Montserrat Puig, Xavier Giner, Santiago Castellanos, Carmen Cuñat, Anna Aromí, Trinidad Valente, Fernando Sánchez, Lucia Fernández, Anna Geretto
The first year was truly dedicated to relaunching the pass in the ELP. We had the Pass College and a new set of regulations guided by the guidelines given by Jacques-Alain Miller to all the Schools of the WAP. These were regarding the valorization of the event of the pass, and to be able to move the device of the pass out of a certain stagnation. Stagnation in terms of its teachings and what it could contribute to the School. We held the first meeting on the teachings of the pass in April, where we were able to discuss the report of the outgoing cartel, D13. That report was commented by some colleagues, and there was a real exchange with the members on the subject. We also had the final teaching session of Enric Berenguer, who was an AS (Analyst of the School) at the time. Then, this time online, we had another meeting in October in which different members of different Communities presented the work they had done, reading fundamental texts on the pass. Today’s morning, we held this third meeting, where we heard what they had to say at the end of the first year of the current mandate, which has one more year to go.
The other important issue has been the youth policy (NYP) launched by the WAP, which has allowed our School to begin the experience of members under conditions. I believe the Youth Policy has gone beyond its admissions alone, because it has permeated the entire ELP, even the Congress which has been renewed. It has also impregnated the School’s aggiornamento, which is the other important pillar that we have initiated in these two mandates. This means that with a Council commission, we have developed an orientation, which we believe would be appropriated for the ELP and all its sites to be in the best possible condition for spreading and deepen psychoanalysis throughout Spain.
*Former President of the ELP
I believe that the task of the members under conditions and the materialization of the Youth Policy is a challenge for the next two years, for the ELP towards the future. I believe that now, with the emergence of what we have called the young people, an unprecedented event in the history of Lacanian psychoanalysis in Spain: three generations of psychoanalysts, formed in the Freudian Field, are part of the School at this time. This is an idea that Antoni Vicens launched at a meeting in Barcelona, and it seems crucial to me. There is the success of a project, but also the need to think about formation, to think about the entry into the School considering the times – if I may put it that way.
I’ve learned from Monserrat and Félix, the two presidents I’ve worked with in the past four years, about the need to carefully read the moment, the occasion. Not to have grand preconceived projects, but to be very attentive to what emerges. It is true that when we started, we had no idea what was going to happen with the pass crisis of the ECF, which meant the review of the pass in the ELP, nor did we have any idea about the Youth Policy, and these kinds of events that reorganize things in some way. You must be very attentive and very quick to make it a living thing.
*ELP President
_
VIDEO
The novelty in the NUCEP Clinical Section is that we have found a way to articulate psychoanalytic training in the traditional sense of reading texts from Freud, Miller, and Lacan, combined with the Freudian Field Seminar. It is a four-year training program, the tetrad, which begins with a course of the Fundamentals and develops with a program guided by the Clinical Section, which Miller founded in the beginning, in Paris, and with the possibility of streaming. That means, it is based on the in-person activity of members in training from the Community of Madrid – who are required to attend in person. There is simultaneously the possibility of doing the formation online, with the appropriate technical devices from other locations, where no formation was previously available.
* Co-coordinator of the NUCEP Madrid Clinical Section
The NUCEP itself began in 1998. There was a restructuring in response to a crisis in the Madrid Clinical Section. Initially, we, the coordinators, depended on the guidance of Jacques-Alain Miller. But, at a certain point, Éric Laurent took over the NUCEP’s creation. Then there was a third moment in 2017: when we adopted the term “Clinical Section”, because we returned somewhat to our roots, although not leaving NUCEP out. Actually, it was Miller who proposed it; it wasn’t us who decided to call ourselves the Clinical Section. It was at a meeting, when he said, “it can be called the NUCEP Clinical Section.” We have a certain appreciation for this signifier. In other words, at that third moment, the Madrid Clinical Section, NUCEP, has kept both nominations. That was it. So, this is the third moment of consolidation.
* Co-coordinator of the NUCEP Madrid Clinical Section
In Barcelona, the Institute of the Freudian Field had a model that had its particularities, but many similarities with the Madrid model. For more than 30 years, the Barcelona Clinical Section provided formation in Lacanian psychoanalysis in Barcelona. We didn’t restructure it; we dissolved it. Jacques-Alain Miller, who is the director of the Institute, dissolved the Clinical Section, but first not without consulting all of us, who were teaching or were scholars at that time. Then Miller said: “I invite you to a suicide.” It was an assisted suicide, well assisted, and that’s why it left a real hole with subjective effects for each of us. This was in 2021, if I remember correctly. Miller proposed two large spaces to transition toward something truly new. Miller proposes two spaces of work to begin with: one was a Findings seminar. Findings (seminar) is simply what its name indicates: someone reads, someone works on a text, and believes they’ve found something of a certain value that surprises them that they can relate to other issues, and that opens the door to debate. The Findings have been supported by a commission of colleagues from Barcelona, coordinated by Marta Serra. And there’s another commission: the Campus Commission, which I coordinate myself. Its task was to conceive a new model to open a space of formation in Lacanian psychoanalysis in Barcelona. The word “new” didn’t have a great superego weight, because we were in a hole and would have grabbed whatever might appear.
*Coordinator of the Campus Commission
_
VIDEO
For me, even today, it’s a bit difficult to talk about the effects. I would start with the effects of the demand. I mean, I think the effects come from a little earlier. I joined this device a year ago. And I think what I remember, in relation to the School experience, is the discomfort, but not in a bad way. The discomfort that a desire to work introduces in relation to the School.
*Member under condition – Barcelona
I wouldn’t define my experience as one of discomfort; what being designated as a member under condition has had on me, has been a relaunching of desire. I think it’s also partly due to the uniqueness of my case: I didn’t apply to join the youth program. I applied for admission to the School through the normal channels, and it was the Council that responded, “no, but yes under conditions.” In other words, it was a “no, but yes”. Which in some ways, I think it greatly qualifies the effects that occurred in my case. The program invites you to leave your site, especially for those of us who live in the periphery. I’m from Cádiz, my hometown, in the south of Spain, not well connected to Madrid and Barcelona. And I could even name an effect on my analysis in that sense, because right after the designation I ended the period of analysis I had been doing for many years in Seville and began a new period of analysis in Madrid.
*Conditional Member – Cádiz
Yes, I think for me there was a bit of both: there was discomfort, and I also applied to join as a member of the School, and it was the Council that told us this. It was a peculiarity, but perhaps because it was the first time, let’s say. It’s the implementation of this device. I think now that this has been going on for a year, we are already seeing changes. So, for me, at first the main effect that came as a surprise was discomfort because it wasn’t what I had requested. Even a rejection. But many things were mobilized from there, both in my analysis and in my experience with the School. Because what I realize now is that the experience of the School is not an automaton; the School offered me something new that mobilized me. I realize that the Youth Policy mobilizes the School, and I feel part of a mobilization.
*Conditional Member – La Coruña
I applied for membership under conditions this year, not long ago, and what has changed is that I have started working. Because before demanding membership, I was a spectator, someone who didn’t belong. I’m experimenting different works within the School, in Madrid. I have started by participating in the organization of events for the Congress, and I am also working on the magazine.
*Conditional Member – Madrid
_
VIDEO
Edited by Eduardo Vallejos da Rocha. Translation from Spanish: Leticia Lopez Proofreading: Renata Teixeira