The Clinical Case and the School

As J.-A. Miller once pointed out, the themes chosen for our congresses are an opportunity to present the case which is closest to our hearts. 

Of course, one may want to keep it to oneself. The reasons given are undeniable: it's too early, it's not yet finished…And then, my case is my case! And what if I am a beginner? In that case, I should give it a bit more time, etc. 

Lacan proposed the School to psychoanalysts as a place for the production and inscription of work. There, the work transference from one to the other is encouraged by all kinds of means. The preparation for the Congress is one of them. The desiring machine is set in motion! The argument is translated into many languages. The theme is studied in cartels. Texts are written for the blog. And finally, clinical contributions are solicited for the big day. 

The moment when we will meet to discuss cases is approaching. So, as we recalled at the Question of the School, if supervision is the elective place where the work transference is experienced, the parallel sessions at the Congress are part of this continuity. What these places have in common is that they maintain the desire to know, and therefore, the analyst's or practitioner's position as analysand. At the school of the case, each of us can try our hand at writing for the other, for others, in the perspective of a clinical and epistemic exchange.

I look forward to reading a case from you shortly.

Patricia Bosquin-Caroz, for the Congress organising committee, with Éric Zuliani, Monique Kusnierek, Marina Frangiadaki, Peggy Papada, Frédérique Bouvet, Philip Dravers, Eleni Koukouli, Cecilia Naranjo, Thomas Van Rumst and Natalie Wülfing.