What kind of discipline is psychoanalysis?

Current controversies involving clinical, conceptual and empirical research shed light on how psychoanalysis confronts its nature and its future. Some relevant debates in which Wallerstein, Green, Hoffman, Eagle and Wolitzky, Safran, Stern, Blass and Carmeli, and Panksepp have participated are examined regarding the characteristics of their argumentation. Agreements and disagreements are explored to find ways that could have allowed the discussion to progress. Two foci are highlighted in these debates: (a) whether a clinical common ground exists in psychoanalysis and what kind of procedure could contribute to further clarification; (b) complementation of in‐clinical and extra‐clinical evidence. Both aspects are scrutinized: the possibility of complementing diverse methodologies, and the nature of the shared clinical evidence examined in clinical discussion groups such as those promoted by the IPA Clinical Observation Committee. The importance of triangulation and consilience is brought to bear regarding their contribution to the robustness of psychoanalysis. So as to strengthen a critical perspective that enhances the discipline's argumentative field, psychoanalysis should take into account arguments from different sources according to their specific merits. By doing this, psychoanalysis increases its relevance within the current interdisciplinary dialogue.     

Erich Fromm's Role in the Foundation of the IFPS: Evidence from the Erich Fromm Archives in T bingen

First the role is discussed that Erich Fromm played in the foundation of the International Federation of Psychoanalytic Societies (IFPS) according to the documents and correspondence kept in the Fromm Archives in Tübingen (Germany). In the second part the perhaps more interesting question is discussed of what personally motivated Fromm to initiate and to establish a federation of psychoanalytic societies outside of the International Psycho-Analytical Association (IPA). Although the reasons and motivations for Fromm's initiative are in the first line historical they nevertheless have some impact on the present. Therefore, in a final section, Fromm's understanding of psychoanalysis is discussed as a challenge for the IPA as well as for the IFPS.     

Controversies and Conflicts in the Institution of "Open" Psychoanalysis: Cases from the History of the Therapeia Foundation

The institution of psychoanalysis has included controversies, dissensions and expulsions at both the theoretical-methodological and personal-organizational levels. There have also been several intra- and intergroup conflicts in the history of psychoanalysis, and in constructing and patterning the future of psychoanalytic knowledge. In the context of Finnish psychoanalysis, the Therapeia Foundation (founded in 1958) met from the start with resistance from official psychiatry and also from the IPA. For example, in the mid-1960s, D. W. Winnicott, as the President of the IPA, supported the orthodox Finnish psychoanalytic study group (later to become the Finnish Psychoanalytical Society), and pronounced that the Therapeia group was too loose and was not strictly able to use the IPA-recognized designation "psychoanalytic." The Therapeia Foundation and its Training Seminar combined classical psychoanalysis and its new versions with existentialphenomenological views, anthropological medicine, research on "social pathology" and even modern theological research. On the basis of their Swiss analytic training, three Finnish psychiatrists, Martti Siirala, Kauko Kaila and Allan Johansson, organized Therapeian training to incorporate sciences and arts, and skills involving the therapeutic "carrying" of burdens. The multifacted nature of open psychoanalysis was seen to find its proper organizational expression when the Training Seminar of the Therapeia Foundation became, in 1974, a Member of the IFPS.     

In all questions, my interest is not in the individual people but in the analytic movement as a whole. It will be hard enough here in Europe in the times to come to keep it going. After all, we are just a handful of people who really have that in mind

The paper tries to deal with the difficult and at times contradictory decisions that the then leaders of the IPA, S. Freud, A. Freud, E. Jones etc. had to adopt as whether or not to clearly inform the readers of Die Internationale Zeitschrift für Psychoanalyse and the International Journal of Psychoanalysis, the official scientific periodicals of the IPA, of the tragic events concerning first the German Psychoanalytic Society and then the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society and the newborn Italian Psychoanalytic Society and other European psychoanalytic societies during the years 1933-1945. Because of the anti-Jewish persecution by the Nazi and fascist regimes the IPA had to face the extremely difficult task of helping its Continental Jewish members to emigrate to the USA, Great Britain and other countries in order to save their lives and to allow psychoanalysis to survive, with enormous radical consequences for the scientific and sociocultural future developments of the discipline.The following notes are dedicated to those non-Aryans and Aryans who could not find a proper rescue and whose graves became the wind which scattered the ashes of their bodies with the smoke coming out of the chimneys of the Nazi gas chambers.     

IUSAM-APdeBA: A higher education institute for psychoanalytic training

The history of the last century shows the almost constant presence of psychoanalysis in the academic setting and, simultaneously, the incredible absence of analytic training at the universities. This paper outlines the project of the Buenos Aires Psychoanalytic Association (APdeBA) to create a higher education institution of its own (IUSAM) specifically aimed at lodging psychoanalytic training within a university setting. The project was approved by the Argentine educational authorities in 2005 and received the economic support of the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA). The academic structure of the university is described, whose goal is broadened to the interdisciplinary field of mental health with psychoanalysis as an integrating axis. Some of the characteristics of the traditional 'university model' as well as its relationship with psychoanalysis are pointed out. With the IUSAM, psychoanalytic training is not included as a part of an already established university, it rather creates a new one, with the support of a well-known psychoanalytical association (APdeBA) which endorses its activities and guarantees its identity. IPA's requirements for analytic training (didactic analysis, supervisions and seminars) have been fully preserved in this new context. Finally, some of the advantages and disadvantages of including analytic training into an academic environment are listed .     

Chapter 1: Healing the Healer’s Art: A Letter to My Professors

ABSTRACT

This article seeks to articulate a problem I’ve noticed in the field of psychoanalysis—namely, the problem of closed-mindedness and reluctance to tolerate the coexistence of contradictory truths. I believe this problem is inhibiting the field from reaching its full potential to heal and continue to discover effective methods of healing. I call upon psychoanalysts and students of psychoanalysis to confront their own biases and attempt to open their minds to the possibility that all schools of psychoanalysis (i.e., Freudian, Kleinian, Kohutian, Jungian, etc.), as contradictory as their teachings and methods may seem, teach valid truths and valuable insights, the knowledge of which can only help us to become better healers. Essentially, the more we open our minds and welcome ideas from all subgenres of psychoanalysis, the more tools we have in our toolbox, and the better we will be able to treat our patients. If we insist that one school of psychoanalysis is superior, and reject the validity of differing viewpoints—if we are caught up in pride and the politics of our field, we are ultimately doing ourselves, our colleagues, and our patients a disservice.     

MAX EITINGON AND THE STRUGGLE TO ESTABLISH AN INTERNATIONAL STANDARD FOR PSYCHOANALYTIC TRAINING (1925‐1929)2

This paper deals with the first years of the IPA's International Training Commission (ITC). The author begins by outlining the Berlin model of training, including some less familiar aspects, and he describes how the foundation of the ITC in 1925 was designed for promoting the general establishment of institutionalised training according to this pioneer model. In relation to lay analysis, he highlights the issue of central power versus local autonomy with regard to admission policy. The latter part of the narrative is devoted to an ITC subcommittee (‘Eitingon Committee’), appointed in 1927, which tried to formulate training guidelines for the whole IPA, again with a clear Berlin profile. The discussion of the draft of these guidelines among all branch societies (with Freud himself participating) revealed some interesting disagreements, while the ‘closed’ nature of the system, as opposed to what later came to be called an ‘open system’, was hardly challenged. The initiative failed, apparently through American opposition, but essentially because of the developmental gap between local societies as to the institution of specialised psychoanalytic training. The paper is based largely on unpublished material and also provides some information about Max Eitingon, the least well known of the early leaders of psychoanalysis.     

Psychoanalysis and change: Between curiosity and faith1

The IPA recently announced that it now recognized three sessions per week as a valid frequency for psychoanalytic treatment. From the debate that has ensued over the problems this decision is expected to cause, important insights can be gained into the current crisis of identity affl icting psychoanalysis. Technical aspects of therapy that were once considered peripheral have gradually acquired the status of core theoretical parameters. Freud was a man of science who was concerned with universal human phenomena. His disagreements with followers such as Jung and Adler centred on the major theoretical issues of the sexual nature of the libido and the existence of the unconscious. It is also interesting to note that Freud never distinguished between psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy. Where he did make a distinction, it was between psychoanalysis and the consciousness‐based psychotherapies, or those that used suggestion as a major tool. When the point has been reached where the frequency of sessions or the use of a couch is used to defi ne whether a treatment is psychoanalytic, some consideration of whether the right direction is being pursued is called for. A serious risk is being run of sacrifi cing our spirit of curiosity for the sake of tradition, becoming more concerned with repeating the formal aspects of practice than with the real purpose of psychoanalysis, the investigation of the most profound workings of human nature.     

What's Possible? What Matters? Reply to Commentaries

The three discussants agree that a definition of psychoanalysis tied to session frequency is problematic and needs to change. Yet none supports my recommendation to redefine the practice of psychoanalysis in terms of the practitioner's training. This prompted me to look more closely at my proposal and push my thinking further. I argue that psychoanalysis, like many other professions, needs to define its practice as the application of its complex and evolving knowledge and skill base, grounded in its unique field of inquiry. Although there are individual exceptions, the inculcation of this knowledge and skill base is generally best accomplished through psychoanalytic training. This assertion, however, rests on the premise that our training curricula keep pace with our rapidly evolving field of inquiry and knowledge. To further clarify my vision I examine the nature of psychoanalytic expertise. I suggest that such expertise amounts to the inculcation and integration of a large number of psychoanalytic frames of reference. I contend further that the nature of contemporary psychoanalytic theories is such that important psychoanalytic frames of reference are proliferating more rapidly than in the past, that the relationships among them are becoming more complex, and that consequently the application of psychoanalytic theory to practice is also becoming more complex. Psychoanalytic training programs need to recognize this expanding complexity and revise curricula and pedagogic methods on an ongoing basis to reflect this evolution within our field.     

A HISTORICAL REPRISE: SOME OBSERVATIONS ON PROGRESS IN PSYCHOANALYSIS

The papers from the American Journal of Psychoanalysis 1956 and 1965 roundtables on what is effective in the therapeutic process are viewed through the lens of psychoanalysis’ evolution over the past 50–60 years. With the passage of time, the contributions of the Interpersonal School to mainstream psychoanalysis have become clearer, especially with respect to mutative factors in the patient-analyst relationship. These papers from the 50s and 60s are also products of the internecine battles of the time, in which the different schools of psychoanalysis tried to claim absolute truth and assert hegemony in the field. The author argues that real progress in psychoanalysis has occurred through research and clinical/theoretical discovery, yielding an informed pluralism that mirrors the diversity and complexity of our work with patients.     

The rhetorical voice of psychoanalysis

The rhetorical voice of psychoanalysis has a long history and has only recently come to be seen as a special feature of the theory. Its beginnings can be found in Freud's earliest pleadings for the usefulness of metaphor and analogy, although he felt that they were largely provisional and would eventually be replaced by more durable concepts. We have begun to see problems in replacing the central metaphors; the rhetorical base of psychoanalysis may be more enduring than we thought. While our metaphors may never provide epistemic access to the stuff of the mind, they can and do point to specific clinical encounters. Ways must be found to expand our rhetorical treasure chest and develop language even better suited to our concepts and observations.     

Psychoanalysis in Austria after 1933-34

Our essay focuses on major developments of the history of psychoanalysis during the fascist and National Socialist years in Austria and sheds light on the re-establishment of psychoanalysis after World War II. With the consolidation of National Socialism in Germany in 1933 and Austro-fascism in 1934, any psychoanalytical reflection that was critical of political and cultural trends was extinguished. Vienna - once again - became the center of the psychoanalytical movement in Central Europe, taking over the role Berlin had played during the twenties. But, during the Austro-fascist system, psychoanalysis was isolated from an important part of its public. Psychoanalysts reacted by adopting an attitude of political abstinence, accompanied by self-censorship, they concentrated on training and clinical work, or they went into exile. Austria's Anschluß to the National Socialist Third Reich led to the final destruction of psychoanalysis. Nearly all Viennese analysts were affected by the anti-Jewish measures of the National Socialists and almost all of them fled the country. During the war years, a small group of people under the leadership of August Aichhorn tried to continue psychoanalytic training. Its members refounded the Viennese Psychoanalytical Society in early 1946. But, scientific traditions were broken and tendencies of anti-enlightenment, especially clerical and catholic prejudices, had continued from the time of Austrofascism and Nationalsocialism. The last chapter of our essay summarizes the research topics and the main historiographical studies done in the field.     

Further evidence for the case against neuropsychoanalysis: How Yovell,Solms, and Fotopoulou's response to our critique confirms the irrelevance and harmfulness to psychoanalysis of the contemporary neuroscientific trend

In their paper “The case for neuropsychoanalysis” Yovell, Solms, and Fotopoulou (2015) respond to our critique of neuropsychoanalysis (Blass & Carmeli, 2007), setting forth evidence and arguments which, they claim, demonstrate why neuroscience is relevant and important for psychoanalysis and hence why dialogue between the fields is necessary. In the present paper we carefully examine their evidence and arguments and demonstrate how and why their claim is completely mistaken. In fact, Yovell, Solms, and Fotopoulou's paper only confirms our position on the irrelevance and harmfulness to psychoanalysis of the contemporary neuroscientific trend. We show how this trend perverts the essential nature of psychoanalysis and of how it is practiced. The clinical impact and its detrimental nature is highlighted by discussion of clinical material presented by Yovell et al (2015). In the light of this we argue that the debate over neuropsychoanalysis should be of interest to all psychoanalysts, not only those concerned with biology or interdisciplinary dialogue.     

The case for neuropsychoanalysis: Why a dialogue with neuroscience is necessary but not sufficient for psychoanalysis

Recent advances in the cognitive, affective and social neurosciences have enabled these fields to study aspects of the mind that are central to psychoanalysis. These developments raise a number of possibilities for psychoanalysis. Can it engage the neurosciences in a productive and mutually enriching dialogue without compromising its own integrity and unique perspective? While many analysts welcome interdisciplinary exchanges with the neurosciences, termed neuropsychoanalysis, some have voiced concerns about their potentially deleterious effects on psychoanalytic theory and practice. In this paper we outline the development and aims of neuropsychoanalysis, and consider its reception in psychoanalysis and in the neurosciences. We then discuss some of the concerns raised within psychoanalysis, with particular emphasis on the epistemological foundations of neuropsychoanalysis. While this paper does not attempt to fully address the clinical applications of neuropsychoanalysis, we offer and discuss a brief case illustration in order to demonstrate that neuroscientific research findings can be used to enrich our models of the mind in ways that, in turn, may influence how analysts work with their patients. We will conclude that neuropsychoanalysis is grounded in the history of psychoanalysis, that it is part of the psychoanalytic worldview, and that it is necessary, albeit not sufficient, for the future viability of psychoanalysis.     

‘THE CRISIS IN PSYCHOANALYSIS’: WHAT CRISIS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

In this paper the author argues that the so-called crisis in psychoanalysis, often blamed on various external factors, is in fact an internal crisis brought about by intrinsic incongruities between the explicit intention of its educational model, which aspires to educate and train in a professional and scientific discipline, and its organisational structure, locally and internationally inextricable. Its isolated basic units of ecumenical control—its traditional 'societies/institutes of psychoanalysis'—implicitly and explicitly co-impose the monastic transmission of a preponderantly doctrinaire education and clinical practice. The dysfunctional elongation of our historical organisational syncretism continues to force us, one century later, to amalgamate in and superimpose on an endogamous supraordaining system (i.e. our International Psychoanalytic Association) prerogatives and functions so contradictory that they are ordinarily considered irreconcilable, such as: education and scientific research (tasks of universities); societal and political (tasks of an ordinary society of professionals and technicians); and 'as if' certification and accreditation (tasks of external, local, interinstitutional collegiate bodies and independent, multirepresentative, national coalitions and consortia, as well as of local governmental legislation). The pervasive collective regressive phenomena derived from this homogamous and secluding organisational and educational syncretism has had a retardatory impact along all the hierarchy of our institutional activities. The future of psychoanalysis as a science and a clinical discipline must be nothing other than one of evolution and transformation. The survival of its legendary psychoanalytic institutes and societies, as well as its local and international organisation, with its inherited but now untenable syncretism, is that which is being questioned (that is, psychoanalysis as a 'movement' and a 'cause').     

Therapeutic technique in psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy.

As the distinctions between what we consider to be psychoanalysis and what we consider to be psychoanalytic psychotherapy have become more uncertain and more blurred, it follows that it is equally difficult to designate the techniques that would be appropriate and specific for each modality. The problem has been compounded by the fact that in recent years psychoanalysis in the United States has become considerably less homogeneous than in the past and the ego-psychological structural model is no longer the only point of view in the psychoanalytic marketplace. Further, with alterations in the criteria for analyzability, cases which, generally, had not been viewed as suitable for analysis, have been appearing with increasing frequency on psychoanalysts' couches. We have also recognized that the degree of congruence between our expectations from and the results of psychoanalytic treatment was often less than anticipated. It appears that analysts have become considerably less arbitrary about what psychoanalysis is and how a psychoanalysis can be carried out. The author is unable to delineate one technique that is intrinsic to and limited to psychoanalysis. There are, however, differences in degree and emphasis in the ways in which various techniques are applied in the therapy of psychoanalysis as compared to the therapy of psychoanalytic psychotherapy. Special attention is given to the role of a psychoanalytic process and the central place the analysis of resistance plays in psychoanalytic therapy.     

Ist es utopisch, sich zukünftige Psychoanalytiker ohne besondere berufliche Identität vorzustellen?

The subject of the Identity of Psychoanalysis and of its representatives belongs to the orthodox psychoanalytic movement. Since about 15 years, under the presidency of J. Sandler, the International Psychoanalytic Association (IPA) has tried successfully to facilitate scientific research and to promote projects. If the resistance of influential analysts against empirical investigations further decreases, psychoanalytic movement and its unfavourable concommitants will be past. The development to a scientific community will no longer be hampered by controversies on professional identity. The question of identity was dominated by the idea of the so-called “strict, untendentious psychoanalysis” (Freud 1909b, S. 104, 1919a, S. 168). It never existed and could never materialise—it was a fiction. The psychosocial dimensions and its normative implications call the concept of identity into question. Instead it is advisable to speak of a pychoanalytic attitude which has to prove its therapeutic value. This “second (professional) self” (Schafer 1983) is closely connected to the “first (personal) self”, but it is necessary and possible to separate the method from the person and to objectify changes in the patient even if taking place in an intersubjective, relational space. For many years Freud defined what Psychoanalysis is about and who is entitled to call himself an analyst. Later on, the psychoanalytic movement and the institutionalised training system fulfilled this role. The training analysis had been at the centre of all curricula. The genealogy of the training analyst determined the membership in the evergrowing family. Dissidents belong to the history of Psychoanalysis. The official acceptance of the pluralisms within the International Psychoanalytical Association demands comparisons between the various schools according to scientific criteria. Modern process and outcome research provides criteria suited to serve as a model for clinical treatment reports.     

What is conceptual research in psychoanalysis?1

The development of psychoanalysis as a science and clinical practice has always relied heavily on various forms of conceptual research. Thus, conceptual research has clarifi ed, formulated and reformulated psychoanalytic concepts permitting to better shape the fi ndings emerging in the clinical setting. By enhancing clarity and explicitness in concept usage it has facilitated the integration of existing psychoanalytic thinking as well as the development of new ways of looking at clinical and extraclinical data. Moreover, it has offered conceptual bridges to neighbouring disciplines particularly interested in psychoanalysis, e.g. philosophy, sociology, aesthetics, history of art and literature, and more recently cognitive science/neuroscience. In the present phase of psychoanalytic pluralism, of worldwide scientifi c communication among psychoanalysts irrespective of language differences and furthermore of an intensifying dialogue with other disciplines, the relevance of conceptual research is steadily increasing. Yet, it still often seems insuffi ciently clear how conceptual research can be differentiated from clinical and empirical research in psychoanalysis. Therefore, the Subcommittee for Conceptual Research of the IPA presents some of its considerations on the similarities and the differences between various forms of clinical and extraclinical research, their specifi c aims, quality criteria and thus their specifi c chances as well as their specifi c limitations in this paper. Examples taken from six issues of the International Journal of Psychoanalysis in 2002‐3 serve as illustrations for seven different subtypes of conceptual research.     

'This is not psychoanalysis': On the stony way of the Danish Psychoanalytical Society

When Freud founded the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA), he wanted a network of local groups responsible for psychoanalytic training. The groups would function as ‘headquarters whose business it would be to declare: All this nonsense is nothing to do with analysis; this is not psychoanalysis. Today, with psychoanalytic pluralism, Tuckett (in press) has asked ‘Does anything go? He has pointed out that the psychoanalytic community has been increasingly willing to accept within its ranks apparently very varied approaches to theory and practice, and that this increasing diversity has many negative consequences for psychoanalytic institutions and especially for training schemas. The aim of this paper is to give an example of psychoanalysis that ‘did not go’, and how that led to a shaky start for the new Danish Psychoanalytical Society, with confusing boundary relations between psychoanalysis and psychotherapy and no training institute. Beginning with the written psychoanalytical contribution of the three founders of the Danish Society, the paper will try to identify factors that contributed to the ‘shaky start’. The paper will also examine how stones were removed from the path, thus paving the way for the members of the Society to discover ‘competent psychoanalysis’.