“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