英：International Psycho-Analytical Association
国际精神分析协会 (PA)由弗洛伊德在1910年创立，是聚集了当时在世界各地纷纷涌现的各个精神分析学会的一个伞状组织。其总部最初设在苏黎世，尔后又迁至伦敦，但是随着大多数维也纳分析家移民至美国，该协会自1930年代以来便一直受其美国成员所主导。
在1953年，拉康退出了隶属国际精神分析协会的巴黎精神分析学会 (Societe Psychanalytique de Paris, 简称SPP)并加入了新建的法国精神分析学会（Societe Francaise de Psychanalyse, 简称SFP), 此后拉康便被书面告知这也就意味着他不再是国际精神分析协会的成员。自此时起，一直到拉康逝世，他与国际精神分析协会都是势不两立的。在法国精神分析学会随后争取国际精神分析协会的成员资格（拉康似乎是对此支持的）期间，拉康被国际精神分析协会看作阻碍谈判的首要障碍。争端的主要原因是拉康对于弹性时间会谈 (sessions of variable duration, 或译作“可变时长会谈”)的使用，尽管国际精神分析协会再三警告，他都仍然继续此种实践。最终，在1963年，国际精神分析协会虽然同意把成员资格授予法国精神分析学会，但条件是剥夺拉康作为训练性分析家 (training analyst)的身份。法国精神分析学会内部的很多领导级分析家均已点头同意，然而这对很多其他分析家（包括拉康在内）而言是不可接受的。拉康随即退出了法国精神分析学会，其他的一些分析家和受训者也随之离开，拉康在1964年建立了他自己的学派 (SCHOOL)。从此时起，拉康在自己对于国际精神分析协会的批评中就变得愈发畅所欲言，他谴责国际精神分析协会是某种教会，并且把他自己的命运和斯宾诺莎遭到犹太教的“逐出教会”的命运相类比 (S11,3-4).
拉康同时批评了国际精神分析协会的制度结构及其主导的理论趋向。关于制度结构，他指责其官僚主义的程序只能造就出一批庸才，并且嘲讽其陈腐的等级制度 (Ec, 47486)。拉康认为，弗洛伊德之所以会用这样一种方式来组织国际精神分析协会，是因为这是确保他的理论在受尽其首批追随者的误解之后，仍然能完好地留待后来者（即拉康）发掘并复兴的唯一方式。换句话说，国际精神分析协会就如同一座坟墓，其唯一的功能即在于保存弗洛伊德的学说，尽管协会的成员们对此皆毫不知情，而这意味着，一旦拉康给弗洛伊德的学说注入了新的生命，国际精神分析协会也就断然不再具有任何有效的功能了 (见：Lacan, 1956a)。比这更加重要的是拉康对于国际精神分析协会的训练 (TRAINING)程序的批评，弗洛伊德强调文学与文化研究方面的教海是有必要的，拉康谴责国际精神分析协会的训练程序忽视了这一点 (Ec, 473), 并且他还指责国际精神分析协会把训练性分析化约成了一种纯粹的仪式。拉康用以组织他自己学派的那些特定的组织结构，诸如“卡特尔”与“通过”等，便皆是旨在保证这一学派不会重复国际精神分析协会的这些错误。
在理论层面上，针对国际精神分析协会中的所有主要理论趋向，包括克莱因派精神分析与对象关系理论在内，拉康也提出了各种各样的批评，但他最持久也最深刻的那些批评，却留给了1950年代在国际精神分析协会中取得主导地位的自我心理学（EGO-PSYCHOLOGY)流派。拉康谴责国际精神分析协会背离了弗洛伊德的那些最根本的洞见，他将其更名为“反分析话语互助会”(Societéd'assistance mutuelle contre le discours analytique, SAMCDA; 见：Lacan, 1973a:27),并且把这一背叛主要归咎于国际精神分析协会由美国主导的事实 (见：c因素[FACTOR C])。拉康将他自己的教学看作对于国际精神分析协会所背离的这些洞见的某种回归(见：回到弗洛伊德[FREUD,RETURN TO])。
The international Psycho-Analytical Association (IPA) was founded by Freud in 1910 asan umbrella group for the various psychoanalytic societies that were springing up aroundthe world at that time. The first headquarters were in Zurich, and later moved to London, but the Association has been dominated by its American members ever since the 1930s, when most of the Viennese analysts emigrated to the United States.
After resigning from the IPA-affiliated Societe Psychanalytique de Paris (SPP) in1953, to join the newly founded Societe Francaise de Psychanalyse (SFP), Lacan wasinformed by letter that this also meant that he was no longer a member of the IPA. Fromthat moment on until his death, Lacan and the IPA were at loggerheads. During the SFP'ssubsequent campaign for IPA membership (which Lacan seems to have supported) Lacanwas regarded by the IPA as the principal obstacle blocking negotiations. The main boneof contention was Lacan's use of sessions of variable duration, which he continued topractise despite repeated IPA admonitions. Eventually, in 1963, the IPA agreed to grant membership to the SFP on condition that Lacan be stripped of his status as a traininganalyst. Many of the leading analysts in the SFP agreed, but to many others (including Lacan) this was unacceptable. Lacan resigned from the SFP and, followed by a number ofother analysts and trainees, founded his own SCHOOL in 1964. From this point on,
Lacan became much more vocal in his criticism of the IPA, accusing it of being a kind ofchurch and comparing his own fate to Spinoza's 'excommunication'from the synagogue (S11,3-4). Lacan criticised both the institutional structure and the dominant theoretical tendenciesof the IPA. As regards the institutional structure, he accused its bureaucratic proceduresof producing nothing but mediocrities, and mocked its stuffy hierarchies (Ec, 474-86). Lacan argued that Freud had organised the IPA in such a way because this was the onlyway of assuring that his theories, misunderstood by all his first followers, would remainintact for someone else (Lacan) to disinter and resuscitate later on. The IPA, in otherwords, was like a tomb whose only function was to preserve Freud's doctrine despite theignorance of the members of the association, the implication being that once Lacan hadbreathed new life into the doctrine, the IPA no longer had any valid function at all (see Lacan, 1956a). Even more important than this were Lacan's criticisms of the IPATRAINING programme, which he accused of ignoring Freud's emphasis on the need forinstruction in literary and cultural studies (Ec, 473), and for reducing the training analysisto a mere ritual. The specific organisational structures on which Lacan organised his ownschool, such as the cartel and the pass, were aimed at ensuring that this school did notrepeat these errors of the IPA.
On a theoretical level, Lacan levelled various criticisms at all the main theoreticaltendencies in the IPA, including Kleinian psychoanalysis and object-relations theory, buthis most sustained and profound criticisms were reserved for the school of EGO-PSYCHOLOGY which had achieved a dominant position in the IPA by the 1950s. Heaccused the IPA of having betrayed Freud's most fundamental insights, renaming it theSAMCDA (societe d'assistance mutuelle centre le discours analytique, or society formutual assistance against analytic discourse-Lacan, 1973a:27), and attributed thisbetrayal largely to the fact that the IPA was dominated by the USA (see FACTOR c). Lacan regarded his own teaching as a retumn to the insights that the IPA had betrayed (see FREUD, RETURN TO)