Not only the white bear and the whale……

The metaphor of the bear and the whale is definitely full of resources! Taking first as reference Freud’s A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, we discover the status of a fundamental misunderstanding that can inspire us to situate the issue of the psychoanalytic clinic, and in particular that of the simultaneous clinic that will take place over two days during the next WAP Congress, on April 30 and May 1, 2026.

“[…] namely, that the pathogenic conflict in a neurotic must not be confounded with a normal struggle between conflicting impulses all of which are in the same mental field. It is a battle between two forces of which one has succeeded in coming to the level of the preconscious and conscious part of the mind, while the other has been confined on the unconscious level. That is why the conflict can never have a final outcome one way or the other; the antagonists meet each other as little as the whale and the polar bear in the well known story. An effective decision can be reached only when they confront each other on the same ground. And, in my opinion, to accomplish this is the sole task of the treatment.”¹ Freud clearly distinguishes psychoanalysis from therapeutic ambition (explicit support, to guide, to suggest, etc.) by aiming at the proper path of interpretation that makes the unconscious to ex-sist. Isn’t it an essential compass for writing and presenting clinical cases? Far from detailed and frankly tasteless narratives of the life of this or that patient, the focus on the unconscious and the analytical operation brings back their singularity, far beyond their particularity, where they no longer resemble anyone. Is the unconscious recognition so obvious in these times of denial of the unconscious? Doesn’t it remain a compass for describing in a more rigorous language what is said in analysis? 

The second reference to the bear and the whale resonates strangely these days, at the very moment when an unprecedented attack on psychoanalysis, of extreme violence, in the form of an amendment², has just been debated in France. “The whale and the polar bear, it has been said, cannot wage war on each other, for since each is confined to his own element they cannot meet. It is just as impossible for me to argue with workers in the field of psychology or of the neuroses who do not recognize the postulates of psycho-analysis and who look on its results as artefacts… For this reason it seems to me to be incomparably more useful to combat dissentient interpretations by testing them upon particular cases and problems.³” Freud exposes it several times, in an admirable tone: rational demonstrations can do nothing against prejudices. Only the path of experience and clinic, that of public exposure, which vibrate with their object a, are true instruments of combat, to be included in any case in the strategic and tactical calculation of our battles. 

By presenting their current practice at the clinical sessions of the congress, psychoanalysts put the results of their experience to test and, beyond the audience, they gain public recognition. The objective is to learn how to articulate our practice more precisely every time.

We must continue….