Clinical analysis : 1956 : Maurice Bouvet

by Julia Evans on January 1, 1956

Published in English

M. Bouvet, Clinical Analysis, The Object Relationship, 1956 :

p19-77 of Psychoanalysis of Today : Compiled by S. Nacht : Edited by Ruth Emma Roman : Grune & Stratton 1959 : London & New York

Translated by R. J. Hilton.

Available at  /authors a-z & authors by date

Note: The English translation is an edited version and misses some clinical details.

Published in French

M. Bouvet, La clinique psychanalytique, la relation d’objet, p. 41-121 of

La psychanalyse d’aujourd’hui, Work published under the direction of S. Nacht in collaboration with M. Bouvet, R. Diatkine, A. Doumic, J. Favreau, M. Held, S. Lebovici, P.Luquet, P. Luquet-Parat, P. Male, J. Mallet, F. Pasche, M. Renard, Preface by E. Jones

and J. de Ajuriaguerra, G. Bordarracco, M. Benassy, A. Berge, M. Bonaparte, M. Fain, P. Marty, P.C. Racamier, M. Schlumberger, S. Widerman ; P.U.F ; 1956

Available at  /authors a-z or authors by date

Quoted by Jacques Lacan

– See Seminar IV : The Object Relation & Freudian Structures 1956-1957 : begins 21st November 1956 : Jacques Lacanor here

Seminar IV : 21st November 1956 : See Notes & References for Jacques Lacan’s Seminar IV : 21st November 1956  by Julia Evans on 28th February 2017 or here  &

Seminar IV : 28th November 1956 : See  Notes & references for Jacques Lacan’s Seminar IV : 28th November 1956 by Julia Evans on 2nd July 2017 or here   

– See The Direction of the Treatment and the Principles of its Power:10th-13th July 1958 : Jacques Lacan : Quotations & Notes here

See footnote [21] on p72 & p13, p23-25  of Cormac Gallagher’s translation, P.D.A. : p51-52 (on “pregenitals” and “genitals”), passim (on the strengthening of the ego and its method), p102 (on distance from the object, principle of a method of treatment)


Commentary on Maurice Bouvet’s case of Obsessional Neurosis (Seminar IV) : a reconstruction of the case by Julia Evans  on 15th June 2017 : See here

Related Texts

 * Other texts from the Sacha Nacht Collection

 * Clinical analysis : 1956 : Maurice Bouvet or here

 * Evolution de la psychanalyse : 1956 : Maurice Bénassy  or here

 * La Psychanalyse des Enfants : 1956 : Serge Lebovici, René Diatkine, Jean Alphonse Favreau. Patrick Luquet et Catherine Luquet-Parat [J. Luquet-Parat]  or  here

 * La thérapeutique psychanalytique (Psychoanalytic Therapy) : 1956 : Sacha Nacht  or  here  

Importance du rôle de la motricité : 13th November 1954 (Paris) : Pierre Marty & Michel Fain or here

Historical perspective:

Originally in French, in a collection of studies published by Dr S. Nacht by the Bibliotheque De L’Institut de Psychanalyse de Paris.

The relation of Sacha Nacht to Jacques Lacan

-Commentaries on Jacques Lacan & Sacha Nacht

See here, in the end note, or below for a historical perspective of Jacques Lacan’s relationships with this group.

What is concealed by the so-called “Cht” and why? : 9th March 2019 : Réginald Blanchet or here

– Adapted from ‘Chronology’ : p209 to 211 of Dany Nobus: ‘Jacques Lacan and the Freudian Practice of Psychoanalysis’: Routledge: 2000:

1952, Summer:  Sacha Nacht (1901-1977), president of the SPP, presents his views on the organization of a new training institute (Institut de Psychanalyse).

1952, December:  Nacht resigns as director of the Institute, and Lacan is elected new director ad interim.

1952-1953:  Lacan’s seminar on Freud’s case of the Rat Man.

1953, 20 January:  Lacan is elected president of the SPP.

Creation of the Société Française de Psychanalyse (SFP) by Daniel Lagache (1903-1972), Françoise Dolto (1908-1988) and Juliette Favez-Boutonnier (1903-1994); Lacan joins soon after.

Then …

1959, July: the SFP renews its request for affiliation to the IPA. Nomination of a committee of enquiry.

1961, August: the SFP is accepted as an IPA Study Group on the condition that Lacan and Dolto are progressively removed from their training positions.

1963, August: the IPA stipulates that the SFP will lose its status if Lacan continues to be involved in training matters.

1963, 19 November:  a majority of SFP members decide to accept the IPA recommendation.

Commented on by Jacques Lacan

in Seminar IV: 21st November 1956, Seminar IV : 12th December 1956,  & Direction of the Treatment : 10th to 13th July 1958


Seminar IV : The Relation of Object and Freudian Structures 1956-1957 : from 21st November 1956 : Jacques Lacan or here

The Direction of the Treatment and the Principles of its Power:10th-13th July 1958 : Jacques Lacan : Information & availability here

References to Jacques Lacan & Edward Glover in Maurice Bouvet’s text:

P42: Jacques Lacan

This is what is meant by saying that the parental images are undifferentiated and that, under an oedipal form, the subject has a one-one relationship with a phallic personage. This is how fixation and regression are connected in fact. That small part of the ego that was going ahead, as it were, toward a better adapted, more objective form of organization can only revert to that form of organization in which the greater part of the personality is fixed. In reality, things are infinitely more complicated, and we ought to emphasize the alleviation of the relational situation by the mere fact that the father is involved as a distinct object (mediatory effect of father; Lacan) .

When regression intervenes, then, the whole personality is brought back to the anal-sadistic type of organization.

P48: Edward Glover

In this way, his relationships with other human beings appeared normal at the cost of an extremely rigid, defensive isolation, and his relationships with symbolic persons (his obsessions) were pathologic in a less controlled, and therefore more valid because dynamic, fashion.

Such a regression, as Glover has justly remarked, not only protects the subject from the inherent difficulties of the oedipal situation but also restores the subject to a perfectly tried and true mode of contact with the world.

p66 : Edward Glover

A close connection exists between perverse and neurotic organizations of the psyche. There is no difference in nature between the perverse ego and the neurotic ego, and the problem always remains the same : how to organize the object relationship. But there remains one aspect of the question to which I should like to draw attention. As Glover pointed out in 1933, the existence of a perversion favors the conservation of a certain sense of reality. It represents a periodic attempt to struggle against introjection, and the projection of anxiety by excessive libidinization. Sometimes this is directed against the parts of the body of the subject or the object threatened with destruction. According to Glover, “Libidinization is one of the primitive cures for fear, for it obliterates the imaginary deformations of reality caused by fear.” If I understand this remark correctly, it is only to the extent that the patient can exhaust the regressive instinctual tensions and the accompanying conflicts within a significant object relationship which is limited to the system of the perversion or addiction that an apparently objective view of reality is possible.

NOTE : The probably refers to The relation of perversion-formation to the development of reality-sense : 7th September 1932 (Wiesbaden) [1933] : Edward Glover or here


Julia Evans

Practicing Lacanian Psychoanalyst London & Sandwich, Kent


If links to any required text do not work, check If a particular text or book remains absent, contact Julia Evans.


Further posts:

Some Lacanian history  here

Of the clinic  here

By Sigmund Freud here

Notes on texts by Sigmund Freud  here

By Jacques Lacan here

Notes on texts by Jacques Lacan here

Translation Working Group here

By Maurice Bouvet here

By Francis Pasche here

By Michel Renard here

By Michel Fain here

By Pierre Marty here

By Julia Evans here