How to get to the youths to demand the entrance to the School. How to make the entrance of Oscar Masotta Institute (IOM) in the School. 

1 – Is a way out of stagnation…

Alejandra Glaze*

At the EOL there is a particularity which is that young people insist on knocking on the door to enter, that is to say, we have a large number of young people around us who try to enter the School. A few years ago, shortly before the pandemic, I was in charge of the EOL Admissions Committee and it was striking how many young people and even not so young people insisted year after year on applying for admission to the School. The most consistent with the cause insist and continue to insist and others, perhaps, follow their course elsewhere. So the problem was which ones to choose from this large number of applicants. It seems interesting to me to work with them on the concept of School, so that they can grasp the importance of the School device in the face of the advance of discourses antagonistic to psychoanalysis, such as CBT, neurolinguistics and even the new world policies that go hand in hand with neuroscientific reductionism. Perhaps in those two years they will be able to experience, let’s say, what belonging to the School is all about.

During my time at the Admissions Secretariat, at that time, many members of the IOM, people who participated very actively in the IOM, even presented themselves at the School and what we found, and it seems to me that this makes the difference to the present time, is that they did not clearly state their request and it was clear that it had more to do with obtaining a certain prestige in their city or with a push to identify with others who had previously presented themselves and, furthermore, in a very direct relationship with the university.

* From the Adjunct Board of IOM.

________________

Silvia Salman*

In the Youth Policy document of the WAP President, Christiane Alberti, in one of the points she says, that she wonders what the root of the problem of young people in schools is, and she says that the root is to be found in our practice of admission and I want to add something that for me was also a paradox at the time, which is, that we were very demanding in our admission criteria and at some point I was confronted with this paradox. Because if young people addressed themselves to the School, it is because they wanted their formation to come from the School. How is it that we demanded so much to enter the school? There was a paradox and many of them were effectively left out for that reason. It seems to me now, that the most central thing, to be in analysis and to be in supervision, puts things differently. It is true that these two years of conditionality allow us to make an investment in the School, which before was more of a barrier, how we had to go through something. At that point, the experience of the School is more about the analytic experience than about complying with certain rules.

The whole transformation that is taking place today in the IOM, which is the Oscar Masotta Institute, the Institute that makes psychoanalysis exist in all the places in Argentina where there is no School, is to be able to bring everything that was IOM to the School under different forms, depending on the places, delegations, antennae or circle of cartels. This effectively implies a much closer relationship between young people and the school, and not just the institute. I think that what was observed was a stagnation of the IOM, we went through IOM 1 at the time of its creation, then IOM 2, which underwent some transformations. What is happening now is really a before and after, that all this is, becoming a school is really a before and after and it is a way out of stagnation.

* Member of the Institutional Board of IOM.

_

VIDEO

2 – You have to take a leap…

Graciela Brodsky*

Thank you for your questions Angelina, it’s a pleasure. Young people are in the city, they are in the hospitals, they are in the university, they are in the networks, I don’t think we have to go looking for them, we have to present the EOL, the School, psychoanalysis, the Freudian Field as something interesting, as something desirable. In short, we must know how to show what we can offer to young people who are finishing their degree, who are beginning their formation and who need tools to train, to work, to know what to do with their patients, and it is to them that the New Youth Policy is addressed. It is not for established psychoanalysts, it is for those who want to be psychoanalysts, and, to want to be a psychoanalyst you have to be able to awaken the desire for psychoanalysis and I think that this is the function of the School, the ICdeBA, the master’s degree and all of us, every time we take the floor, wherever we are, in the public forum, in the city. To make psychoanalysis desirable, if we know that, young people will come. If we present a closed, complicated discourse, far removed from the work and formation needs of young people, we will grow old, that’s for sure.

When I trained, psychoanalysis was the most interesting, the most exciting thing for doctors and psychologists. That gradually changed. As time went by, psychiatrists moved further and further away from psychoanalysis and got into a clinic very much taken over by the medical discourse, by the offers of the laboratories, to which we turn to when necessary. You also asked me how the IOM entered the School. The IOM was created to be in places in Argentina where there were no sections of the School, where there were sections of the School, for example in Buenos Aires, there is the ICdeBA as a centre of formation. In Cordoba there is the CIEC. The work of the Institute of formation has a ceiling and the IOM was inserted where there was no school, but there will never be a school, we have to make the leap because otherwise, things will not progress. It is time to make the leap towards the School and that is what we are working on. It is not easy but we are going to do it.

* Director of the Master’s in psychoanalytical clinical psychology of the National University San Martín UNSAM and the Director of the Clinical Institute of Buenos Aires

_
VIDEO

3 – Which young people are we addressing today?

Fabián Naparstek*

Regarding the issue of young people, which we have been working on for some time now, based on Jacques-Alain Miller’s proposal, one of the questions that seems to me to be very important is: How do we think about young people today, how do we think about which young people we are addressing? In general, when one thinks of young people, one refers to one’s own youth, but it is not so clear that our youth is the youth of today. One of the questions that seem to me to be central is: What concerns young people who have recently graduated, psychologists, psychiatrists who are dedicated to the psyche, and to whom we can address, what interests them? In other words, it is important, when talking about young people, to mark the era to which young people we are addressing ourselves today.

Regarding the IOM, it is a fantastic move in my view. Firstly because it makes the EOL responsible for the transferences that it has generated for so long throughout the country. In terms of transference, they participated in the School, but they did not have the responsibility of setting up the School in each of the places. In this sense, it seems to me that all this movement, with the delegations, makes the School responsible for the transferences it has generated over many years of work and at the same time makes these colleagues responsible for the School’s experience in the different places.

* member of the WAP America guarantee Commission.

_
VIDEO