Freud died in 1971. The manner, antecedents and significance of the ousting of two members from the SPI and the IPA, in 1976.

C. Anzilotti, L.A. Armando, G. Del Missier, A. Seta, F. Panzera

This work, published by Wichtig Editore Milano in the magazine "Il Sogno della Farfalla" no. 1/95, re-proproses a text read at the 5th Congress of the International Association of the History of Psychoanalysis on the topic of "Scission in the history of the psychoanalytical movement" held in Berlin (July 20 -24, 1994) with the participation of various European and American scholars. The abstract of this work is published in No. 17 of "Journalí" by I.A.H.P. Spring, 1994.

HISTORICAL RESEARCH AND RESEARCH INTO THE UNCONSCIOUS

I - We would like to first of all clarify the relationship between this paper and the intention, which motivates this congress, of drawing links between history and psychoanalysis.
From the very start, Freud used the history of an individual's personal and collective past to find confirmation of his own assertions on the unconscious and the present them as discoveries; and of his own past to ensure that his ideas could not be proven false when confronted.
This perverse relationship established between historical research and research into the unconscious has continued until the former strove to emancipate itself: It has done this by applying its own method:

a. in taking note of stories of happenings constructed by freudism for its own convalidation or preservation.
b. in the examination of sources on those happenings
c. in drawing comparisons between those story and these sources
d. in proposing a story consistent with these.

Historical research has therefore developed a consciousness of falsifications made in freudian accounts of other people and their own individual and collective past.
This new consciousness coupled with criticisms instigated by Grunbaum regarding the concept of repression and the method of free association have been viewed as the causes of a loss of credibility of the freudian paradigm, metaphorically expressed as "the death of Freud".
With such, historical research has ended its perverse relationship with research into the unconsciousness, and has moreover set the latter the task of going beyond Freudian assertions.
Historical research, however, seems not to have accepted the very outcome it proposes. Instead, it tends to use this newly proposed consciousness of freudian falsifications to once again prove the idea of a perverse unconsciousness which can cause its very discoverer to betray his own scientific ideal.
In this way, historical research, which has played a role in determining "Freud's death", has not pushed research into the unconscious beyond freucism rather it has consolidated it; and coupled with the tendency expressed by Grunbaum to restore organic positivism, it proposes the end of any type of research into psychic reality.
We believe, however, that historical research follows such an involuted pattern because it betrays its own ideal and methodology.
To bridge this gap and in order to reunite history and psychoanalysis with a view to further developing the science of man, we invite you to follow us in the application of the historical method to the freudian account of an episode in the history of psychoanalysis.


A FREUDIAN ACCOUNT OF AN EPISODE WHICH TOOK PLACE IN 1976

II. - This episode consists of the expulsion, in February 1976, of two analysts from the SPI and the IPA.
In reality, there exists no freudian account of the story but only some indications of the fact that there is something to narrate and pieces of the story.
In reference to indications, we find a telegraphic announcement of the expulsion in a Bulletin of the SPI and IPA affiliates.
In relation to the pieces of the story, the only real and consistent account appears in "The story of Psychoanalysis" by Silvia Vegetti-Finzi (1977), where we read

"In central Italy in the 1960's (.....) Massimo Fagioli and Antonello Armando (....) conduct a series of seminars in Florence and Rome attended by thousands of followers, where an unconscious collective experience takes place, quite mystically, based on the public interpretation of dreams.
The critique of Freud carried out by Fagioli ends up taking on the evocative features of a mythology of origins around which is constructed an onthological truth.
What he puts forward as a discovery is beyond rational discussion because it is expressed through the absoluteness of an oracular response which can be accepted or refuted but never disproven. In 1976, the two analysts, which had severely criticised didactic analysis are expelled from the SPI".

These words give a distorted image of the episode, above all because they present it as an episode explainable in terms of events which occurred after this.
Vegetti-Finzi's distortion of the temporal sequence is coupled with the use of representative formulas found in stories passed on in the oral tradition and in written materials on the event, reported prior to the publication of her book, but which she uses to construct her own account.
For example, presenting the expulsion as a consequence of a scandal provoked by seminars attended by thousands of followers, comes from articles which appeared in the Italian Press only after 1977 unrelated to the episode of expulsion.
In oral and written accounts, the expulsion was represented in a variety of ways, all of which, however, depict the episode as a repetition of similar experiences which had already occurred in the history of psychoanalysis.


THE SOURCES RELATED TO THE 1976 EPISODE

III. - Having considered the Freudian account, we will now proceed to a brief examination of the sources which refer to the 1976 episode.
Some of these sources are not freely available, for example, the material kept in the SPI archives in the former Institute of Psychoanalysis in Rome.
However, the following sources are available and some even published.

1) Correspondence between the institutional authorities and the members and students under enquiry.
2) A dossier drawn up by the four under enquiry and by some students, whose training, in the meantime, had been suspended.
3) A Report produced by a College of Arbiters set up in November 1975 by the SPI to examine the compatability of the conduct of four of its members with their status as members of this instirution.

To these available sources is added a series of reports related to the general matters of the SPI and the IPA from which it is possible to deduct that reference is being made to the episode at an international level and above all the context in which it occurred. We will refer to these sources in greater detail in another article where the matter will be discussed at greater length.


A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FREUDIAN ACCOUNT AND THE SOURCES

IV - Having considered the freudian account of the episode of 1976 and having identified the relevant sources, let us compare the former account with the latter sources.
For this purpose we refer in particular to the first two above mentioned available sources, that is , to the Report of the Arbiters and to the Dossier which provided and answer to it.
The Report and the Dossier both manage, in spite of their presenting contrasting views, to give us a consistent picture of the episode quite different in nature to the freudian account.
They show that the episode:

1 . did not involve thousands of people, nor two people alone, but ten; and it did not result in the expulsion of two members of the association alone but also in the suspension of six students from their training.
2 . was not the reulst of events which occurred subsequent to 1976, nor only in the month of February of 1976, but comprised events which spread over the period of five years, starting from the end of 1970.


A TRUE ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED

V - Having considered the freudian account, and located the various sources on the episode, we now offer you an exact account of what happened.
The two differences that we have thus far identified, will lead us towards this goal.
The first proposes a view of the episode that not only differs from the freudian account, but also demonstrates the failure to link this episode to others occurring beforehand, in the history of the psychoanalytical movement.
By revealing to us the numbers of people effectively involved in the episode and the problems herein contained, both the Report and the Dossier show that it is limiting to refer to this incident as an 'expulsion', given that this term is applied to situations involving individual persons and in reference to deontological problems.
The number of people involved and the problems implied, could bring one to speak of a 'scission', but even this term is inadequate given that the events of 1976 did not bring about, as scissions normally do, the setting up of a new institution.
We prefer to refer to the incident not as an expulsion but as the ousting of members by the association to give an idea of the anomalous character of the episode in discussion.
The second difference gives to this episode the background of at least five years in the making, providing us with a context in which to look for the meaning of its anomaly.
Another look at the Report, allows us to identify four facts which arise over this five year period:

1. An internal conflict within the Institution on the problem of training and on the organization of internal matters.
2. The case of students interrupting their educational training in analysis to undergo personal analysis with one of the ousted members.
3. The publication of works by the above mentioned analysts and students.
4. The contents of these works.

The proposal to oust certain members and the provision which followed in relation to presumed misconduct of the two accused analysts, was founded on the first two above mentioned facts.
In relation to the two other facts listed, that is to the written works and their contents, it is the latter which we will now examine.
The Report quotes three bodies of writing:

1. The book 'Myth and Reality of the return to Freud' written in March 1973 by L.A. Armando, one of the two ousted analysts.
2. The book 'The Power of Psychoanlaysis' written in March 1974 by all the subjects involved.
3. The two books, 'The marionette and the puppet' written in November 1974 and 'Psychoanalysis of birth and human castration' written in January 1975, both written by M. Fagioli, the other ousted analyst.

Our attention is caught initially by a quote found in the Report, borrowed from Armando's book: 'Freud is not psychoanalysis, but its corpse, which must be burnt.' By quoting this phrase, the Report acknowledges the death of Freud as a given fact, in the period in which this issue was being discussed, which as we know was recently proposed in 1993 and subjected to some studies on the history of psychoanalysis and to Grunbaums's Philosophy of Science.
With such, the Report offers us proof of recognizing the fact that what was at play in 1976 and in the preceding five years was not conflictual behaviour which contrasted with the internal rules of the institution, but the apparition of an unchallenged critique to Freudian theory.
We must, however, ask ourselves why the Report gave such importance to the phrase quoted from 'Myth and Reality of the return to Freud ', as to merit the recommendation of disciplinary action to be brought on to the author.
The thesis expounded in the book does not justify, per se, the alarm registered in the Report. In fact, the thesis was not considered sufficient reason to impede the author's membership to the SPI, which occurred in November 1971.
On the contrary , Fagioli's thesis, also mentioned in the Report via two quotes taken directly from 'The marionette and the puppet' in reference to the method of free association and training, and one quote taken from 'Instinct of death and knowledge', regarding the neutrality of the psychoanalyst and his position of indifference, were considered in March 1972 sufficient reason to deny nomination as ordinary member to its author.
To understand the importance the Report gives to the sentence in 'Myth and Reality' we must keep in mind this very difference in treatment.
The sentence in 'Myth and Reality' took on such meaning which justified the Arbiters' alarm because it made a clear connection with the propositions that the Report drew from 'The marionette and the puppet' and from 'Death Instinct and knowledge' that is, it conveyed the reality of Freud's death as a given event brought about by such propositions and by the underlying theory they revealed.
A look at 'Death instinct and knowledge' which appeared in 1971 and proposes the main points of this theory which are taken up in the Report, confirms the causal nexus that is evident between its appearance and the perception of Freud's death.
Already indicated in its 'Premise' are both the main points of the theoretical argument which are then elaborated in the text and their critique of freudism. These points correspond to the critique of the theory of repression and free association, seen by the Report as subversive.
Fagioli clearly sets forth the conclusions of his research when he affirms that the psychoanalyst cannot limit himself

'to consider the problem of repression as the main one (...) thereby relegating the expectant and silent attitude to the background.'

With such, the author suggests an approach towards human reality which goes beyond the issuing forth of childhood memories and the reconstruction of their historical truth. In fact he maintains that it is reductive to interpret unconscious reality in light of the theory of repression because this implies a vision of the unconscious as perverse in origin and which excludes any possibility of modifying the psychic reality of the patient, and reaches an irrevocable negation of the concept of therapy, confirmed by successive developments in freudian theory.
Consequently Fagioli does not consider it possible that a patient can 'draw out the defectiveness of his unconscious dynamics and correct them'. Instead the psychotherapist by playing

'(....) an active, interactive and structuring role, can (....) reject the therapeutic value of free association and view this method as an imposition of incoherent and fragmentary thought on the patient.'

It's worth pointing out that the possibility of directing criticism to the above mentioned freudian concepts pivotal to freudian theory, already in 1971, that is , long before Grunbaum criticized them, lies in the concept of the disappearing fantasy to which the Arbiters' Report refers.
In fact, Freud, having confused sadism with the death instinct, thereby failing to develop a theory on the latter through its two principle manifestations, that is, the disappearing fantasy and negation, proceeded to conceptualise a procedure whereby the analyst expected that the patient would confirm the road to follow. In having undervalued the negative transference and emphasizing the therapeutic alliance, he failed to realise that a patient's talk cannot be considered valid because often their final aim is to deceive and destroy the therapist.
Therefore, when Fagioli speaks of tendency for active interpretation he refers to what is the main task of the analyst; the interpretation of the here and now of the therapeutic relationship and of the hidden meaning of the interhuman relationship.
So summing up, with the ousting of the two psychiatrists in 1976, the institution reacted in defence of Freud and the violence of its reaction is understood only if we consider that unlike more recent cases which have often deteriorated into professional censorship or into trivial moralising, Freud's private or professional behaviour was not being attacked.
It was an attack on Freud's theory and method - and it was fatal.
In fact, the above mentioned critcisms made in 'The death istinct and knowledge' revealed the lack of theory and method in supporting the three fundamental aspects of what should, in our opinion, constitute the main function of a psychoanalytical society; therapy, professional training, research.
The conceptual absence of the idea of a healthy unconscious, strictly opposed to a perverse unconscious, was already fundamental to the historical failure of psychoanalysis as a form of therapy becoming locked into the structure of an abstract and technical profession.
Failing the therapy, that is not being able to propose to others and to oneself an hypothesis of transformation, the therapy becomes an acquistion of technique and of an invariable cultural code.
Personal analysis is sacrificed to didactic analysis, training becomes methodological and theoretic obedience or it becomes investiture, once seperated from the component of a cure.
The negation of a therapy and of a therapeutic activity which constitutes first of all the refusal of the pathology of others, is related to the negation of a therapy which is in the first instance a negation of one's own pathological dimensions. The negation of the therapist's work precedes the negation of the subsequent work of analysing. The outcome of analysis and therapy becomes therefore identification with the psychoanalyst and with the teacher.
At this point this identification brings about the third failure of the psychoanalytical society, pertaining to its repsonsibility to carry out research. This is perhaps its gravest error - having abdicated on research : believing one can stop at Freud.
One can fail, as the history of medicine shows, in producing successful therapy, but one cannot fail in one's duty to continue doing research. Otherwise the final outcome of training becomes technical repetition and not the creative evolution of knowledge; creating technicians, not researchers.


VI. - SETTING THE CHRONOLOGY RIGHT IS IMPORTANT FOR RESEARCH INTO THE UNCONSCIOUS

One outcome of the exercise in historical method hereby proposed consists in eradicating this shortfall in research into history whose existence we hypothesized about from the very start and in giving an exact description of an episode that occurred in the psychoanalytical movement.
We must, however, ask ourselves: Is there any point in offering this International Congress the history of such a marginal fact, such as the one recounted today?
Can the acquisition of the exact perception of such a fact go some way towards ensuring that historical research does not once again become a mere instrument of freudism or of a concept of the unconscious, even more regressive than the one represented by freudism itself? Can it challenge research into the unconscious to go beyond Freud?
We can answer these questions in the affirmative if we consider that the methodology we have proposed has as its main goal, not only the desire to establish the truth about a marginal and peripheral issue in the history of the psychoanalytical movement, but, through this, reach an accurate perception of a temporal sequence.
Having shown that the truth about the episode of 1976 is not the one indicated by freudian historiography, but the one arising from the reaction to the appearance in 1971 of a theory which sanctioned the surpassing of Freud implicates the possibility of establishing that 'the death of Freud' understood as a metaphor of a definitive surpassing of his theory, took place in 1971 and not in 1993.
This accuracy, given its limited and well defined role in establishing a true chronology of time, offers something of substantial interest to the whole psychoanalytical movement.
This accuracy allows us to set free the recognition of the unacceptability of Freudian theory from Grunbaum's propositions which endorse the impossibility of carrying out research into the unconscious, and to link it to the arguments contained in 'Instinct', thereby enabling research to take on new perspectives.
It's clear that following on from this, on the one hand, historical reserach can, once having liberated itself from freudianism and having produced a consciousness of the falsehoods contained therein, liberate itself even from the obligation of going back onto a regressive course. On the other hand, research into the unconscious can, by utilizing the results of historical research, go beyond freudian assertions.
In light of these conclusions, the intention which guides this convention, of uniting historiography and psychoanalysis, reveals its inherent significance and fecundity.

Bibliography

C. Anzilotti, La frode terapeutica, in "Il Sogno della Farfalla" II, 3, 1993.

C. Anzilotti, La formazione dello psicoterapeuta nella evoluzione del rapporto interumano, in "Il Sogno della Farfalla" I, 2, 1992.

L. A. Armando, Mito e realtà del ritorno a Freud, Armando Editore, Roma 1973.

L. A: Armando, Il pappagallo dei pirati, Armando Editore, Roma 1976.

L. A. Armando, Storia della psicoanalisi in Italia dal 1971 al 1996, Nuove Edizioni Romane, Roma 1997.

F. Crew, The Unknow Freud, in "The New York Review of Books" XI, 18, 1993.

G. Del Missier - G. Roccioletti, Rito, tecnica e metodologia in psicoterapia, in "Il Sogno della Farfalla" I, 2, 1992

G. Del Missier - Marcella Fagioli, Da Breuer a Freud: cento anni fa il fallimento di una psicoterapia laica. In "Il Sogno della Farfalla" II, 3, 1993.

M. Fagioli (1972), Istinto di morte e conoscenza, Nuove Edizioni Romane, Roma 1996.

M. Fagioli (1974), La marionetta e il burattino, Nuove Edizioni Romane, Roma 1991.

M. Fagioli (1975), Psicoanalisi della nascita e castrazione umana, Nuove Edizioni Romane, Roma 1995

M. Fagioli (1980), Bambino donna e trasformazione dell’uomo, Nuove Edizioni Romane, Roma 1996.

D. Fargnoli - M. Nardini, Il processo di trasformazione e il carattere del terapeuta, in "Il Sogno della Farfalla" I, 2, 1992.

P. Gray, Is Freud dead? The assault on Freud, in "Time international" XI, 29, 1993.

A. Grunbaum, Validation in the Clinical Theory of Psychoanalysis, International Un. Press, Madison 1993.

AA. VV., Il potere della psicoanalisi, Armando Editore, Roma 1974.

R. T. Lakoff - J. C. Coyne, Father knows best: the use and abuse of power in Freud’s case of "Dora", New York and London 1993.

S, Vegetti-Finzi (1986), Storia della psicoanalisi 1985-1995, Mondadori, Milano 1990.