‌‌‌‌　　英：pass; 法：passe

‌‌‌‌　　在1967年，即在建立其精神分析学派 (SCHOOL)(巴黎弗洛伊德学派[Ecole Freudienne de Paris, 简称EFP])的三年之后，拉康又在他的学派中设立了一种新型的程序 (Lacan, 1967)。这项程序被称作“通过”，从本质上说，它是被设计出来以便允许人们证实其分析结束的一种制度性框架。其背后的主要思想在于拉康的如下论点：分析的结束 (END OF ANALYSIS)并非一种半神秘性的、无法言喻的经验，而必须（与精神分析的基本原则相一致）被链接或表达在语言之中。

‌‌‌‌　　此项程序如下：要寻求“通过”的人 (即“过者”[les passants])向此时必须处在分析中的两位证人 (即“渡者”[les passeurs])讲述他自己的分析与其分析的结束，继而再由这两位证人将这份证词（分别）转述给一个7人评审团 (其中的一些人皆已成功地亲身经历了“通过”)。然后，再由评审团基于这两份证词来决定是否准许候选人通过。没有任何预先建立的标准来指导评审团，因为“通过”所基于的原则便在于每个人的分析都是独特的。如果候选人取得了成功，他便会被授予“学派分析家”（Analyste de I'Ecole, 简称A.E.)的头衔。至于那些未能取得成功的候选人，如果他们还希望再度寻求通过的话，也不会遭到阻止。

‌‌‌‌　　通过作为一种手段被设计出来，以便某人可以寻求学派对于其分析结束的承认。通过并非一种强制性的过程：至于一位分析家是否决定要寻求通过，则完全取决于他自己。通过也不是从事分析实践的一种资格认证，因为“一个分析家的授权只能来自他自己”(Lacan, 1967; 见：训练[TRAINING])。“通过”也不是学派对于成员作为分析家的身份的承认，这一承认是由拉康学派中的另一项完全独立的措施来授予的，并且对应着“学派分析家成员”(Analyste Membre de I'Ecole, 简称A.M.E.)的头衔。它唯一承认的是某人的分析已然抵达了其逻辑的终点，而且此人也能够从这一经验中萃取出一种表述清晰的“知识”(savoir)。“通过”因而涉及的不是一种临床的功能，而是一种教学的功能：它是要证明“过者”有能力对其自身的精神分析治疗经验加以理论化，因而有能力对精神分析的知识做出贡献。

‌‌‌‌　　雅克-阿兰·米勒评论说，重要的是要区分 (1)作为一种制度程序的“通过”（如上所述）与 (2)作为分析结束的个人经验的“通过”，即从一位分析者变成一位分析家的过渡，这一过渡可以在该词的第一层意义上经由“通过”来加以证实 (Miller, 1977).

‌‌‌‌　　在1970年代，通过制度变成了巴黎弗洛伊德学派内部激烈争论的焦点。虽然有一些人支持拉康的见解，认为通过对于有关分析结束的知识可以产生一些重要的贡献，但是另一些人则批评它会导致分裂且难以实行。这些争论在巴黎弗洛伊德学派的最后几年里变得愈演愈烈，直至拉康在1980年解散了他的学派（见：Roudinesco, 1986)。在现今存在的各大拉康派组织中，有些组织已经抛弃了拉康的这项提议，而很多其他的组织则仍然把通过制度作为其结构的一个核心部分。

‌‌‌‌　　(passe)In 1967,three years after founding his SCHOOL of psychoanalysis (the Ecole Freudienne de Paris,or EFP),Lacan instituted a new kind of procedure in the School(Lacan,1967).The procedure was called the pass'and was essentially an institutionalframework designed to allow people to testify to the end of their analysis.The main ideabehind this was Lacan's argument that the END OF ANALYSIS is not a quasi-mystical,ineffable experience,but must be (in accordance with the basic principle ofpsychoanalysis)articulated in language.

‌‌‌‌　　The procedure was as follows: the person seeking the pass (le passant) tells twowitnesses (les passeurs), who must be in analysis at the time, about his own analysis andits conclusion, and these two witnesses then relay this account (separately) to a jury ofseven (some of whom have succesfully been through the pass themselves). The jury thendecides, on the basis of the two accounts, whether to award the pass to the candidate. There were no pre-established criteria to guide the jury, since the pass was based on theprinciple that each person's analysis is unique. If thethe candidate was successful, he wasaccorded the title of A.E.(Analyste de L'Ecole). Unsuccessful candidates were not to beprevented from seeking the pass again if they wished to do so.

‌‌‌‌　　The pass was designed to be the means by which a person might seek recognition bythe School of the end of his analysis. The pass was not an obligatory process; whether ornot an analyst decided to seek it was entirely up to him. It was not a qualification topractise analysis, since 'the authorisation of an analyst can only come from himself (Lacan, 1967:14)(see TRAINING). Nor was it a recognition by the School of themember's status as an analyst; this recognition was granted by another, whollyindependent means in Lacan's School, and corresponded to the title of A.M.E.(Analyste Membre de L 'Ecole). It was solely the recognition that a person's analysis had reached itslogical conclusion, and that this person could extract an articulated knowledge (savoir) from this experience. The pass thus concerns not a clinical function but a teachingfunction; it is supposed to testify to the capacity of the passant to theorise hisownexperience of psychoanalytic treatment, and thereby to contribute to psychoanalyticknowledge.

‌‌‌‌　　Jacques-Alain Miller comments that it is important to distinguish between (i) the passas an institutional procedure (as described above) and (ii) the pass as the personalexperience of the end of one's analysis, the passage from being an analysand to being ananalyst, which may be testified to by 'the pass'in the first sense of the term (Miller, 1977).

‌‌‌‌　　In the 1970s the institution of the pass became the focus of intense controversy withinthe EFP. While some supported Lacan's own views that the pass would yield importantcontributions to knowledge of the end of analysis, others criticised it for being divisiveand unworkable. These debates became even more heated in the final years of the EFP, before Lacan dissolved his School in 1980 (see Roudinesco, 1986). Of the various Lacanian organisations which exist today, some have abandoned Lacan's proposal, whilemany others retain the institution of the pass as a central part of their structure.