This neologism will seem excessive and will struggle to offset our difficult position in having to renounce the signification of belonging to “the communion”—a term that is limited to our relation to God—to the advantage of “communitarianism” whose inflection will spontaneously annex all authoritarianisms.
The proof is that psychoanalytic communities will rarely make a point of debating or of struggling with [se debattre] whom or what constitutes authority for them: thus an affair of the signifier.
It is evident, nonetheless, that what assembles them, and is supposed to make them assemble, is the Real, which may have no other name than that of their very group. This is the only means of hearing the nothing that communitarianises them, even if it is necessary for at least one of them if not each one, to found his or her saying from it, and for its authority to be recognised from it.
Without this, the plague—of the equilibrium of course—oscillates between the saids of the diverse varieties of neuroses, or the dogmatism imposed by the charisma of him or her.