Prior to the above, it had already been agreed by SfH that the Modality Working Group would include two representatives from The College.
Nevertheless, the result of the above comments was that your offer to include two representatives from The College was not honoured. Under normal circumstances, it would have been for us to decide who those two representatives should be. Atkinson and Barratt are indeed members of The College. However, they are members of the Modality Working Group, not as members of The College but in their capacity as members of the newly formed Council of Psychoanalysis and Jungian Analysis. Indeed, one of them has refused, even on an informal basis, to fully disclose to us the nature of some of the deliberations of the Working Group that he has attended, precisely because he is not there to represent The College. These two individuals are not authorised to speak on behalf of The College. Our intention was always to ensure that two members of the Board of Governors should represent us on the Modality Working Group. Neither Atkinson nor Barratt is a member of our Board.
It is very regrettable that, in deciding membership of the Modality Working Group, your organisation has obviously allowed itself to be influenced by the above statement which is highly partisan and tendentious as well as, possibly, defamatory of some of our members. The statement is also inaccurate and misleading. It is not true that The College is a principally Lacanian organisation, whatever that might be. Membership of The College is drawn from right across the profession of psychoanalysis and includes registrants of both UKCP and BPC. Neither is it true that The College and the Psychoanalytic Consortium are the same group under a different name. The College is a professional organisation whose membership comprises individual practitioners from across the entire spectrum of the diverse discipline of psychoanalysis. Our membership comprises practitioners, some of whom are registered with UKCP and others with BPC. Some are registered with both. The Psychoanalytic Consortium is a federation whose members comprise, not individual practitioners but some of the training organisations of UKCP only, except that The College is also an institutional member of that body.
Neither is it true to assert that either organisation is “deeply opposed to……….regulation”. We are, however, very concerned about and opposed to regulation by the state, along the lines that are currently being put forward. Our approach to any discussions would remain what it has always been, namely to look at any proposals openly and attempt to determine whether they are compatible with the discipline of psychoanalysis.
It is very worrying that SfH has, apparently without due scrutiny, allowed itself to be heavily influenced by Fonagy’s extraordinary views. Had you taken a more careful look at what he said and claimed, you would have realised that he is in fact disingenuous in what he states. For example, the attack on Lacan is entirely ad hominem.
Within the worldwide psychoanalytic community, Lacan is generally considered to be the most important psychoanalyst after Freud, Jung and Klein and his work is taught in almost every major psychoanalytic institution today. Throughout the world, Lacanian practitioners make up more than 60% of the psychoanalytic community. It is, therefore, nonsense to suggest, as Fonagy does, that his work does not form part of the international psychoanalytic movement. Lacan certainly left the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA) and yet, on an international scale, Lacanian training organisations today far outnumber those groups affiliated to IPA, which happens to be the particular body to which Fonagy is affiliated. It is worth observing here that an analyst such as Jung, who also parted company with the IPA, is today taught and closely followed by, amongst other organisations within the UK, the Society for Analytical Psychology, a leading member of BPC. Apparently, Fonagy and his kind do not hesitate to form alliances and sup with what they might otherwise consider to be the Devil, when it suits the pursuit of their political objectives.
