Folle analyse : à propos du psychanalyste LGBTQI+

Abstract

ContextOver the past fifteen years, a generation has emerged that more or less assumes the title of LGBTQI+ psychoanalyst and takes its part in the responsibility imposed by the act of psychoanalysis. ObjectiveOur objective is to highlight the relationship between the topic of curing homosexuality, which spans throughout the history of psychoanalysis, and that of the emergence of the LGBTQI+ psychoanalyst figure, by considering that the latter appears as soon as the former is reverted to its prejudice value. MethodConsidering that LGBTQI+ psychoanalysts are less a symptom than the product of a psychoanalysis practice that remains to be clarified, our exploratory article problematises the question of the LGBTQI+ psychoanalyst by reflecting on the conditions of a more ambitious investigation concerning the psychoanalyst's training in the Freudo-Lacanian field in France. In support of this problematisation, we analyse texts by Freud and Lacan, as well as articles on this theme published in psychoanalysis journals. ResultsIt follows that Freud and Lacan were preoccupied with the issue of curing homosexuality, by signalling from the start that they would render this prejudice meaningless as soon as they arrived at the targeted doctrinal deepening. For Freud, the idea of a cure for homosexuality arose in 1909 in a theoretical context where, since he was unable to explain homosexuality through arguments within the field, he sought an ideological counterpoint to the theory of degeneration that structured the expectations of contemporary psychiatry. For Lacan, the question of curing homosexuality appeared in the mid-1950s, in the form of a bibliographic reference, while he was initiating the doctrinal revision of the theory of the phallus. The reference to the works of Félix Boehm–otherwise known for his participation in the aryanisation of psychoanalysis in Berlin after 1933–was questioned in that it signified Lacan's denial about the situation of psychoanalysis in Germany. Once the prejudice of curing homosexuality had been eliminated, Freud and Lacan would support homosexuals in accessing psychoanalytic practice. The former did so by showing that curing homosexuality is irrelevant for psychoanalysis; the latter did so by being the first to guarantee psychoanalytic practice for homosexuals who had joined the Freudian School of Paris. However, examination of psychoanalysis journals in France shows that the question of homosexuals’ adherence to psychoanalytic associations was hardly topical before the 2000s and before queer theory arrived in the field, in a context of substantial modifications to the rules of alliance and filiation. ConclusionThe history of the emergence of the LGBTQI+ psychoanalyst underlines the value of constant work on the standards and concepts that underpin psychoanalysis, without which the latter loses its heuristic power and clinical effectiveness. However, this deconstruction of knowledge – while at present based on queer theory as a joint discipline – derives its full value from being deduced from arguments within the Freudian field.