Convivio Convivio Georges Georges Lapassade Bologna 9 to 10 May 2009 Posts Michel Georges Lobrot Note on the life of George Lapassade
By Michel Lobrot
Lapassade George was born in 1924. So he had twenty years after the Liberation (1944) and fifties (1974-1980) in the period following the events of 1968, full of turmoil and transformation. Both dates are in effect, in my opinion, the two turning points in his life, which led to significant changes in both its design and in its action.
The first release, is in his late teens, during which he was taken out of its original environment, thanks to important political decisions, especially through the government's decision to remove the Vichy colleges. ENS students are forced to integrate schools in the region and it is particularly well suited for Georges, who longs to reach out to young citizens of Pau and live the life of this great city.
This allows him to get out of his environment, to break with his family, later to graduate studies in Bordeaux and Montpellier, all of which meet its deepest aspirations.
This desire to break due to the way he was treated in his family, especially his father. He has spoken extensively in this book what the autobiographer base, at least in the Belgian edition of Duculot, 1978. It is surprising, even shocking, to note that this text, very hard and involved, has been redacted and sweetened, in the edition produced by Ivan Davy in 1997. George said, however, in 2007, he signed a publishing contract with Duculot (In sociological routes)
In the edition of 78 so he represents his father as a man who lobbied for him to succeed academically violence and that accesses a better condition than his. The father himself is quite well this new middle class, end of the peasantry, who is desperate to rise socially. Born in Béarn in the early 20 th century, the father goes up very quickly in Paris, where he tries to integrate into administration, first as a teacher, then in posts. He returned late in the Béarn, thirty years after the war of 14-18, married, had children and founded two successive small family crafts related to the peasantry (sawmill). It continues at the same time to engage in agriculture. In other words, it touches everything: administration, handicrafts, agriculture. It is moving towards dominance, which explains his leftist views, he also blithely betrays.
"I had to," he says in this edition, at any cost exams and pass if I did not want to return to live in the countryside and work on projects of my father "(p. 159) And again: "I learned when I was a child, the cost of examinations, the need to move thus if I did not want to bury myself in the deadly dull in a small village, not to become a farmhand, as my father did sometimes, and, later, did not remain a teacher in a village in the middle the almost universal hostility of the people "(p.27)
The father goes further repression. "My love for Maria," said George, gave things of life (....) Intensity that made them more real and staring back at me (...) My happiness did not last long. My father quickly intervened, one day he tore the picture of Maria I update my pillow. He forbade me to see her again (.... ) That day, I thought, my father destroyed my drive towards sexual freedom, intense bloom. He rejected me, perhaps with the intention of avoiding me fail in my contest, to another life I have always considered a life of suffering, of neurosis and failure "(p. 116 ) The result is not coming: "I'm afraid," said George, of all controls, and especially of collective life "(p.20)
Chance of George is that his decision to go to Paris , to higher education, to live another life has coincided precisely with when new ideas about life and love, new visions of social life, new practices appeared everywhere.
There is no end to list positive and happy meetings he could do in the years 1945-1960. First, psychoanalysis, he began to exit his homosexuality, but rather who depresses her, he continued until 1963. Then he met with eminent men such as Ferdinand Alquié George Canguihem, etc., which led him to write the aggregation in philosophy and writing his first book in the entrance life. Still the possibility that he returned to the INOP (National Vocational Training Institute in Paris) where he was introduced to contemporary psychology.
Finally and most importantly, what will most influence is his meeting with the new pedagogy, because it is taken as a music educator to the Renewal of Montmorency, where Ms. Francis Unger practice, with small Jewish children, educational methods extremely open and revolutionaries. In the process, he met the movement, newly arrived from the USA, group dynamics, which have a decisive impact on him.
Therefore, it is on orbit, at 30-35 years. It only remains to power, when he returned to the dormitory of Antony in the 60s, participate in activities of institutional change and social unrest. He agreed to do so with passion. At the same time he met Trotskyism, which it does not ever completely but influence.
Most important for the future is the movement of groups, from Kurt Lewin, which is where I met him in 1958. This movement opens very quickly on a sort of constructive anarchism, in which three fundamental values \u200b\u200bare: 1 - Interaction, 2 - Involvement, 3 - autonomy. It's actually a new conception of social life, based on the relationship and sharing. George
completely but it invests in its own way, which announces certain abuses taking place thereafter. What counts above all for him is the "straight talk", all say. He takes this practice to climax at a point where it is rejected almost everywhere, sometimes dramatically. Paradoxically, he realizes what his friend or foe Michel Foucault defines, in his lectures at the College de France in the 80s, as the ideology of Rome through graduate stoicism: the parrhésie. This term, which exists in Modern Greek (parrisia ") means a kind of passion for truth, pushing up the challenge.
I see, when we work together between 1960 and 1965, especially during the two meetings Royaumont making prowess in this direction. But it allows us to develop, during meetings held each week with a team, to define what we call "institutional pedagogy," the "institutional analysis". The term "institutional" means that we do not reduce us to an action on the "society" in general, but we want change the very places where we work, our immediate environment. Does this mean it that we identify ourselves with them, consider them as the sole objective? The issue is serious and will divide us.
It will happen to George in the years 1965-1975, a radical change, which will lead him to the forefront of values \u200b\u200bother than those I listed above. These new values, it will try to promote these actions abroad and eventually at the University Paris 8. Let us at once he puts in the foreground when the values \u200b\u200bof rebellion and change, often rejecting values \u200b\u200bthat had previously served.
This does not mean he completely abandons the spirit that had previously been theirs. It is not possible. It was marked by him and can not get rid of it completely. It will continue to excite the crowds with a charismatic power that comes largely from its commitment and transparency. Above all, his writing is moving towards greater involvement, which will bring him to produce deeply moving texts, such as those emerging from 1970: The Surveyor (1971) mess andalou (1971), the Devil's Horse (1974), Happy Tropics (1978) autobiography (in Duculot, 1978). He assumes his homosexuality and began completely bare. The works of this period are masterpieces.
The two directions that George has to reach from the years 71 and which led him to depart from its previous implications are as follows.
This first interest for trance, shamanism, hypnosis that will lead to write a series of scholarly books such as The essay on the trance (1976) , People of the shadow (1982), Altered states consciousness (1987), The Discovery of dissociation (1998).
The second direction, which appears in parallel, is centered on what is called institutional analysis. This is a new practice group, which may lead to the formation, consisting primarily to focus and sometimes exclusively on an analysis of the institutional context of the forces in the environment created. It gives rise to some methodological or explanatory titles: The analyzer and the analyst (1971), related to sociology (with R. Lourau) (1971) socioanalysis and Human Potential (1975), Prospects for institutional analysis (1988),
These two directions seem to proceed from a single source, namely point, strengthen, develop social practices, often very old, which lead to social disruption, to a denunciation of the dominant powers to a questioning of the reigning system. It is not only to foster the development of practices or open structures, as happened with the self, but truly shaping minds, solve a path mainly driven by negative exclusion in trance or termination in institutional analysis. What is at stake is the possibility of transformation of human beings by striking a little like surgery.
The first direction taken, when George met in 1965 in Tunisia, music stambali black, clear out the underlying options. George is impressed by the music of considerable strength, which is simultaneously the expression of disinherited people, oppressed, excluded. At first, it focuses on music, he wants to carry around. But he soon realizes that the music leads to trance states, he immediately puts in correspondence with the practices group he knows otherwise. Later, he will underlie the mechanisms acting in groups of human potential. It remains true to his first love, not realizing the importance that this loss of consciousness, changes it introduces.
In the works he produced thereafter on these topics, he covers all the historical cycle that runs from the trance of hypnosis and even dissociation. His prodigious scholarship allows him to give a synthetic view of these phenomena, unfortunately it bends according to his needs, that is to say with the desire to present them as role models, they are obviously not. For
they become role models, we must remove all that in them, too evokes forgetfulness, loss of critical thinking, suggestibility. So it goes in Altered states of consciousness, to propose a "cogito trance" as an underlying knowledge of all the phenomena involved, just as they occur. It is an impossibility. We can not evacuate the trance deprivation of critical activity, if not amnesia, failing to remove the trance itself.
Similarly, he pauses in his speech just before the time trance is transformed, by 1900, led by Janet, Bernheim, Binet, in readiness to accept suggestions, or hyper-suggestibility suggestibility. Yet these provisions show that the trance is really a waste of critical activity. Binet does he not, in Suggestibility (1900) to show the kids, and not non-hypnotized into a trance, are distributed according to their inclination to accept the suggestions. The trance is neither therapy nor evidence of evolution. It is especially in societies hyper closed, a safety valve extraordinary forgetfulness and escape from the social context.
The other direction taken, resulting in institutional analysis, claimed at the beginning of an inescapable reality: the need to resist or oppose the institutional context. It is indisputable that no work for the evolution of individuals can not avoid violating environmental standards, rules imposed repressive measures. This is but a first.
The idea of \u200b\u200bfocusing entirely on the institutional environment that imposed institutional analysis, can come only two types of people. Some are
people who are so obsessed with the constraint set that they can look at that. This is not far from paranoia.
Other, which includes George, are people who, adhering to the ideas of Durkheim, imagine that the context facing individuals, understood as the set of social stimuli to which they are exposed, producing the individuals, train them, educate them. This is a mechanistic psychology that all contradicted. Muslims today, who often live in modern societies with the most advanced technology, claim a prophet who lived there over a thousand years and regulate their conduct on his own. Social stimuli are actually filtered and distorted by internal psychological requirements as determined by specific influences arising from social currents. The framework does not play, as such, no part.
George in his book The analyzer and the analyst, do solemnly declare that he rejects the group dynamics as it seems unaware of the context, which is constantly there to skew, distort, move the group activities . This criticism, which reports directly to Durkheim, is ignoring the reality. The latter, which results to me by some forty years of practice shows that this is not the institutional context that distorts the current experiment but the personalities of people, reflecting influences very specific and targeted. I personally worked for several years in Franco's Spain, protected by UNESCO, and I met people who were far from being defined by the framework Franco. The work was not to detach them from the frame but to develop them through and often against their reference systems, which sometimes explained their attachment to the frame.
George, very inspired in this by R. Lourau, claims to have found a way to make this extraordinary institutional work. This is the method of the analyzers. The concept of parser is actually very confusing. When she claims to have scientific legitimacy, for example when Remi Hess sees the slavery of antiquity analyzer ancient societies, it just basically reveal for all to see something you prefer to hide or fans prefer to hide. It reveals nothing, doing. The English historian Finley, who has studied ancient slavery in a book that is authoritative, does not report less than six or seven theories that claim to account for the phenomenon. The method
analyzers proceeds from the "theory of suspicion." In any society or any group, there are things that leaders are hiding. It is sometimes useful to reveal them. However, the most dangerous things are not necessarily those that we seek. It may well, by provocation and arrogance displayed in the eyes of all the darkest intentions. Hitler did not hide his desire to exterminate the Jews.
I here by honesty, criticism of George. It did not do otherwise. Again, George especially taught us to shout the truth ....
And even from the submissions that I criticize, Georges ended by doubting and sometimes reject them. Several times, from the 80s, he expressed doubts about the value of institutional analysis. Regarding dissociation, he agreed in collective book we published together with P. Boumard, I support a thesis that is directly at odds with his own, namely the radical distinction between hysteria and trance.
George has often expressed as dogmatic, especially when his arguments proceeded inclinations personal. However, this is one side of him. What is the best, in my opinion, this is desperation on the one hand, these doubts, these questions about himself, which spread in his personal ledger of the 70s, especially in the autobiography, and on the other hand, his thesis on the incompletion: Entry in life. Nobody can claim to have reached maturity, achievement. You can always correct back to what was said. What is finished is finished.
Paris, April 2009.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
