Call for papers – Ulsteinvik, Norway, JULY 29^th – AUGUST 5^th 2013

In “Remembering, Repeating and Working Through” Freud (1914g) posits acting out as the obverse of remembering. “‘Agieren’ write Laplanche and Pontalis (1973), “is nearly always coupled with ‘erinnern’, to remember, the two being contrasting ways of bringing the past into the present.” In Freud’s words: “the patient acts it before us, as it were, instead of reporting it to us” (1940a [1938]) – yielding to the compulsion to repeat. Acting out is thus located alongside repetition and resistance. But, can psychoanalytic discourse conceptualise actions, or political praxis, otherwise than as acting out? Is political praxis, from a psychoanalytic perspective, always to be understood as resistance to remembering in the context of transference? In Laplanche and Pontalis’ formulation: “One of the outstanding tasks of psycho-analysis is to ground the distinction between transference and acting out on criteria other than purely technical ones – or even mere considerations of locale (does something happen within the consulting room or not?). This task presupposes a reformulation of the concepts of action and actualisation and a fresh definition of the different modalities of communication.” Along this line of questioning, we might ask: is it possible to conceptualise psychoanalytically different kinds of acting?

In relation to political activism, Hanna Segal cites Nadejda Mandelstam on the dangers of keeping silent about politics, as is common practice in psychoanalysis, by asserting: “Silence is the real crime against humanity” (Segal, 1987). Thus a question is raised about the place the analyst can or should occupy when it comes to political praxis. Are neutrality, abstinence and silence techniques that can be understood as political praxes as well, and if so, do they conceal the danger of political passivity? Are there any other possibilities for the analyst to occupy a political place? The passivity of the analyst, however, is meant to promote the patient’s speech, thinking and memory. Can political action or praxis be understood as promoting memory and thinking rather than avoiding them? Segal’s position, along these lines, identifies articulation of psychic mechanisms like denial, projection and magical thinking in political life as a political act allied with memory and reflection: “To be acquainted with facts and recognize psychic facts, which we of all people know something about, and to have the courage to try to state them clearly, is in fact the psychoanalytic stand.”

We invite contributions that discuss the potential political role of psychoanalytic thinking and reflections on psychoanalytic understandings of action, activism, ‘engagement’ and ‘neutrality’ within and beyond the frame of the consulting room.

This is an interdisciplinary conference – we invite theoretical contributions and historical, literary or clinical case studies on these and related themes from philosophers, sociologists, psychoanalysts, psychotherapists, literary theorists, historians and others. Perspectives from different psychoanalytic schools will be most welcome.

Presentations are expected to take half an hour; another 20 minutes is set aside for discussion. Please send an abstract of 200 to 300 words to moc.liamgnull@scitilop.sisylanaohcysp by May 10^th 2013. Abstracts received after this date will not be considered.

We will respond by, and present a preliminary programme on, May 15^th 2013. If you would like to sign up to participate without presenting a paper, please e-mail us to let us know, and say a few words about yourself if you have not participated in previous Psychoanalysis and Politics symposia. 

ABOUT PSYCHOANALYSIS AND POLITICS

Psychoanalysis and Politics is a conference series that aims to address how crucial contemporary political issues may be fruitfully analyzed through psychoanalytic theory and vice versa – how political phenomena may reflect back on psychoanalytic thinking.  The series is interdisciplinary; we invite theoretical contributions and historical, literary or clinical case studies from philosophers, sociologists, psychoanalysts, psychotherapists, group analysts, literary theorists, historians and others. Perspectives from different psychoanalytic schools are most welcome.

We emphasise room for discussion among the presenters and participants, thus the symposium series creates a space where representatives of different perspectives come together and engage with one another’s contributions, participating in a community of thought.

We aim to be non-discriminatory and egalitarian. Disrespect or discrimination towards the forum or any of its participants on the basis of nationality, skin colour, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexuality will not be tolerated.

We aim to disseminate the knowledge produced in these fora by means of publications.

Non-exclusive list of some relevant literature

Auestad, L. ed. (2012) Psychoanalysis and Politics. Exclusion and the Politics of Representation. London: Karnac.

Borossa, J./Ward, I. (2009) “Psychoanalysis, Fascism and Fundamentalism”, Psychoanalysis and History Special Issue, vol. 11 no 2.

Danto, E. A. (2005) Freud’s Free Clinics: Psychoanalysis & Social Justice, 1918-1938 New York: Columbia University Press.

Freud, S. (1908d) ‘Civilized’ Sexual Morality and Modern Nervous Illness. S.E., 9.

Freud, S. (1914g) Remembering, Repeating and Working-Through, S.E., 12.

Freud, S. (1921c) Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, S.E., 18.

Freud, S. (1927c) The Future of an Illusion, S.E., 21.

Freud, S. (1933b [1932]) Why War?, S.E., 22.

Freud, S. (1940a [1938]) An Outline of Psycho-Analysis, S.E., 23.

Frosh, S. (2010) Psychoanalysis outside the Clinic. Interventions in Psychosocial Studies. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hoggett, P. (1992) Partisans in an Uncertain World: The Psychoanalysis of Engagement. London: Free Association Books.

Jacoby, R. (1983) The Repression of Psychoanalysis. Otto Fenichel and the Political Freudians. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Laplanche, J. and Pontalis, J.B. (1973). The Language of Psycho-Analysis. Int. Psycho-Anal. Lib., 94:1-497

Layton, L/Hollander, N. C/Gutwill, S. eds. (2006) Psychoanalysis, Class and Politics. Encounters in the Clinical Setting. London and New York: Routledge.

Milino, A./Ware, C. eds. Where Id Was. Challenging Normalization in Psychoanalysis. London and New York: Continuum.

Rose, J. (1993) Why War? Psychoanalysis, Politics, and the Return to Melanie Klein. Oxford, UK & Cambridge, USA: Blackwell.

Segal, H. (1987) “Silence is the Real Crime” in Int. Rev. Psycho-Anal. vol. 14. no 3.

Steiner, R. (2000) “It is a New Kind of Diaspora”. Explorations in the Sociopolitical and Cultural Context of Psychoanalysis. London: Karnac Books.

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS

Julia Borossa, representing Psychoanalysis and Politics, is the Director of the Centre for Psychoanalysis at Middlesex University whose function is to provide a vehicle for scholarly activity, including MA and PhD programmes in Psychoanalysis, host international conferences, seminars and workshops and develop research projects with colleagues from the European Union, the Middle East, Russia and Latin America. Borossa has an interdisciplinary academic background with an MA in Comparative Literature and a PhD in History and Philosophy of Science. Her research interests and publications are in the history, politics and cultures of the psychoanalytic movement, with particular reference to the question of its ‘extensions’ outside the West. She has also written on narratives of trauma and resilience, with respect to the Sieges of Leningrad and Beirut.

She has presented her work at international conferences, as well as at public venues such as the Tate, the Hayward Gallery and the Freud Museum. She is on the organizing committee of Therip, The Higher Education Research in Psychoanalysis Network, and a consultant and named participant in the successful ESRC Global Uncertainties Leadership Project, led by Prof. Caroline Rooney, ‘Imagining the Common Ground’. In addition, Borossa also has expertise in group relations and group analysis. She is the editor of Sandor Ferenczi: Selected Writings, Penguin, 1999, and, with Ivan Ward, of Psychoanalysis, Fascism, Fundamentalism, Edinburgh U.P. 2009, and, with Catalina Bronstein and Claire Pajaczkowszka, of the forthcoming New Klein Lacan Dialogues. She is author of Hysteria, Icon 2001, and has contributed both to Psychoanalysis and Politics: Exclusion and the Politics of Representation, Karnac, 2012 and to the forthcoming Nationalism and the Body Politic, Karnac 2013.

Nina Power, representing the Popmodernism circle, is Senior Lecturer in philosophy at the University of Roehampton as well as an important public intellectual. Her ways of being a public intellectual, in the blogosphere – in the now, unfortunately, now closed blog “Infinite Thought” – in newspapers (The Guardian) and magazines (Film Quarterly, The Wire, and more), shows a contemporary way of being an intellectual, where the “security” of the university and a free-lance market meet.

Her work is grounded in Marxism as well as modern continental philosophy, political theory, diverse forms of radicalism, feminism, and new media. Her book One Dimensional Woman (2009) discusses feminism with a particular focus upon consumption, leading to renewed questions about the political dimension of a still-ongoing feminist project.

The 2013 summer session will take place at Sunnmøre Folkehøgskule, Ulsteinvik, on the west coast of Norway. Arrival: Monday 29th of July Departure: Monday 5th of August

Accommodation and all meals are included in the price of the summer session. They have great rooms and offer accommodation with various standards, ranging from family rooms hotel standard with its own bathroom, internet connection and TV, with single bunk beds. Most units also have their own balcony with beautiful views. In addition to the bedrooms, the building has excellent classrooms / amphitheatre, dining room, several living rooms and a cosy common area with wireless Internet, billiards, table tennis and TV. There are also service stations for washing and drying clothes.

There are golf courses 5 min from the school -Driving Range w / exercise area for golf, fine sand beach, beach volley court, climbing hall and outdoor climbing.

Sunnmøre Folkehøgskule is an alcohol free place. This means that they do not serve alcohol at the site, but they are not concerned about what people drink. For most participants coming to Norway means leaving the European Union; you are advised to take a full quota from the airport you travel from and bring it with you to the summer session.

CONFERENCE FEE

Amounts in Euros are only indicative; amounts in NOK are exact.
Single room: 5000 NOK (650 EUR)
Double room: 3150 NOK (410 EUR)
Three or four person room: 2400 NOK (310 EUR)
Children between 4 and 15 years on extra bed: 920 NOK (120 EUR)
Children below 3 years, in their parents bed or one’s own travel bed: Free
Discount for master students: 1500 NOK (200 EUR)
Prices include all meals and activities (except excursions).

Flight travel
There are direct flights to Ålesund Airport from a few destinations: Copenhagen, Newcastle, London (Gatwick), Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim and Stavanger.
If you want to travel by plane, but not from any of the destinations above, Oslo Airport, Gardermoen (OSL) is the most central airport with most departures to Ålesund Airport and Hovden Airport.
The two airports closest to Ulsteinvik are: Hovden Airport (HVO), Ørsta/Volda and Ålesund Airport (AES), Vigra.

Hovden Airport (HVO), Ørsta/Volda. Details:
From Hovden Airport it is possible to take a bus to either Volda or Ørsta.
From both Volda and Ørsta you can travel with bus to Ulsteinvik. Check 177mr.no for schedules.

Ålesund Airport (AES), Vigra. Details:
From Ålesund Airport, Vigra  you can take the flight bus to the city centre of Ålesund. The price is 80kr.
You can take a boat from Ålesund city centre to Hareid. The price is 95kr for adults and 50kr for children.
Transport from Hareid to Ulsteinvik will be arranged by the Summer session.  Contact the Summer session for more info.

Arrkom (the organising committee):

Responsible for the cultural programme: Solveig Styve Holte, moc.liamgnull@etlohgievlos
Responsible for the economy: Haakon Flemmen, on.nemmelfnull@nokaah
Responsible for the information: Sidsel Pape, ten.i2cnull@epaps

CALL FOR PAPERS – WINTER SYMPOSIUM IN HELSINKI 15^th to 17^th of MARCH 2013
Venue: House of the Estates (Säatytalo) Snellmansgatan 9-11, 00170

Recent eruptions of conflict, revolt and discontent have been radical and unexpected. The Arab Spring, the UK Riots or the Occupy movement are some examples of these. Furthermore, the recent violent right-wing attacks in Europe exemplify underlying conflict in the contemporary political climate. This symposium raises the questions of how to evaluate and to think about these phenomena. A further question is that of to what extent these events challenge the limits of psychoanalytic conceptualisation.

 Individual and social eruptions and disruptions may have creative dimensions reflected in social and individual change. They can also be read as traumatic repetitions or as the surfacing of repressed affects, drives and representations. The Arab Spring uprisings sparked joy and hope for sudden and unexpected democratisations, while also, from the point of view of Europe, it stirred up anxiety, perhaps linked to Orientalist fantasies about the revolt of the ‘others’. The world-wide “Occupy Movement” seems to be a reaction to a feeling of displacement of the subject from the economical, cultural and social; hence its call to occupy a space. Nevertheless, it can be argued that there is no object to which this call is directed and, therefore, it seems to begin to disappear from the space it attempted to occupy. The UK riots appeared as a revolt of private consumerism rather than a political one. Blamed by the justice secretary on the nature of the “feral underclass”, other commentators saw them as an ironic confirmation of Thatcher’s famous slogan “There is no such thing as society”. In a different vein, Breivik’s propagandistic “recycling” of old and familiar Anti-Semitic, racist and misogynistic fantasies in the context of islamophobic ideology evokes the thought of the ‘return of the repressed’. The return of the repressed occurs when the compromise formation fails, when the symptom does not suffice to keep psychic equilibrium. A possible question, then, is whether social movements can be understood as disruptions that occur when social compromise formations or symptoms break down.

The terms revolt and resistance have a polyphonic character. Revolt can be thought of as means for revolutionary change or, on the other hand, as the very rejection produced by the uprising. These terms may be understood in the sense of political and social resistance movements, as well as the forces of resistance that oppose the emergence of the repressed. “It is hard”, wrote Freud (1926d [1925]), “for the ego to direct its attention to perceptions and ideas which it has up till now made a rule of avoiding, or to acknowledge as belonging to itself impulses that are the complete opposite of those which it knows as its own. Our fight against resistance in analysis is based upon this view of the facts.” With reference to the resistance of the superego, Rose (2007) asserts that “there is a pleasure in subjugation; there is a pleasure – hence the last resistance – in pain. Idealisation of self and nation is a way of submitting to a voice that will never be satisfied”. Whole individual destinies, as she rightly claims, are contained in the different meanings of these words. “To be sure,” wrote Arendt (1963) in relation to the testimonies in Eichmann in Jerusalem, “those who resisted were a minority, a tiny minority, but under the circumstances “the miracle was,” as one of them pointed out, “that this minority existed”.” Fackenheim (1989) posits everyday resistance as an ontological ethical imperative: how can we not resist the logic of destruction ontologically, here and now, when they resisted it ontically, there and then. Thus, we may interrogate resistance as a defense as well as an authentic category of being.

By understanding the social analogously to the psychic, it is possible to identify social forces of repression, aggression, identification, projection and resistance. However, Freud (1930) asks “what would be the use of the most correct analysis of social neuroses, since no one possesses authority to impose such a therapy upon the group?” One way of posing such a question would be to ask about the practical employment of psychoanalytic insight in social settings; another would be to ask about its legitimacy and the possible limits of its scope. Thus, the question of the relevance, scope and place of psychoanalytic knowledge in relation to social uprisings, movements and revolutions is posed as a leading thread in the present investigation. The Breivik trial revitalized questions of mental health as an individual or a social issue and the links between these perspectives. “If he is left to himself,” Freud wrote in Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, (1921) “a neurotic is obliged to replace by his own symptom formations the great group formations from which he is excluded. He creates his own world of imagination for himself, his own religion, his own system of delusions, and thus recapitulates the institutions of humanity in a distorted way”. Given the view that processes that would be regarded as pathological when encountered on an individual level commonly occur on a collective level without being thought of as abnormal, can we speak of the social as being more or less sane or insane, and if so, based on what criteria? The answer that all social units are ‘neurotic’ or ‘psychotic’ begs the question of whether they can be conceived under a more positive light.

Acting out, to Freud, takes place when the subject, in the grip of unconscious wishes and phantasies, relives these in the present while refusing to recognise their source and their repetitive character. Action, thus conceived, stands in opposition to thought and to memory – but is there scope for a more positive conceptualisation of action within psychoanalytic thinking?

A related issue is that of how representatives of the extreme right have adopted a discourse of victimhood in relation to a feeling of not being heard by the majority. At the same time, a large share of Norwegians not directly affected by the terrorist attacks tended to construe themselves as their victims. This raises interesting questions about identification with the state and the nation in relation to fantasies about these and the politizised role of the martyr as a predisposition for acting or reacting.

This is an interdisciplinary conference – we invite theoretical contributions and historical, literary or clinical case studies on these and related themes from philosophers, sociologists, psychoanalysts, psychotherapists, group analysts, literary theorists, historians and others. Perspectives from different psychoanalytic schools will be most welcome. We emphasise room for discussion among the presenters and participants, thus the symposium series creates a space where representatives of different perspectives come together and engage with one another’s contributions, participating in a community of thought. Therefore, we would like you to attend for the whole symposium, and we will give priority to those who plan to do so. Due to the nature of the forum audio recording is not permitted.

Presentations are expected to take half an hour; another 20 minutes is set aside for discussion. Please send an abstract of 200 to 300 words to moc.liamgnull@scitilop.sisylanaohcysp by December 1st 2012.

We will respond by, and present a preliminary programme on, December 15th 2012. If you would like to sign up to participate without presenting a paper, please contact us after this date.

This is a relatively small symposium where active participation is encouraged. Researchers, clinicians, students and others who are interested are invited to attend and present their work in a friendly and enjoyable social atmosphere. A participation fee, which includes two shared dinners, of € 155 – 1155 NOK – 1338 SEK – 1156 DKK – £ 125 – $ 201 – 108 LVL – 535 LTL,  is to be paid before the symposium. Fees must be covered by a bank transfer/international bank transfer. Your place is only confirmed once we have received your completed registration form as well as your payment. Additional information will be given after your abstract has been accepted or after the conference programme has been finalized.

The organizers would like to thank the Finnish Psychoanalytical Society for their support.

NON-EXCLUSIVE LIST OF RELEVANT LITERATURE:

Abraham, K. ([1924] 1988) “A Short Study of the Development of the Libido, viewed in the Light of Mental Disorders” in Selected Papers of Karl Abraham. London: Maresfield Library.

Abraham, N./Torok, M. (1994) The Shell and the Kernel. Chicago/London. University of Chicago Press.

Adorno, T.W./Horkheimer, M. (1944/1997) Dialectic of Enlightenment. London/New York: Verso.

Arendt, H. (1963) Eichmann in Jerusalem. London/New York: Penguin Books.

Auestad, L. ed. (2012) Psychoanalysis and Politics. Exclusion and the Politics of Representation. London: Karnac.

Bion, W. R. (1959a) Experiences in Groups and Other Papers, London: Karnac Books.

Bollas, C. (1987) The Shadow of the Object. Psychoanalysis of the Unthought Known. London: Free Association Books.

Borossa, J./Ward, I. (2009) “Psychoanalysis, Fascism and Fundamentalism”, Psychoanalysis and History Special Issue, vol. 11 no 2.

Butler , J. (2004) Precarious Life. The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London/New York: Verso.

Castoriadis, C. (1997) World in Fragments. Writings on Politics, Society Psychoanalysis and Imagination. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Fackenheim, E. (1989) To mend the World. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Ferenczi, S. (1928-33) Final Contributions to the Problems and Methods of Psycho-Analysis. London: Hogarth Press, 1955.

Freud, S. (1895d [1893-95) Studies in Hysteria. SE vol. 2.

Freud, S. (1912-1913) Totem and Taboo. S.E., vol 13. London: Hogarth.

Freud, S. (1914g) Remembering, Repeating and Working Through (Further Recommendations on the Technique of Psycho-Analysis, II), SE, vol. 12.

Freud, S. (1917e [1915]) Mourning and Melancholia. SE vol. 16.

Freud, S. (1918b [1914]) From the History of an Infantile Neurosis. SE vol. 17.

Freud, S. (1920g) Beyond the Pleasure Principle, SE, vol. 18.

Freud, S. (1921) Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. S.E. vol. 18. London: Hogarth.

Freud, S. (1926d [1925]) Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety. SE vol. 20

Freud (1930) Civilisation and its discontents. SE vol. 21. London: Hogarth Press.

Freud, S. (1939a [1937-39]) Moses and Monotheism: Three Essays, SE, vol. 23.

Garland, C. ed. (1998/2002) Understanding Trauma. A Psychoanalytical Approach. London: Karnac.

Hopper, E./Weinberg, H. eds. (2011) The Social Unconscious in Persons, Groups and Societies. Vol. 1: Mainly Theory. London: Karnac.

Jacques, E. (1955) “Social Systems as a defence against Persecutory and Depressive Anxiety” in Klein, M./Heimann, P./Money-Kyrle, R.E. New Directions in Psycho-Analysis. London: Maresfield Reprints.

Kogan, I. (2007) The Struggle Against Mourning. New York: Jason Aronson.

Kristeva, J. ([1987] 1989) Black Sun. Depression and Melancholia. New York: Columbia University Press.

LaCapra, D. (2001) Writing History, Writing Trauma. Baltimore, London: John Hopkins University Press.

Leader, D. (2008) The New Black. London: Hamish Hamilton.

Menzies Lyth, I. (1960) “Social Systems as a Defense Against Anxiety. An Empirical Study of the Nursing Service of a General Hospital” in E. Trist, H. Murray eds. The Social Engagement of Social Science Vol. 1: The Socio-Psychological Perspective. London: Free Association Books, 1990.

Mitscherlich, A./ Mitscherlich, M. ([1967] 1975) The Inability to Mourn. Principles of Collective Behavior. New York: Grove Press.

Nancy, J.L. (1991) The Inoperative Community. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Perelberg, R. J. (2008) Time, Space and Phantasy. London/New York: Routledge.

Rabinovich, D. (1990) The Concept of Object in Psychoanalytic Theory. Buenos Aires: Manantial.

Rickman, J. (1951) “Number and the human sciences” in John Rickman/Pearl King ed. No Ordinary Psychoanalyst. London: Karnac, 2003.

Ricoeur, P. (2004) Memory, History, Forgetting. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Rose, J. (2007) The Last Resistance. London/New York: Verso.

Sklar, J. (2011) Landscapes of the Dark. History, Trauma, Psychoanalysis. London: Karnac.

Varvin, S. / Volkan, V. D . eds. (2003) Violence or Dialogue? Psychoanalytic Insights on Terror and Terrorism. London: International Psychoanalytical Association.

SUMMER SYMPOSIUM, BRANDBJERG, DENMARK, JULY 27^th – AUGUST 3^rd 2012

This symposium continues to explore the theme from the 2012 Stockholm winter symposium with the same title.

 CALL FOR PAPERS:

Mourning can be thought as a private endeavour, so familiar it seems hardly pathological, writes Freud (1917e [1915])). During mourning, the ego withdraws from the world. It re-visits the different aspects of the lost object, approaches it from a series of different angles. Leader (2008) compares this work to the process leading up to the Cubist image resulting from the combination and reshuffling of the conventional image of a person. Thus there is an aspect of mourning that confronts us with fragmentation, of the object mourned and of the experience of mourning. It is pertinent then to question the act, experience and results of mourning in terms of their possible or impossible completions.

Leader suggests that mourning, however private, requires other people; a loss requires recognition, a sense that it has been witnessed and made real. From a different angle, this can be seen to resemble Balint’s (1969) claim, drawing on Ferenczi (1928-33) that the trauma is only completed in the third phase, when the adult acts towards the child as if nothing distressing or painful had happened, thus depriving the event that took place of its reality. Trauma is overwhelming in its magnitude (Freud 1895d [1893-95], 1920g, Rabinovich 1990), consists in a shattering of one’s experiential world as a safe, stable and predictable place (Stolorow 2007), and it breaks up the unifying thread of temporality – past becomes present, and future loses all meaning other than endless repetition.

The anthropologist Geoffrey Gorer describes how every documented human society has public mourning rituals and makes use of outward signs to inscribe the mourner within a shared, public space, arguing that the decline of public mourning rituals in the West was linked to the mass slaughter of the First World War. The surplus of the dead, and of the bereaved, was so extreme and overwhelming that communal mourning no longer seemed to make sense, leading to the erosion of public mourning rituals in Europe. This decline contrasts with current attempts to commemorate and work through shared traumas. This year has marked the 10^th anniversary of September 11^th, leading to debates on how this event can be dealt with, other than by demonization and hero-worship. 2011 has also included the terrorist acts performed by a native and referred to as ‘Norway’s 9/11’. In the latter case conceiving of the event as a wholly alien invasion would seem to require more of an imaginative strain, thus it challenges the typical strategy of scapegoating and poses the question of how to deal with shared trauma differently.   

Mourning can be conceived as a social effort that binds communities together. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission can be seen to have performed such work, less about punishing the perpetrators than about recognizing and registering their crimes. Conversely, if we think of how Freud reminds us of our tendency to recoil from any activity that causes pain, how there is ‘a revolt in our minds against mourning’, we can also conceive of a refusal to mourn as a tie between communities. The Federal Republic of Germany, wrote the Mitscherlichs ([1967] 1975), rather than succumbing to mass melancholia, avoided self-devaluation as a group by breaking all affective bridges to the immediate past; “only a patient whose symptoms cause him suffering greater than the gain he gets from repression is willing to relax, step by step, the interior censorship preventing the return to consciousness of what has been denied and forgotten”, they stated, “But here we are asking that this therapy be carried out by a society which, at least materially, is on the whole better off than ever before. Therefore, it feels no incentive to expose its interpretation of the recent past to the inconvenient questioning of others”. Their formulation is reminiscent of Jaques’ (1955) hypothesis that one of the primary elements that bind people into institutionalised association is the motivation to defend against depressive and paranoid anxieties. The aspect of asymmetry with regard to who may speak, appear and become objects of shared mourning, has been further highlighted in Butler’s (2004) reflections on the public sphere as “constituted in part by what cannot be said and what cannot be shown”.

“In psychoanalysis lies freedom, or at least the potential for freedom” writes Sklar (2011) in pointing towards the need for reflection on the traumas of European history in analytic thought and practice. The author compares the reconstructed city of Warsaw, recreated so as to have covered up all signs of its near total destruction, to a delusion “applied like a patch over the place where originally a rent had appeared in the ego’s relation to the external world” (citing Freud 1924). The collective work of mourning may contribute to the construction of narratives, and to the writing of history. In this sense, memorials, works of art, monuments, public ceremonies or other discursive practices, as long as they are not sentimentalized, exemplify scars or seams on social tissues. Rachel Whiteread’s memorial in Vienna faced the problem of how to commemorate the Shoah without seeming to fill in and even compensating for the void left behind. Her solution presented a cast of the spaces between and around books in a full-size library – thus the sculpture is one that seems to display absence, or emptiness, the reintroduction of which was unwanted by parts of the local population, as the resurfacing of a long-repressed memory (Young 2004).  

Loss, when conflated with absence is often called to operate in power discourses. The full unity and homogeneity of the body politic is often posited as lost, disrupted or polluted by others (LaCapra, 2001). However, one may argue that this putative unity in fact never existed, it is an absence. It points to the fundamental socio-political problem that Jean-Luc Nancy (1991) describes as being in common, without common being. Thus, the conflation of absence and loss can become an alibi for nationalistic discourses, foundational philosophies and fundamentalist ideologies that posit past utopias and paradises lost. This conflation leads to unmournability, for it touches on the sphere of ontological absence, and can provide testimony of melancholic mechanisms operating behind otherwise convincing cultural, social, political or individual agendas.

It is worth questioning, thus, the junctions of the private and the public when it comes to trauma, loss and the work of mourning, for these notions challenge our very notions of the individual and the shared (see also Hopper/Weinberg 2011). To paraphrase Adorno ([1959] 1998): What do we mean by ‘working through the past’? How is a shared work of mourning to be understood? With what legitimacy do we consider a particular social or cultural practice to be ‘mourning’?

We may also question the nature of historical, political and social events that can or should be conceptualised as losses or as traumas. What happens when we extrapolate the subjective dynamics of loss and of trauma to a collective level, and what are the normative implications of doing so? The dimension of temporality, in terms of Nachträglichkeit or après-coup (Freud 1918b [1914], Perelberg 2008), may also be worthy of interrogation.

This is an interdisciplinary conference – we invite theoretical contributions and historical, literary or clinical case studies on these and related themes from philosophers, sociologists, psychoanalysts, psychotherapists, literary theorists, historians and others. Perspectives from different psychoanalytic schools will be most welcome.

Presentations are expected to take 25-30 minutes; another 15-20 minutes is set aside for discussion. Please send an abstract of 200 to 300 words to moc.liamgnull@scitilop.sisylanaohcysp by May 1^st 2012. We will respond by, and present a preliminary programme on, May15^th 2012.

Psychoanalysis and Politics, and the NSU, is more social, engaging and democratic than most other fora. The focus is not just on presenting one’s own paper, but on engaging with and discussing one another’s presentations. Therefore priority will be given to those who commit to participating for the whole week.

The organizers would like to thank The Board of the NSU and The Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, and British Psychoanalytical Society for their support.

PRELIMINARY INFORMATION ABOUT THE SUMMER SESSION

The summer session for 2012 will take place at Brandbjerg Højskole, Denmark 27^th of July – 3^rd of August, 2012. Brandbjerg Højskole is located about 15 minutes from Vejle, Denmark by bus. The modern school was established in the 50s, but has an old mansion from 16th century. Most study rooms, a large auditorium and a dining room are centrally located. A courtyard or atrium is a natural gathering place. The keynote speaker is Richard Schusterman. Read more at: http://nsu.nsuweb.net/node/2 Registration for the summer, via a form on NSU’s webpage, opens April 1^st 2012.  

ABOUT THE NSU

Since 1950, NSU has actively supported the cultivation of new ideas and growing research networks in the Nordic countries. For more than 60 years the NSU has contributed to the development of new inter-disciplinary research areas and methods. Today the unique way of organizing academic networks and doing cross-disciplinary research attracts participants from all over the world alongside the Nordic countries. Participation takes place across academic borderlines, career and generational divides which transcend institutional identities and organizational obstacles found within the traditional universities. NSU is a non-profit organization, sponsored by the Nordic Council of Ministers (www.norden.org).

Psychoanalysis and Politics www.psa-pol.org NSU: www.nsuweb.net

NON-EXCLUSIVE LIST OF RELEVANT LITERATURE:

Abraham, K. ([1924] 1988) “A Short Study of the Development of the Libido, viewed in the Light of Mental Disorders” in Selected Papers of Karl Abraham. London: Maresfield Library.

Abraham, N./Torok, M. (1994) The Shell and the Kernel. Chicago/London. University of Chicago Press.

Adorno, T. W. ([1959] 1998) “The Meaning of Working through the Past” in Critical Models. Interventions and Catchwords. New York: Columbia University Press.

Balint, M. (1969) “Trauma and Object Relationship” in Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 50:429-435.

Bohleber, W.  (2010) Destructiveness, Intersubjectivity and Trauma: The Identity Crisis of Modern Psychoanalysis. London: Karnac.

Bollas, C. (1987) The Shadow of the Object. Psychoanalysis of the Unthought Known. London: Free Association Books.

Borossa, J./Ward, I. (2009) “Psychoanalysis, Fascism and Fundamentalism”, Psychoanalysis and History Special Issue, vol. 11 no 2.

Butler, J. (2004) Precarious Life. The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London/New York: Verso.

Castoriadis, C. (1997) World in Fragments. Writings on Politics, Society Psychoanalysis and Imagination. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Ferenczi, S. (1928-33) Final Contributions to the Problems and Methods of Psycho-Analysis. London: Hogarth Press, 1955.

Freud, S. (1895d [1893-95) Studies in Hysteria. SE vol. 2.

Freud, S. (1914b) Remembering, repeating and working-through. SE vol. 12.

Freud, S. (1917e [1915]) Mourning and Melancholia. SE vol. 16.

Freud, S. (1918b [1914]) From the History of an Infantile Neurosis. SE vol. 17. 

Freud, S. (1920g) Beyond the pleasure principle. SE vol. 17.

Freud, S. (1926d [1925]) Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety. SE vol. 20

Garland, C. ed. (1998/2002) Understanding Trauma. A Psychoanalytical Approach. London: Karnac.

Hopper, E./Weinberg, H. eds. (2011) The Social Unconscious in Persons, Groups and Societies. Vol. 1: Mainly Theory. London: Karnac.

Jacques, E. (1955) “Social Systems as a defence against Persecutory and Depressive Anxiety” in Klein, M./Heimann, P./Money-

Kyrle, R.E. New Directions in Psycho-Analysis. London: Maresfield Reprints.

Kogan, I. (2007) The Struggle Against Mourning. New York: Jason Aronson.

Kristeva, J. ([1987] 1989) Black Sun. Depression and Melancholia. New York: Columbia University Press.

LaCapra, D. (2001) Writing History, Writing Trauma. Baltimore, London: John Hopkins University Press.

Leader, D. (2008) The New Black. London: Hamish Hamilton.

Mitscherlich, A./ Mitscherlich, M. ([1967] 1975) The Inability to Mourn. Principles of Collective Behavior. New York: Grove Press.

Nancy, J.L. (1991) The Inoperative Community. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Perelberg, R. J. (2008) Time, Space and Phantasy. London/New York: Routledge.

Rabinovich, D. (1990) The Concept of Object in Psychoanalytic Theory. Buenos Aires: Manantial.

Ricoeur, P. (2004) Memory, History, Forgetting. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Sklar, J. (2011) Landscapes of the Dark. History, Trauma, Psychoanalysis. London: Karnac.

Stolorow, R. J. (2007) Trauma and Human Existence. Autobiographical, Psychoanalytic, and Philosophical Reflections. New York/Sussex: Routledge.

Varvin, S./Volkan, V. D. eds. (2003) Violence or Dialogue? Psychoanalytic Insights on Terror and Terrorism. London: International Psychoanalytical Association.

Young, J. E. (2004) “Rachel Whiteread’s Judenplatz Memorial in Vienna. Memory and Absence” in C. Townsend ed. The Art of Rachel Whiteread. London: Thames & Hudson.

CALL FOR PAPERS – WINTER SYMPOSIUM IN STOCKHOLM
9th to 11th of MARCH 2012

Venue: Swedish Psychoanalytical Association, Västerlånggatan 60

Mourning can be thought as a private endeavour, so familiar it seems hardly pathological, writes Freud (1917e [1915])). During mourning, the ego withdraws from the world. It re-visits the different aspects of the lost object, approaches it from a series of different angles. Leader (2008) compares this work to the process leading up to the Cubist image resulting from the combination and reshuffling of the conventional image of a person. Thus there is an aspect of mourning that confronts us with fragmentation, of the object mourned and of the experience of mourning. It is pertinent then to question the act, experience and results of mourning in terms of their possible or impossible completions.

Leader suggests that mourning, however private, requires other people; a loss requires recognition, a sense that it has been witnessed and made real. From a different angle, this can be seen to resemble Balint’s (1969) claim, drawing on Ferenczi (1928-33) that the trauma is only completed in the third phase, when the adult acts towards the child as if nothing distressing or painful had happened, thus depriving the event that took place of its reality. Trauma is overwhelming in its magnitude (Freud 1895d [1893-95], 1920g, Rabinovich 1990), consists in a shattering of one’s experiential world as a safe, stable and predictable place (Stolorow 2007), and it breaks up the unifying thread of temporality – past becomes present, and future loses all meaning other than endless repetition.

The anthropologist Geoffrey Gorer describes how every documented human society has public mourning rituals and makes use of outward signs to inscribe the mourner within a shared, public space, arguing that the decline of public mourning rituals in the West was linked to the mass slaughter of the First World War. The surplus of the dead, and of the bereaved, was so extreme and overwhelming that communal mourning no longer seemed to make sense, leading to the erosion of public mourning rituals in Europe. This decline contrasts with current attempts to commemorate and work through shared traumas. This year has marked the 10th anniversary of September 11th, leading to debates on how this event can be dealt with, other than by demonization and hero-worship. 2011 has also included the terrorist acts performed by a native and referred to as ‘Norway’s 9/11’. In the latter case conceiving of the event as a wholly alien invasion would seem to require more of an imaginative strain, thus it challenges the typical strategy of scapegoating and poses the question of how to deal with shared trauma differently.   

Mourning can be conceived as a social effort that binds communities together. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission can be seen to have performed such work, less about punishing the perpetrators than about recognizing and registering their crimes. Conversely, if we think of how Freud reminds us of our tendency to recoil from any activity that causes pain, how there is ‘a revolt in our minds against mourning’, we can also conceive of a refusal to mourn as a tie between communities. The Federal Republic of Germany, wrote the Mitscherlichs ([1967] 1975), rather than succumbing to mass melancholia, avoided self-devaluation as a group by breaking all affective bridges to the immediate past; “only a patient whose symptoms cause him suffering greater than the gain he gets from repression is willing to relax, step by step, the interior censorship preventing the return to consciousness of what has been denied and forgotten”, they stated, “But here we are asking that this therapy be carried out by a society which, at least materially, is on the whole better off than ever before. Therefore, it feels no incentive to expose its interpretation of the recent past to the inconvenient questioning of others”. Their formulation is reminiscent of Jaques’ (1955) hypothesis that one of the primary elements that bind people into institutionalised association is the motivation to defend against depressive and paranoid anxieties. The aspect of asymmetry with regard to who may speak, appear and become objects of shared mourning, has been further highlighted in Butler’s (2004) reflections on the public sphere as “constituted in part by what cannot be said and what cannot be shown”.

“In psychoanalysis lies freedom, or at least the potential for freedom” writes Sklar (2011) in pointing towards the need for reflection on the traumas of European history in analytic thought and practice. The author compares the reconstructed city of Warsaw, recreated so as to have covered up all signs of its near total destruction, to a delusion “applied like a patch over the place where originally a rent had appeared in the ego’s relation to the external world” (citing Freud 1924). The collective work of mourning may contribute to the construction of narratives, and to the writing of history. In this sense, memorials, works of art, monuments, public ceremonies or other discursive practices, as long as they are not sentimentalized, exemplify scars or seams on social tissues. Rachel Whiteread’s memorial in Vienna faced the problem of how to commemorate the Shoah without seeming to fill in and even compensating for the void left behind. Her solution presented a cast of the spaces between and around books in a full-size library – thus the sculpture is one that seems to display absence, or emptiness, the reintroduction of which was unwanted by parts of the local population, as the resurfacing of a long-repressed memory (Young 2004).  

Loss, when conflated with absence is often called to operate in power discourses. The full unity and homogeneity of the body politic is often posited as lost, disrupted or polluted by others (LaCapra, 2001). However, one may argue that this putative unity in fact never existed, it is an absence. It points to the fundamental socio-political problem that Jean-Luc Nancy (1991) describes as being in common, without common being. Thus, the conflation of absence and loss can become an alibi for nationalistic discourses, foundational philosophies and fundamentalist ideologies that posit past utopias and paradises lost. This conflation leads to unmournability, for it touches on the sphere of ontological absence, and can provide testimony of melancholic mechanisms operating behind otherwise convincing cultural, social, political or individual agendas.

It is worth questioning, thus, the junctions of the private and the public when it comes to trauma, loss and the work of mourning, for these notions challenge our very notions of the individual and the shared (see also Hopper/Weinberg 2011). To paraphrase Adorno ([1959] 1998): What do we mean by ‘working through the past’? How is a shared work of mourning to be understood? With what legitimacy do we consider a particular social or cultural practice to be ‘mourning’?

We may also question the nature of historical, political and social events that can or should be conceptualised as losses or as traumas. What happens when we extrapolate the subjective dynamics of loss and of trauma to a collective level, and what are the normative implications of doing so? The dimension of temporality, in terms of Nachträglichkeit or après-coup (Freud 1918b [1914], Perelberg 2008), may also be worthy of interrogation.

This is an interdisciplinary conference – we invite theoretical contributions and historical, literary or clinical case studies on these and related themes from philosophers, sociologists, psychoanalysts, psychotherapists, literary theorists, historians and others. Perspectives from different psychoanalytic schools will be most welcome.

Presentations are expected to take half an hour; another 30 minutes is set aside for discussion. Please send an abstract of 200 to 300 words to moc.liamgnull@scitilop.sisylanaohcysp by December 10th 2011.

We will respond by, and present a preliminary programme on, December 15th 2011. If you would like to sign up to participate without presenting a paper, please contact us after this date. 

This is a relatively small symposium where active participation is encouraged. Researchers, clinicians, students and others who are interested are invited to attend and present their work in a friendly and enjoyable social atmosphere. A participation fee, which includes two shared dinners, of 1200 NOK/1417 SEK/1157 DKK/€ 155/

£ 135/$ 214//110 LVL/537 LTL, is to be paid before the symposium. Additional information in this regard will be given after your abstract has been accepted or after the conference programme has been finalized.

The organizers would like to thank The Board of the NSU and The Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, and British Psychoanalytical Society for their support.

NON-EXCLUSIVE LIST OF RELEVANT LITERATURE:

Abraham, K. ([1924] 1988) “A Short Study of the Development of the Libido, viewed in the Light of Mental Disorders” in Selected Papers of Karl Abraham. London: Maresfield Library.

Abraham, N./Torok, M. (1994) The Shell and the Kernel. Chicago/London. University of Chicago Press.

Adorno, T. W. ([1959] 1998) “The Meaning of Working through the Past” in Critical Models. Interventions and Catchwords. New York: Columbia University Press.

Balint, M. (1969) “Trauma and Object Relationship” in Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 50:429-435.

Bohleber, W.  (2010) Destructiveness, Intersubjectivity and Trauma: The Identity Crisis of Modern Psychoanalysis. London: Karnac.

Bollas, C. (1987) The Shadow of the Object. Psychoanalysis of the Unthought Known. London: Free Association Books.

Borossa, J./Ward, I. (2009) “Psychoanalysis, Fascism and Fundamentalism”, Psychoanalysis and History Special Issue, vol. 11 no 2.

Butler, J. (2004) Precarious Life. The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London/New York: Verso.

Castoriadis, C. (1997) World in Fragments. Writings on Politics, Society Psychoanalysis and Imagination. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Ferenczi, S. (1928-33) Final Contributions to the Problems and Methods of Psycho-Analysis. London: Hogarth Press, 1955.

Freud, S. (1895d [1893-95) Studies in Hysteria. SE vol. 2.

Freud, S. (1914b) Remembering, repeating and working-through. SE vol. 12.

Freud, S. (1917e [1915]) Mourning and Melancholia. SE vol. 16.

Freud, S. (1918b [1914]) From the History of an Infantile Neurosis. SE vol. 17. 

Freud, S. (1920g) Beyond the pleasure principle. SE vol. 17.

Freud, S. (1926d [1925]) Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety. SE vol. 20

Garland, C. ed. (1998/2002) Understanding Trauma. A Psychoanalytical Approach. London: Karnac.

Hopper, E./Weinberg, H. eds. (2011) The Social Unconscious in Persons, Groups and Societies. Vol. 1: Mainly Theory. London: Karnac.

Jacques, E. (1955) “Social Systems as a defence against Persecutory and Depressive Anxiety” in Klein, M./Heimann, P./Money-

Kyrle, R.E. New Directions in Psycho-Analysis. London: Maresfield Reprints.

Kogan, I. (2007) The Struggle Against Mourning. New York: Jason Aronson.

Kristeva, J. ([1987] 1989) Black Sun. Depression and Melancholia. New York: Columbia University Press.

LaCapra, D. (2001) Writing History, Writing Trauma. Baltimore, London: John Hopkins University Press.

Leader, D. (2008) The New Black. London: Hamish Hamilton.

Mitscherlich, A./ Mitscherlich, M. ([1967] 1975) The Inability to Mourn. Principles of Collective Behavior. New York: Grove Press.

Nancy, J.L. (1991) The Inoperative Community. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Perelberg, R. J. (2008) Time, Space and Phantasy. London/New York: Routledge.

Rabinovich, D. (1990) The Concept of Object in Psychoanalytic Theory. Buenos Aires: Manantial.

Ricoeur, P. (2004) Memory, History, Forgetting. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Sklar, J. (2011) Landscapes of the Dark. History, Trauma, Psychoanalysis. London: Karnac.

Stolorow, R. J. (2007) Trauma and Human Existence. Autobiographical, Psychoanalytic, and Philosophical Reflections. New York/Sussex: Routledge.

Varvin, S./Volkan, V. D. eds. (2003) Violence or Dialogue? Psychoanalytic Insights on Terror and Terrorism. London: International Psychoanalytical Association.

Young, J. E. (2004) “Rachel Whiteread’s Judenplatz Memorial in Vienna. Memory and Absence” in C. Townsend ed. The Art of Rachel Whiteread. London: Thames & Hudson.

CALL FOR PAPERS – SUMMER SYMPOSIUM July 31^st– August 7^th 2011

Venue: Falsterbo educational centre, 20 km South of Malmö, Southern Sweden

“A man of letters by instinct, though a doctor by necessity, I conceived the idea of changing over a branch of medicine—psychiatry—into literature,” writes Freud in a letter to Giovani Papini. Thus he asserts the inextricable relation between the psychoanalytic take on psychopathology and the subjective narrative that serves as its vehicle. Continue reading →

CALL FOR PAPERS – WINTER SYMPOSIUM IN

OSLO 25^th to 27^th of MARCH 2011

We cannot, argued Gullestad in Plausible Prejudice (2006), “understand the appeal of right-wing politics if we do not take into account how this rhetoric is underpinned by and embedded in rearticulated neo-ethnic ideas.” She argued that politicians from other than the right-wing populist parties have resisted specific ways of talking that are considered too extremist, rather than their underlying frame of interpretation. Continue reading →

CALL FOR PAPERS – WINTER SYMPOSIUM IN COPENHAGEN

19^th to 21^st of MARCH 2010

Below is the call for papers, written by Lene Auestad and sent to a wide range of academic institutions from ultimo September 2009. We received a total of 38 abstracts within the deadline of December 1^st, (the ones received later have not been counted) – much more than would fit into a three-day programme, and much more than the funding allowed for. The quality of the contributions was on the whole very high, thus, regrettably, even some very good abstracts had to be rejected. 17 abstracts were selected. Three speakers were forced to cancel before the symposium; the final programme consisted of 14 papers. Continue reading →