The idea of a long lasting crisis, already announced in other sociohistorical contexts (Arendt, 1958) shapes the contemporary family and school education system. It manifests itself today in the form of new education challenges characterized by the weakening of educational authority, intergenerational limits (Korff-Sausse, 2007), the horizontality of relationships between adults and children, and the loss of landmarks and values. Intra-familial bonds have become solid ties that appear as strong projections, passion for children, or violence during adolescence. The school crisis itself is marked by false tension between the  mandate to educate and the mandate to instruct, between knowledge and skills (Blais, Gauchet, Ottavi, 2008) as if at school it were possible to forgo educational knowledge necessary to satisfy the desire for subjectification  of the new generations (Recalcati, 2014).Our clinical work with both education professionals and adolescents brings us to the conclusion that we are facing a new malaise (Käes, 2012) linked to the problem of exclusion. This takes the form of chronic unavailability to another, virtual relations, being alone together (Turkle, 2015) and the illusion of becoming/belonging to a group via social networks. Exclusion also involves the manifestation of phobic traits. These include the rejection of Otherness, for instance the lack of acceptance of a disabled person or the discrimination by educators against children and/or their parents depending on their ethnic origin. One only needs to consider the tensions in Europe around the inclusion of refugees (Aktar, 2003). Exclusion generally manifests itself through the violence of raw, unprocessed, pervasive emotions in public discourse that stigmatize minorities and promote extremist positions (Civitarrese, 2011). As if, in the end, we could no longer tolerate the Other's face, Levinas's first ethical experience (Levinas, 1982).We also witness the refusal to acknowledge the legacies and traumas that come from the individual and collective past (Gaillard, 2015) This illusory position of the ego, outside of the recognition of its place as subject of  a group, is parallel to the crisis of institutions and the turmoil of their deinstitutionalization (Correale, 2006).Our communication proposal is based on an interpretation of individual and collective unconscious phenomena that takes into account a psychoanalytic and social understanding of the subject. The dialogue between education and psychoanalysis appeared revolutionary from the outset (Ulivieri-Stiozzi, 2013), because it unearthed the relation between the pressure to conform and individual suffering (Cifali and Moll, 1985, West, Bainbridge, 2012). Today don’t we risk to betray the fruit of this intellectual and ethical heritage if we don’t acknowledge its most ordinary manifestation, the most banal –to go back to Arendt– which consists of the eviction/evacuation of Otherness?The issue of exclusion/inclusion cannot be understood solely as a moral problem, that follows the Kantian imperative to act out of duty. Education professionals and teenagers alike made us hear their desire: the need for an ethic based on the notion of the common good (Zaltzman, 1999, Samuels, 2015), a sovereign good that breaks free from narcissism and crisis, as well as the multiple injunctions of our times.

We propose to explore this issue examining the other side of dominant ideology within institutions using our experience of clinical processes and analysis of educational practices.We have built what we call third-party spaces in institutions to support the users –whether professionals or middle school teenagers– invaded by doubt or distress. These spaces allow them to practice relating to others and understanding Otherness, questioning what makes them exclude and the conditions of inclusion.We will present concrete situations to demonstrate how these processes support the teams and contribute to the development of the capacity to recognize the place and the figure of the Other while promoting professional identification within the group.Our communication will firstly establish a comparison between clinical processes developed in educational institutions aiming to establish working time-spaces and collective groups: Bionian inspired supervision groups (Bion, 1961), practice analysis groups inspired by Balint (Blanchard-Laville and Fablet, 1996, Balint, 1966), groups mediated by writing or graphics and adolescent talking groups (Gavarini, 2017).This international discussion is based on a comparison between Italy and France. It is part of the European Strategic Partnership EducEurope, of which we are leaders and participants. This partnership was born of an observation shared by researchers and education professionals in the four countries involved (France, Italy, Luxembourg, United Kingdom) about the so-called education crisis. It responds to a scientific and methodological affinity between the research teams, based on clinical research. This psychoanalytically oriented work takes into account individual subjectivities and singularities as well as institutional facts in their historical manifestations. Beyond highlighting the specificities of each process and ensuing cross-pollination, we will present our communication as a dialogue between theoretical references and methodological tools drawn from our experience training educators and/or counseling work (Clarke & Hoggett , 2009).We will examine the role of the researcher/trainer in the group process highlighting the emotional and integrative dynamics, the counter-transference, which gets activated by the connection to the thought processes of the group. The ability to be in the present, "without memory or desire”, obviously does not concern only therapists, but also researchers who use research methodologies inspired by psychoanalysis (Hollway, 2008, Cliopsy 2017). We will see how and when a researcher can work on him/herself beyond the group’s culture to highlight Otherness and alterity (Skogstad, 2004).

Drawing on the EducEurope project, we will examine how, stimulated by transnational comparison and intercultural and trans-disciplinary work, we can question the training and support methods of education professionals, so that they are better able to recognize the processes of exclusion and develop a position that respects the singularity of the Other. Our communication proposal is fully in line with this and aims at clarifying the following questions: 1. What are the epistemologies that guide the clinical work of educational teams in both Italy and France? 2. What are the psychoanalytic theories and authors that direct us while accompanying the teams in re-elaborating their emotions (affects, aggressiveness, phobia and hatred of the other). How to institute the reintegration of otherness as a necessary tool to improve social and educational bonds on the teams? 3. What models of observation inspired by psychoanalytic sensibility such as listening and self-listening encourage the process of elaboration of emotional and inclusive dynamics on the teams? 4. What are the main processes through which a group is supported to become proactive and create space for Otherness? 5. How do we bring together the individual psyche, the group and the institution?

AKTAR, S. (2003). Disumanizzazione: origini, manifestazioni e rimedi, in Varvin, S., Volkan, V.D (2003). Violenza o dialogo? Insight psicoanalitico su terrore e terrorismo, Rivista di Psicoanalisi-Monografie, Roma, Borla, (trad.it., 2006). ARENDT, H. (1958). « Crisis in Education », Partisan Review. In Arendt, H. La crise de la culture. Paris: Gallimard (trad. fr.1989). BALINT, M. (1957). Le médecin, son malade et la maladie. Paris : Payot, (trad.1966). BION W. (1961). Esperienze nei gruppi, Armando, Roma, (trad.it. 1971). BLAIS, M.-C., Gauchet, M. et Ottavi, D. (2008). Conditions de l’éducation. Paris : Stock. BLANCHARD-LAVILLE, C. & Fablet, D. (1996). L’Analyse des pratiques professionnelles. Paris : L’Harmattan. CIFALI, M., MOLL, J. (1985). Pédagogie et psychanalyse, Paris, Dunod. CIVITARRESE, G. (2011) La violenza delle emozioni. Bion e la psicoanalisi postbioniana, Milano: Cortina. CLARKE, S. & HOGGETT, P (Eds.) (2009). Researching beneath the surface. Psycho-social research methods in practice, London: Karnak. CORREALE A. (2006). Area traumatica e campo istituzionale, Roma, Borla. GAVARINI, L. (2017). Des groupes de parole avec les adolescents : à la recherche d’une parole « autre ». In L.-M. Bossard (Ed.), Clinique d’orientation psychanalytique. Recherches en éducation et formation. Paris : L’Harmattan. GAILLARD, G. L’institution, le «bien commun» et le «malêtre» in Kaës, R. (Ed), Crises et traumas à l’épreuve du temps. Le travail psychique dans les groupes, le couple et les institutions, Paris : Dunod. HOLLWAY, W. (2008). The importance of relational thinking in the practice of psycho-social research: ontology, epistemology methodology and ethics. In Clarke, S. Hahn- Hoggett, P. (Eds.). Object Relations and Social Relations: the implications of the relational turn in psychoanalysis, London: Karnac. KÄES, R. (2012). Le malêtre. Paris : Dunod. KORFF SAUSSE, S. (2006). Plaidoyer pour l’enfant-roi. Paris : Fayard. LEVINAS, E., (1982). Ethique et infini, dialogues avec Philippe Nemo. Paris : Fayard. RECALCATI, M. (2014). L’ora di lezione, Torino, Einaudi. SAMUELS, A. (2015). A new therapy for politics, London, Karnac. SKOGSTAD, W. (2004).«Psychoanalytic observation: the mind as a research instrument». Organisation and Social Dynamics, 4,1. TURKLE, S. (2011). Seuls ensemble. De plus en plus de technologies, de moins en moins de relations humaines. Paris : Editions l'échappée (2015). ULIVIERI-STIOZZI, S. (2013), Sàndor Ferenczi educatore. Eredità pedagogica e sensibilità clinica, Milano, FrancoAngeli. WEST, L. & BAINBRIDGE, A. (2012). Psychoanalysis and education: minding the gap, London: Karnac. ZALTZMAN, N. (1998). De la guérison psychanalytique, Paris : PUF.