to study Lacan’s style in terms of “personal” character, as Pichon suggested (“personal preciosity”). In view of Lacan’s later work, this possibility does not seem absurd. The emphasis put on the singularity of his style should lead us to reconsider the dichotomy of the French mind versus the German mind in the interpretation of Freudian works, as well as its two components.

3. L’évolution psychiatrique as venue for confrontations Before the publication of its special issue dedicated to Freudian studies in 1936, L’évolution psychiatrique had changed its subtitle to “Quarterly of Clinical Psychology and Psychopathology [Revue trimestrielle de Psychologie clinique et de Psychopathologie]” and had no more inside

14 Ibid., p.107. 15 Henri Wallon (éd.), Encyclopédie française vol.VIII (La Vie mentale), Paris, Comité de l’Encyclopédie Française éditeur, 1938. 16 Pichon insists on the importance of the question with these words, “Reproaches of pure form, will you say? That would be very bad psychologist. The use of language is indicative of profound mental attitudes [Reproches de pure forme, dira-t-on ? Ce serait être bien mauvais psychologue. L’usage que l’on fait du langage est révélateur d’attitudes mentales profondes].” (Édouard Pichon, art. cit., p.110). 17 Édouard Pichon, art. cit., p.107. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid., p.108. Pichon still is not the only one who found Lacan’s article illegible. Cf. Elisabeth Roudinesco, Peter Schöttler, “Lucien Febvre à la rencontre de Jacques Lacan, Paris 1937,” Genèses, nº13 (1993), p.145. 20 Édouard Pichon, art. cit., p.108. Pichon writes, “M. Lacan germanises in the use he makes of the word dialectic [M. Lacan germanise dans l’emploi qu’il fait du mot dialectique].” 21 Cf. Ibid., p.108, 134. 22 Cf. Ibid., p.108.

5 “Deviating with Freud: Discussions with George Makari” 21 March 2019, Seikei University (Tokyo) non-doctors members. The editorial committee in 1936 was composed of editors and contributors of the first issue of 1925 and Odette Codet who later joined. It included chief-editors, H. Codet and Eugène Minkowski. In this special issue’s preparatory note, Roudinesco notices a very different tone from that of the first issue published some ten years prior, giving it the task of “adapting them [theory and techniques of psychoanalysis] as much as possible to the mind of our race.”23 This note begins by stating the journal’s “liberal, eclectic” editorial policy, consisting in “presenting works of various inspirations and orientations” without “imposing on ourselves any partisan mind, any systematism [aucun esprit d’école, aucun systématisme].”24 Then, the estimation that “the examination of Freudian theories and the observation of clinical cases by psychoanalytic technique appear to us as one of the important parts of psychiatric science” is given, with a historical reminder that psychoanalysis “has influenced many minds [beaucoup d’esprits], even among its opponents.”25 Closing words are, “The members of the Évolution psychiatrique Group, whatever their attitude of mind in the scientific field [quelle que soit leur attitude d’esprit dans l’ordre scientifique,], associate themselves in the same testimony of admiration and respect for the personality and work of the Maître de Vienne.”26 The determination to do justice, on behalf of “psychiatric science,” not only the “psychoanalytic technique,” but also “Freudian theories” is evident. On this remarkable change, Roudinesco points out four factors. First, an already existing “will to confront psychoanalysis and psychiatry from a liberal perspective”27 is further confirmed. Second, Minkowski, one of the chief-editors, and Françoise Minkowska, a member of the editorial committee, who were never analysts, were not Germanophobic. Paul Schiff, another member of the committee and full member of the SPP, was not either. Third, the special issue received many contributions from analysts of the IPA. Fourth, “the second French psychiatro-psychoanalytic generation orient[ed] themselves towards elaboration of a new doctrine” from which “the ideals of race or fatherland [were] absent.”28 We can articulate the first and the fourth factors. The attitude of recognizing and appreciating psychoanalysis, not in the context of the French mind and its already known “other” named Germanism, but in the encounters and confrontations with each of the psychiatric doctrines,29triumphed over chauvinistic tendency and engaged in the movement preparing a new doctrine.

In summary, the three episodes we studied implied that change occurred in France from the

23 Cf. Élisabeth Roudinesco, op. cit., p.416. 24 “Avertissement,” Évolution psychiatrique, fasc.3 (1936), p.3. It is also specified that this special issue is some kind of “derogation from [the journal’s] usual composition” (p.4). 25 Ibid., p.3. 26 Ibid., p.4. 27 Élisabeth Roudinesco, op. cit., p.416. 28 Ibid., p.416-417. 29 Cf. Ibid., p.416.

6 “Deviating with Freud: Discussions with George Makari” 21 March 2019, Seikei University (Tokyo) mid-1910s to the end of the 1930s, rather than an implantation of psychoanalysis brought by the victory of the anti-chauvinistic tendency, as the decomposition of chauvinism through the developments or interpretative works of Freudian theories.

This is the end of my presentation. Again, thanks to Professor George Makari for his inspirational book.

7