Psychotherapy is imposed: Psycho-analysis© works: Psychoanalysis operates

by Julia Evans on December 15, 2010

Psychotherapy is imposed:

The UK Government legislates this imposition in the Health Professions Order 2001.  What the Order states:  The Health Professions Council and its Committees

3. – (1) There shall be a body corporate known as the Health Professions Council (referred to in this Order as “the Council”).

(2) The principal functions of the Council shall be to establish from time to time standards of education, training, conduct and performance for members of the relevant professions and to ensure the maintenance of those standards.

(3) The Council shall have such other functions as are conferred on it by this Order

or as may be provided by the Privy Council by order.

(4) The main objective of the Council in exercising its functions shall be to

safeguard the health and well-being of persons using or needing the services of

registrants.

So using Privy Council absolute top-down power, the Government legislates standards for its operators within its high-risk health industry (See note 1).  This is absolute or empty knowledge (savoir) which is stored in the Government’s library of standards.  (See note 2).

 

Two further examples are given in Note 3 of the Government’s use of absolute knowledge.

 

Any form of relationship, except of top down control and the slavish adherence to these standards, is excluded.  So that which motors, the transference relationship, is obliterated.

 

Psycho-analysis© works (Note 4):

Éric Laurent (note 1) refers to ‘Preface to the English-Language edition’ of Jacques Lacan’s Seminar XI’ (Note 1a).  In looking up this reference, still in the hospital waiting area, I noted the term psycho-analysis is used on the first page.  For example: ‘It should be noted that psycho-analysis has, since it has ex-sisted, changed.’  I conclude that Jacques Lacan (See Note 5a for amendment) knew that the term psycho-analysis has been copyrighted (Note 5) probably by the Institute of Psychoanalysis /British Psychoanalytic Society.  Thus, though I may use the description: Lacanian Psychoanalyst, the term Psycho-Analyst is forbidden.

 

So why am I asserting that psycho-analysis works?  Psycho-analysis relies on the professional use of knowledge (savoir-faire).  This is knowledge in use as expertise or nauce or perhaps common-sense.  The professional is able to use this knowledge to ensure the correct diagnosis and to tell the analysand (as used in the Preface) what to do.  Of course, the more able professionals are much better at adapting the knowledge, usually derived from academic ‘scientific’ research, correctly.   I am reminded of the criticisms of dream interpretation using this certainty of knowledge which Jacques Lacan makes. (Note 6)  In Note 7, I take examples from the British Psychoanalytic Council’s – see note 8 to discover which organisations shelter under this title – description of how psycho-analysis works.

 

The conclusion is that psycho-analysis works in relation to or driven by the S1(plural) (see note 4) of the BPC and the Government’s standards (HPO2001: July 2010 White Paper – Note 2: etc).  The BPC alleges that ‘safeguarding the health and wellbeing’ (HPO2001) is possible and outcomes can be measured as in other ‘high-risk industries’ (Note 3).

 

Psychoanalysis operates:

 

In Seminar XI, (Note 1a) Jacques Lacan asks what are the fundamentals of psychoanalysis through asking what grounds it as a praxis. (Note 9)  In conversations within both Houses of Parliament the following differences between the praxes of ‘psycho-analysis works’ and ‘psychoanalysis operates’ have emerged in my writings (Note 10):  Position of knowledge – Knowledge is outside.  The analyst is the dummy as in bridge (See ‘Direction of the Treatment’ – Note 10a), control:  This is bottom-up.  The analysand is in control of their subjective material. The analyst directs how this material is processed.  They employ a know-how, a savoir-y-faire.  There is no way this can be written down as it emerges uniquely with each pairing.  So an analyst will work differently with each of their analysands. It is fantastic to allege, as does the BPC, that a ONE overall standard process can be defined.  Relationship to transference:  The transference is driven by the analysand.  The analyst accepts the transference and acts from within to put it to question.  Training:  Essentially the analyst acts.  Training involves case studies, seminars, working with colleagues, supervision, their own analysis, presentations, to inform their position so that they act with their being.  Being taught standards or theoretical frameworks is not essential.  Formation is done one by one not to some defined formula as in Note 7.

 

Stop press:

 

Following the establishment of these three positions in the UK’s regulation battlefield, there is now a fight for complete domination.  The winner gets control of the jobs market within the NHS, IAPT (Happiness Factories/see note 7) and work paid for by insurance.

 

Through regx2 (Note 11) and those who have actioned its suggestions, Parliament has been made aware of the opposition to SfH, HPC, IAPT and NICE.  There are signs that the coalition is listening.  The difficulty is enabling an understanding of the difference between medical/psychiatric approaches, psychological/psychotherapeutic/psycho-analytic approaches and psychopractitioners (See Note 12).  The Government still wants to contract out treatment of Mental Ill-Health and Dis-being (HPO2001) using NICE clinical guidelines, SfH competences, HPC’s standards to produce measureable outcomes (usually the entry into paid employment – see the last sentence of Note 7).  From a press release issued by the law firm Bindmans LLP, 10th December, 2010: Psychotherapists win the right to challenge Health Professions Council plans for statutory regulation.  The High Court has given six psychotherapy and psychoanalysis practitioner groups permission to proceed with what the Judge described as an “important” judicial review challenge to proposals for their regulation by the Health Professions Council (HPC). The groups’ barrister argued that the HPC had unlawfully ducked critical questions about whether psychotherapy and psychoanalysis should be regulated by statute and, more importantly, whether the HPC is fit for purpose in this context given its focus on the measurable outcomes of medical-style interventions.

 

The battlefield is now in disarray.  The HPC is negotiating from a position that this just delays their take-over by 6 months.  This action, in which regx2 has no part, at best tackles registration by the HPC.  It does not touch NICE clinical guidelines, SfH competencies, or the Government’s processes of contracting out the care of those defined with Mental Ill-Health or Dis-Being (HPO2001) to, for example, IAPT.  The Government only takes advice from members of the Psychological Professions Action Group. (see Note 7)

The PPAG includes:

British Psychological Society (BPS),

United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapies (UKCP),

British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP ),

British Psychoanalytic Council (BPC),

Counselling and Psychotherapy Central Awarding Body (CPCAB ),

British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies (BABCP ).

I have named them the Famous Five + their dog (BPS) after Enid Blyton’s heroes.

 

The Famous Five with their dog are in control of the Health Professions Council’s Public Liaison Group, National Occupational Standards for Psychological Therapies with the addition of psychiatrists and academics (SfH), the Savoy conferences which control IAPT –Increased Access to Psychological Therapy or Happiness Factories, input to NICE – see Note 7 and The New Ways of Working (NWW) project for psychological therapists. NWW is a part of the National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIHME)’s National Workforce programme and has a close relationship to the IAPT programme, especially around work force issues.  This means the outcome is Lord Layard’s economic happiness – people having sickness benefit removed and being placed on the unemployment register.

 

Thus, Jacques Lacan’s painful ejection and subsequent separation from the IPA as detailed in Seminar XI is still being played out.  I believe the Judicial Review takes the focus away from the main task:  Ensuring the difference between a practice motored by a relationship two human BEINGS, for example psychoanalysis, and the slavish implementation of standards, as in psycho-analysis.

 

Julia Evans

Practicing Lacanian Psychoanalyst in Earl’s Court, London

15thDecember 2010

__________________

Note 1:

This emerged whilst I was waiting in St Mary’s Hospital, Paddington, London for a friend who was undergoing a tilt table test.  I was reading Michele Julien’s recent translation of Éric Laurent’s article ‘The case, from unease to the lie’.  (This translation published at: New Lacanian School: :  www.amp-nls.org: nls messager, 20 December 2010,  [nls-messager] 17 – 2010/2011 Towards London 2 / Vers Londres 2.  The text in French: ‘Le cas, du malaise au mensonge’ was published in the revue La Cause Freudienne, No. 50, February 2002, pp. 27 – 37.

The Government’s Chief Medical Officer, Lord Donaldson corralled us, in the July 2006 White Paper ‘Good doctors, safer patients: Proposals to strengthen the system to assure and improve the performance of doctors and to protect the safety of patients’, as part of the ‘high risk health industry’ and compared errors within health-care with Chernobyl, Alpha-Piper and aircraft pilot-error.

In walking from the Paddington Bakerloo tube exit along London Street and into South Wharf Road to the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother building (Google it!) and then battling into the ward which contains the Tilt Table Test, the Government’s ‘high risk health industry’ is a reality.  It is not a figment of Lord Donaldson’s imagination.  The buildings remind me of working within manufacturing plant and the majority of the staff have the interpersonal skills of workers at a machine interface.

 

Note 1a:

Details of my copy of Seminar XI:  ‘The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis: Jacques Lacan’, Edited by Jacques-Alain Miller, Translated by Alan Sheridan, Penguin Books 1987. Alan Sheridan’s translation was originally published in 1977. Copy available here. First published, in French, as ‘Le Séminaire de Jacques Lacan, Livre XI: Les quatre concepts fondamentaux de la psychanalyse’ by Éditions du Seuil in 1973.

 

Note 2:

The Government’s central standards library is eulogised in this coalition government’s White Paper: Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS White Paper July 2010. Quote: ‘Create a broad library of standards for all the main pathways of care DoH dh_118053 Arms Length Bodies Review. & Put the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence on a firmer statutory footing securing its independence and core functions and extending its remit to social care.’  A copy of my reply to this CON-sultation is available on request.  NICE is where the Government, on advice from the Famous Five & psychiatry & academic ‘scientific’ research, decides that cbt (Cognitive Behaviour Therapy) is the cost effective treatment for Anxiety, Depression and much else.

Note 3:  Two further examples of the Government’s use of Absolute Knowledge.

Industrial definitions of risk (first written and circulated in 2006)

Risk is used 105 times – usually in conjunction with ‘high’ and ‘industry’ in the White Paper ‘Good Doctors, safer patients’.  For example: Page viii ‘The bottom line is that lighter-touch regulation of doctors – whether on grounds of cost, regulatory ideology or professional acceptability – would mean that some ongoing risks to patients would have to be tolerated by society. Page ix  Unsafe care can arise in two main ways: from human error in a weak system (addressed in Lord Donaldson’s, Chief Medical Officer, earlier report, An organisation with a memory) and from poorly performing doctors; both are important, but the risks posed by the former are many times greater than those posed by the latter. Page ix Regulation of doctors is much less thorough than that of professionals in other high-risk industries, such as civil aviation.’

Reference: White Paper:  ‘Good doctors, safer patients’  Proposals to strengthen the system to assure and improve the performance of doctors and to protect the safety of patients A report by the Chief Medical Officer:  Lord Donaldson (Sir Liam Donaldson) Department of Health 2006

 

The system controls practice (Written and circulated in 2009)

 

The use of empty knowledge by the Government’s enforcing systems has been commented on in my submission to the Health Profession’s Council’s (HPC) ‘Call for Ideas’ from which I quote.

 

The type of knowledge (absolute knowledge or savoir) implied by the HPC’s regulation is inappropriate to the regulation of the practice of Talking Therapy.  Behind each enforcing system (examples given below) is empty knowledge.  Three different forms of knowledge are defined in the submission.  Empty Knowledge or Absolute Knowledge or the One Standard or the Good or Scientific has all subjective meaning removed.  It is absolute, unchanging and without meaning.  The One Standard Meaning (usually centrally defined) is enforced in the Government’s raft of regulations.

 

From White Paper: Trust, Assurance and Safety – The Regulation of Health Professionals in the 21st Century 2007.  (Please notice the transformation between the two white papers.  The first refers to Doctors and the second to Health Professionals.  Thus, Psychopractitioners become Health Professionals.  This transformation has never been justified by a Government addicted to the words ‘evidence-based’.)

 

Examples of the reliance on inhuman knowledge from the Foreward of ‘Trust, Assurance and Safety’ apparently written by the Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt MP

Professional regulation must create a framework that maintains the justified confidence of patients in those who care for them as the bedrock of safe and effective clinical practice and the foundation for effective relationships between patients and health professionals.

 

It is all too easy to focus on the incompetent or malicious practice of individuals and seek to build a system from that starting point, …….

 

We need a system that understands the pressures and strains under which all professionals operate and shows understanding, compassion and support where these are appropriate.

 

It also means a system that is better able to identify people early on who are struggling – perhaps with personal problems of mental health or addiction – and supporting them,

 

It means a system that is better able to detect and act against those very rare malicious individuals who risk undermining public and professional confidence.

 

Comments on the Foreward:  Two unconnected statements are joined together to produce:  The System becomes Big Brother.  The system is the foundation of the relationship of care between two human beings.  The system becomes humanised.  The system provides the framework which produces trust.  The system understands pressure and strains.  The system is more able than the police to detect those about to commit criminal acts.

 

What is the evidence that weak systems cause unsafe care within the practice of talking therapy involving two human beings?

What is the evidence that systems can better treat distressed humans than another human being?

 

Reference:  White Paper: Trust, Assurance and Safety – The Regulation of Health Professionals in the 21st Century   Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Health, The Rt Hon. Patricia Hewitt, MP, by Command of Her Majesty February 2007

 

Note 4:  Work or operate?

 

Richard Klein argued at the first meeting of New Lacanian School’s cartel 13 towards the 9th conference of the New Lacanian School: ‘How Psychoanalysis Works’ in London, April 1st – 2nd 2011, that operate was closer to the French original, as used by Jacques Lacan, than work.  It certainly makes more sense to me.  Work implies a context to achieve a tangible result.  Or to quote Éric Laurent:  ‘The master discourse recognises ‘the act of language’ but attempts to reduce it to the relation to the master signifier.’  Note: there is a relationship within work but it is to a master signifier S1.

 

 

Note 5:  Copyright

From the Government’s web-site available here:

‘Copyright

Copyright doesn’t protect ideas. The work must be fixed (e.g. written or recorded)

There is no official registration system for copyright. It’s an automatic right

A Copyright work could be marked with ©, the owner’s name, and the year it was created’

The reason psycho-analysis was copyrighted is that psychoanalysis is in common usage so whoever has copyrighted it (it could be the IPA) had to add the hyphen.

 

Note 5a added 19th January 2012:

My edition of Seminar XI was published in 1987 and gives the information that this was first published by The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis in 1977.  As psycho-analysis is used throughout my copy, the publishers may have replaced psychoanalysis with it rather than it being Jacques Lacan.  My differentiating psycho-analysis from psychoanalysis remains.

 

Note 6:

An example of interpretation:

Instead of an S1 or knowledge based in the analyst’s personal experience, driving the interpretation (‘For interpretation is not grounded in some assumption of divine archetypes’), from (‘The direction of the Treatment and the Principles of its Power’ Écrits p496) , Jacques Lacan defines it thus: its (the interpretation’s) well-foundedness instead being gauged by the material that emerges afterward. P497  Thus, Jacques Lacan moves from the use of knowledge to interpret to a process method of gauging.  (See Note 9a for web-references to access this text.)

 

Note 7:

Examples of a professional use of knowledge or expertise during their work

These extracts are edited from the complete statement available here

British Psychoanalytic Council:
A position statement on statutory regulation and related issues

A position statement on: 
•    statutory regulation and the Health Professions Council
•    Skills for Health’s National Occupational Standards
•    evidence-based treatment and NICE guidelines
•    Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT)
•    New Ways of Working for Psychological Therapists 
•    the nations and regions

The British Psychoanalytic Council (BPC) is issuing this position statement on a number of important issues that all broadly have in common our relationship with Government and its various agencies.

The following are extracts from this statement:

In giving that endorsement to psychological therapies, Government and its agencies will inevitably expect that they will adhere to the norms and standards of publicly-funded health treatment.

The BPC will continue to be a home for psychotherapists working exclusively within private practice who are committed to working within the BPC’s rigorous fitness to practice standards and, with the introduction of statutory regulation, within the reasonable safeguards of the Health Profession Council.

A number of individual therapists and some organisations – not in the BPC – are actively campaigning against these changes, arguing that they will, in some way, compromise the psychotherapeutic process. Whilst we respect the views of such individuals, we believe that this argument has little to offer to the ambition of providing the very best quality of treatment and care to those suffering from mental distress

Statutory regulation and the Health Professions Council

The British Psychoanalytic Council (BPC) actively supports the statutory regulation of psychotherapists and counsellors as being in the interests of public protection.  The BPC exists to maintain and promote the highest possible standards and quality of care for the practice of psychoanalytic psychotherapy, and welcomes statutory regulation as an underpinning to those standards.

The BPC accepts that the Health Professions Council (HPC) will be the regulator for our profession, and has done so since the publication of the Foster review in June 2006.  We are actively working with the HPC to ensure we achieve the best possible standards of proficiency and standards of education and training for the profession. To this end, we have formed a working partnership with the other relevant professional bodies as the Psychological Professions’ Alliance Group (PPAG comprising British Psychological Society, British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy, British Psychoanalytic Council, United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy, British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies). We look forward to presenting our views to the HPC’s Professional Liaison Group who will be making decisions on a range of issues central to the regulation of our profession over the coming months.

 

Skills for Health’s National Occupational Standards

The BPC welcomes the work that Skills for Health (SfH) are undertaking in drawing up National Occupational Standards for psychotherapy. The setting out in an explicit and systematic way the sorts of skills and knowledge that are used by psychotherapists will carry significant benefits for our profession.

 

The National Occupational Standards, when completed, will be of enormous value to training providers in the future as they think about curriculum development. They will also provide a basis for more informed commissioning. The BPC is currently working with all its member institutions, addressing the sorts of changes that will need to be made to the structure and content of our clinical training programmes to be fit for purpose in the next few decades.

 

Evidence-based treatment and NICE guidelines

The BPC wholly supports the idea of evidence-based treatment, and considers that all publicly funded psychological therapies should be evidence-based. One of the classic statements of this principle is from the American Institute of Medicine (2001):
‘Evidence-based practice is the integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values’ .

We consider that the establishment of the National Institute of Clinical and Health Excellence (NICE) that carefully weighs the evidence for the effectiveness (and cost effectiveness) of treatments in the UK is an immense social gain.

 

The BPC supports the growth of further development and evaluation of psychological therapies to make the UK a world leader in this field. We will play our part in supporting and encouraging outcome research across a range of methodologies on the efficacy of psychodynamic psychotherapies.

 

Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT)

The BPC supports the objectives of the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme and we are playing an active part in the work to make it a success. We welcome the Government’s support for the programme represented by the new funding announced in early 2008 that will build up to a total of £173 million per year in 2010/11 – roughly a doubling of resources for talking therapies.

We have played a central part in the bringing together of the New Savoy Declaration and Partnership which now has some twenty five signatories from across the professional bodies and mental health charities in support of the programme.

 

However, it is essential that IAPT does not become by default a single-modality service.  This would risk not only losing the support of the professions but ultimately would impact adversely on the quality of care. The imperatives of quality, diversity and patient choice can only be met through the provision of a range of evidence-based therapies.

 

New Ways of Working for Psychological Therapists

The New Ways of Working (NWW) project for psychological therapists is now underway. NWW is a part of the National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIHME)’s National Workforce programme and has a close relationship to the IAPT programme, especially around work force issues.

NWW have produced reports on both psychiatry and applied psychology, and is now beginning to look at psychological therapy. This will be looking at a number of areas:
•    a career framework, based on an integrated national competency, job responsibility and pay framework, across all professional groups
•    how a broad range of evidence based interventions and their underpinning competences can be addressed through the skill mix of psychological therapy services
•    how psychological therapists can work collaboratively in multidisciplinary teams
•    describe the size and nature of the Psychological Therapy workforce market and associated trainings, public and private, and put in place mechanisms for ongoing provision of accurate workforce data to inform policy development and commissioning.

The BPC is actively supporting this initiative and is playing a key role in the programme of work over the next year.

 

The nations and regions

The BPC is aware that a number of initiatives referred to above do not extend across the whole of the UK in the same way.

We are currently working on active strategies for the development of psychoanalytic psychotherapy across the whole of the UK.

 

Note 8:

The British Psychoanalytic Council (BPC)

Member Institutions

The Council is an association of institutions which comprise psychoanalysts, analytical psychologists, psychoanalytic psychotherapists and child psychotherapists. These are training institutions, professional associations and accrediting organisations which have their roots in psychoanalysis and analytical psychology. This common heritage gives to these psychoanalytic psychotherapy bodies an identity which is sufficiently shared to establish an association of institutions to serve the public and to further develop their legacy.

The BPC is itself a member of the European Federation for Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy in the Public Sector (EFPP).

Members:

The British Association of Psychotherapists,

The Institute of Psychoanalysis / British Psychoanalytical Society,

The Lincoln Clinic and Centre for Psychotherapy,

The London Centre for Psychotherapy,

North of England Association of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapists,

Northern Ireland Association for the Study of Psychoanalysis,

The Society of Analytical Psychology,

The Scottish Association of Psychoanalytical Psychotherapists,

The Scottish Institute of Human Relations,

Severnside Institute for Psychotherapy,

British Society of Couple Psychotherapists and Counsellors,

The Tavistock Clinic and the Tavistock Society of Psychotherapists,

WPF Therapy / Foundation for Psychotherapy and Counselling,

Affiliate Member Institutions,

Northwest Institute of Dynamic Psychotherapy (NWIDP),

Institute of Group Analysis (IGA)

 

Note 9:

In the mid 1990s I belonged for a number of years to a working group (Groups and Organisations Working Group – GOWG) approaching organisations through Lacanian analysis.  Philip Boxer produced a number of working papers which have been seminal to my journey within the UK’s approach to so-called mental health over the last 15 years.  This is the opening sentence to ‘Moment of Truth: the Newman reference’ Philip Boxer 26th November 1995. Now available on Lacanian Works and published here.

 

Note 9a:

See:  The Direction of the Treatment and the Principles of its Power:10th-13th July 1958 : Jacques Lacan    Published at   www.lacanianworks.net

Or Translated by Cormac Gallagher and published at: www.lacaninireland.com: and available here

 

Note 10:

I have been defining these differences over the last 6 years.  It is difficult to be exact with the references from where my influences arise.  Certainly, Seminar X (as a member of the Lacanian Forum reading group – www.lacanian-forum.org.uk), XI, XX, & XXIII (as a member of a cartel leading to the World Association of Psychoanalysis congress, Paris, April 2010) and ‘The Direction of the Treatment and the Principles of Its Power’ in Ecrits’ (See Note 9a)  This list is not a complete one!

 

Note 11:  regx2

Regx2 (regulation & registration) has evolved during my 10 years of involvement with Government policy in the area known as Mental Health.  It is a circulation list with over 50 participants from UK, Ireland, Belgium, France, Spain and Italy.  Its principles follow.

 

regx2 works in relationships with others to:

Enable sufferers from symptoms of psychic or mental distress to choose the treatment or practice which works for them rather than the One prescribed by the government.

 

Resist the top-down imposition by the law of the One Standard driving practitioners’ training, development, practice, ethics, complaints procedure, etc that produces unhealthy uniformity.  N.B.  The DoH Scoping Project (July 2005) found 570 training organisations.  This strategy seeks to support this healthy diversity rather than protect or prioritise one or a section of its variants.

 

Regx2 is very influential within Parliament.  At least 5 Parliamentary questions have been asked by members’ constituency MPs.  The House of Lords’ Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee changed its terms of reference following receipt of 6 regx2 members’ letters in March 2009.  This means the statutory instrument to bring all psychotherapists and counselors within the grasp of the HPC is unlikely to be passed.

Note 12:  Psychopractitioners

This term was invented by Denis Postle. Denis Postle IPN  (Independent Practitioners’ Network) is a writer, artist and musician who has been a facilitator of personal and professional development since 1985.  A founder participant in the IPN he sees that organisation as demonstrating that long term civic accountability for clients and psychopractitioners can be structured through cooperative, non hierarchical organisations.  His many contributions can be found on eIpnosis,  a web-site devoted to ways and means of holding civic accountability for clients.  The first ten years of eIpnosis was published in 2006, in ‘Regulating the Psychological Therapies:  from Taxonomy to Taxidermy’, PCCS Books.

Related texts

Psychotherapy is imposed: Psycho-analysis© works: Psychoanalysis operates by Julia Evans on December 15, 2010 or here http://www.lacanianworks.net/?p=226

Does rule through regulatory systems give protection from murderers? – No by Julia Evans on November 6, 2009 or here http://www.lacanianworks.net/?p=617

More on the effects of using this government’s top-down power – Systems used to blame not re-calibrate and prevent (Child care) & the principles underlying Government action by Julia Evans on November 5, 2009 or here http://www.lacanianworks.net/?p=616

 

 

Julia Evans

Practicing Lacanian Psychoanalyst in Earl’s Court, London

 

7th December 2018 : To request a copy of any text whose weblink does not work, contact Julia Evans: je.lacanian@icloud.com : For fuller details, see Notice : Availability of texts from LacanianWorks by Julia Evans or here

 

Further posts:

Lacanian Transmission here

Some Lacanian history here

Of the clinic here

Topology here

By Sigmund Freud here

Notes on texts by Sigmund Freud here

By Jacques Lacan here

Notes on texts by Jacques Lacan here

Jacques Lacan in English or here

Translation Working Group here

Use of power here