'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’.     

Encounters with the Universal and Cultural in Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy

The role played by socio-cultural factors in psychoanalytic psychotherapy from the vantage point of both the client and the therapist is elucidated. The position conferred upon culture throughout the history of psychoanalysis from classical to contemporary perspectives is briefly reviewed with special reference to the practice of psychoanalysis in India. A case study having relevance to the present theme is discussed where ignorance of factors salient to Indian culture adversely affected the outcome. Attention is given to internal and external pressures that prompted the therapist to take the stand. It is argued that the therapist may tread the difficult path between cultural universalism and cultural relativism rather than committing to either of them in order to do justice to psychoanalytical clinical work.     

Psychoanalysis as a creative shaping process2

The author first explains the concepts of creativity, play and aesthetic experience. He then outlines the psychoanalytic process as a creative one that shapes reality. Making a link between psychoanalysis and the humanities, he demonstrates that creative play is a fundamental aspect of the human experience of reality. Aesthetic experiences during the psychoanalytic process are comparable to the play by which children structure their world and artists' activity in following their urge to shape. Furthermore it is shown that creative actualisation testifies to a quasi‐biological need for coherence and structure. Through modern hermeneutics, the truth claims of aesthetic shaping can be established in epistemological terms. The basic principles of hermeneutics‐historicity, linguisticity and communicative experience‐find their psychoanalytic counterparts in memory, representational shaping and transference‐countertransference. Psychoanalysis is demonstrated to be simultaneously a science and an art. On the basis of a case history, aesthetic experience is shown to constitute a specific and unique form of access to psychic reality. Aesthetic experience and creativity do not only aid recovery from ‘bad psychological states’, they are also indispensable for the entire understanding of internal and external reality. It is possible to develop this understanding through a creative psychoanalytic attitude.     

Critical refl ections on intersubjectivity in psychoanalysis1

The authors review the philosophical trend known as postmodernism and the way it has infl uenced a part of psychoanalytic thought, concluding with some comments on the qualities and shortcomings of the new developments. The authors consider the origins and the cultural and aesthetic‐philosophical meaning of postmodernism, identifying some key concepts such as deconstructionism, the disappearance of the ‘individual subject’ and individual identity, and the rejection of ‘in‐depth’ models of psychoanalysis. Then they examine various, wide‐ranging developments in psychoanalytic thought and treatment. They review the intersubjective fi eld in psychoanalysis, especially in the USA, and then explore whether the underlying lack of truth to be discovered, stressed by these ‘new view’ statements, or the fact that the ‘truth’ only exists in linguistic‐narrative constructions is consistent with basic analytic concepts such as the unconscious, phantasy, transference and countertransference, which recall the tri‐dimensional nature of inner psychic reality. The psychoanalytic process is a condition activated through a bond that is able to hold and contain the relationship of the analytic couple and the patient's unconscious world and not through hermeneutic or narrative constructions.     

THE DIDACTICS OF PSYCHOANALYTIC EDUCATION2

The author first discusses general didactic considerations regarding psychoanalytic education and the teacher‐pupil relationship. He then demonstrates that psychoanalytic education is greatly influenced by the ideal of a liberal education, of which in Germany there is a strong tradition under the name ‘Bildung’. The main characteristics of ‘Bildung’ ‐ as opposed to professional training ‐ are that the objectives remain undefined and there is no attempt to achieve defined and operationalisable professional qualifications. The relationship between teacher and pupil is characterised by authority and trust. A psychoanalytic education by means of a ‘liberal education’ is based upon the assumption that the student should be motivated and supported in achieving competence through a passionate study of the world of psychic reality. Today, however, psychoanalytic education must be seen within a contemporary context that forces us to abandon the ideals of a liberal education, to operationalise the subjects studied and to control the education itself with regard to efficiency and results. These modern demands are the result of a professionalisation which has reached all social professions and from which psychoanalysis also cannot escape. Because of this, it is especially important to reflect on our educational methods and objectives. The author makes several suggestions on this subject. It is to be hoped that psychoanalysis will find its own way, without, on the one hand, losing sight of the special nature of psychoanalytic competence through an over‐hasty adaptation to the process of professionalisation and, on the other hand, without reverting to unquestioned and outdated ideas on education.     

New interpretative styles: Progress or contamination? Psychoanalysis and phenomenological psychopathology1

Psychoanalysis has started to recoup, often quite implicitly, a more phenomenological stance, ever since psychoanalysts have started working with borderline and psychotic patients. As many of these patients have commonly been through traumatic experiences, psychoanalysts have been using an approach that questions the role of traditional psychoanalytical interpretation and pays more attention to the patient's inner conscious experiences; this approach is characteristic of a specifi c form of contemporary psychiatry: phenomenological psychopathology, founded by Karl Jaspers in 1913 and developed into a form of psychotherapy by Ludwig Binswanger, with his Daseinsanalyse. If what we could call a phenomenological ‘temptation’ has been spreading over psychoanalysis, so too has a psychoanalytical ‘temptation’ always been present in phenomenological psychopathology. In fact, even though this branch of psychiatry has led us towards a deeper understanding of the characteristics of psychotic being‐in‐the‐world, its therapeutic applications have never been adequately formalised, much less have they evolved into a specifi c technique or a structured psychotherapeutic approach. Likewise, phenomenological psychotherapy has always held an anaclitic attitude towards psychoanalysis, accepting its procedures but refusing its theoretical basis because it is too close to that of the objectifying natural sciences. Psychoanalytic ‘temptation’ and phenomenological ‘temptation’ can thus be considered as two sides of the same coin and outline a trend in psychoanalytic and phenomenological literature which points out the fundamental role of the patient's inner conscious experiences in the treatment of borderline and psychotic patients.     

Was ist psychoanalytische Identität?

Psychoanalytical identity is more like a process than like a state, reflecting the balance between the self and the expectations of the reference group. But what is the common ground where psychoanalysts can refer to facing the contemporary changes in psychoanalytic theory and practice? All contributors agree that the common ground has become insecure as referral frame for psychoanalytic identity. Looking for an answer, they come to different individual conclusions: Nedelmann refers to the scientific basis and A.-M. Sandler to the shared psychoanalytical experience, while Minolli stresses the individual development facing theory, technique and the philosophical background. Körner regards the resolution of the dilemma between conformation to expectations of the society and continuation of the critical approach of psychoanalysis as the crucial point. Erlich requires that analysts should find their position between the internal and the external world and not wholly in one or the other.     

Authority as paradox: The transformations of Don Quijote

The author's contention is that the analysand's temporary attribution of authority to the analyst is inherent in the analytic situation; this is seen as a transitional and paradoxical form of authority pertaining neither to internal nor external reality, but dwelling in the analytic third. The author proposes a conceptualization of psychoanalytic authority as a form of aesthetic authority according to Gadamer's defi nitions. While the scientifi c and hermeneutic codes for the understanding of authority in psychoanalysis assume that the main issue at stake is the delimitation of the objectivity or the subjectivity of the analyst's knowledge, this aesthetic perspective centres on the analysand's attribution of a claim of truth to analytic interpretations, and on the experience of recognition. The experience of recognition of a possible truth is particular and context-bound, as well as self-transformational. A reading of three episodes from Cervantes's The history of Don Quixote de la Mancha illuminates the transitional and paradoxical character of aesthetic authority within a transformational dialogue. These episodes are read as dramatizations of different positions vis-à-vis the paradoxical authority that characterizes transformational dialogues.     

‘Freud's speculations in ethnology’: A reflection on anthropology's encounter with psychoanalysis

In the early 20th century, many analysts – Freud and Ernest Jones in particular – were confident that cultural anthropologists would demonstrate the universal nature of the Oedipus complex and other unconscious phenomena. Collaboration between the two disciplines, however, was undermined by a series of controversies surrounding the relationship between psychology and culture. This paper re‐examines the three episodes that framed anthropology's early encounter with psychoanalysis, emphasizing the important works and their critical reception. Freud's Totem and Taboo began the interdisciplinary dialogue, but it was Bronislaw Malinowski's embrace of psychoanalysis – a development anticipated through a close reading of his personal diaries – that marked a turning point in relations between the two disciplines. Malinowski argued that an avuncular (rather than an Oedipal) complex existed in the Trobriand Islands. Ernest Jones’ critical dismissal of this theory alienated Malinowski from psychoanalysis and ended ethnographers’ serious exploration of Freudian thought. A subsequent ethnographic movement, ‘culture and personality,’ was erroneously seen by many anthropologists as a product of Freudian theory. When ‘culture and personality’ was abandoned, anthropologists believed that psychoanalysis had been discredited as well – a narrative that still informs the historiography of the discipline and its rejection of psychoanalytical theory.     

Dissociation,the true self and the notion of the frozen baby

Abstract

The widespread ‘trauma talk’ that is prevalent in the social sciences, has, in recent years, become increasingly commonplace in psychoanalytic writings, especially in attachment theory and relational psychoanalysis. This paper examines dissociation, a key concept in ‘trauma theory’, in conjunction with the Winnicottian term ‘true self’, in the context of a particular discursive and theoretical combination of the two. This discursive formation is named ‘the frozen baby discourse’, and it is presented and analysed. A critique is offered of the way ‘true self’, understood as a humanistic concept, is often used together with dissociation, in order to create a theoretical construct that is far removed from Winnicottian theory. This paper begins by exploring definitional issues, both around dissociation and ‘true self’. It is subsequently argued that this contemporary usage of ‘true self’ in combination with dissociation has important implications for psychoanalytic practice.     

On the need of fundaments in psychoanalytic thinking

The questions concerning the foundations of psychoanalytic knowledge have been pressing from the beginning. Beside as a therapeutic practice, Freud conceived psychoanalysis as a science, maintaining that like other sciences psychoanalysis should have sound empirical and conceptual fundaments. Freud claimed that there is an inseparable bond (ein Junktim) between cure and acquiring knowledge in psychoanalysis. One of his aims in developing a metapsychology (analogously to metaphysics) was to explicate the conceptual structure of psychoanalytic knowledge. After Freud psychoanalysts have not reached a consensus in the questions concerning the foundations. What kind of foundations does psychoanalytic knowledge need? Are they to be found from the psychoanalytic practice and research on the couch, or rather from metapsychological constructions? In what way should psychoanalysis rely on external scientific research? The article addresses these questions, arguing that even though psychoanalytic work and knowledge do gain justification from various external sources, in the end psychoanalysis stands on its own foundations. It is further argued that especially under the prevailing plurality of theoretical and clinical approaches, psychoanalysis does not have – and does not need – a foundation that could not be further questioned. Thus a coherentist picture of psychoanalysis is defended.     

The plight and promise of contemporary psychoanalysis in the light of its social history

This paper addresses the many changes which have beset psychoanalysis and the psychoanalytic community since the widespread, general acceptance of both by the educated, middle-class public in the 1950s. It attempts to explain these changes, at least in part, by reflecting upon them in the light of the history of the psychoanalytic movement and upon the rise of dynamic psychology as well. Many in the psychoanalytic community think that their work is being ignored, devalued, and even attacked by an increasing number of influential persons and organizations. Critics claim that, epistemologically, psychoanalysis is scientifically invalid; therapeutically, it is ineffective; economically, it is too costly and takes too long; and theoretically, it is pluralized to the point of fragmentation. This is the plight of psychoanalysis. This paper argues that many of the major problems which once beset Freud and his colleagues, and which beset the psychoanalytic community today, are best understood in terms of two sociological processes, legitimation and institutionalization. Legitimation is the socio-cultural process whereby a new idea (e.g., Freud's theories, Jung's theories) contests the established web of ideas which give coherence and meaning to social and personal identity. Institutionalization refers to the way legitimated ideas replace once-contested views of reality. The single most decisive factor generating the plight of contemporary psychoanalysis is the ‘decision’ (1) to socially locate (institutionalize) psychoanalysis in institutes, rather than in clinics or universities, and (2) to represent psychoanalysis to the public (legitimation) as a medical science. In order to illustrate and advance these claims, I first define and distinguish sociologically the institute, the clinic and the university. Second, I describe the origins and development of the ‘decision’, made by Freud and his followers, to locate or institutionalize psychoanalysis in institutes. Third, I compare and contrast this early pattern of legitimation and institutionalization with that of the present-day psychoanalytic movement in England (relatively benign institutionalization) and in the United States (relatively destructive institutionalization). Throughout this discussion I draw upon the new literature on the history of psychoanalysis, past and present. As for the ‘promise’ for psychoanalysis, it can materialize insofar as psychoanalysis establishes contact with the clinic and the university (re-legitimation) and insofar as that contact becomes so self-evident that it is taken for granted (i.e., it is re-institutionalized).     

The oedipal wound in two stories by Kafka: The Metamorphosis and A Country Doctor

Kafka read Freud and was interested in psychoanalysis but believed there was no ‘cure’ for what was essentially the problem of living. As always with creative artists, the writer is his own psychoanalyst, and the actual process of writing is his means of self-revelation. The aim of this paper is to consider, in relation to two stories (The Metamorphosis and A Country Doctor), Kafka’s use of this background oedipal conflict with his father or received values (the ‘law’) as a springboard for the type of wound that results in creative writing. The wound for him became a kind of personal myth, and was also associated with other painful stimuli, including his tuberculosis and his troubled love affairs, but above all with his identity as a writer. The writing process and the ‘faith-value’ it demands is an underlying metaphor behind these narratives of Kafka’s ‘dream-like inner life’. There are parallels here with Bion’s psychoanalytic philosophy of ‘suffering’ and ‘psyche-lodgement’.     

Facing the absurd: On Lev Shestov’s angel of death

2018 marks one hundred and fifty two years since the birth of the Russian religious existential thinker Lev Shestov (1866–1938), whose name is counted amongst the most influential European philosophers of the 20^th century. A paradoxical and provocative writer, Lev Shestov searched for ways to diminish the burden of psychological and existential suffering in the life of the individual. His parable about receiving ‘the mysterious gift’ of ‘a new pair of eyes’ from the Angel of Death engaged the existential problems of facing uncertainty, the unknown and death with the possibility of a creative transformation, which could allow an individual to see things outside the law of reason and ‘preconceived self-evident truths.’ Drawing on Shestov’s analysis of Dostoevsky, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, as well as Camus and Lovtsky’s observations, I argue that Shestov’s interest in the human psyche manifested in his writing, in which he often strove to ‘psychoanalyse’ his characters, found common ground with the psychoanalytical approach. However, unlike Freud’s psychoanalysis, which was grounded in reason and analytical systematisation, Shestov’s philosophy aspired to find a cure to enable an individual to withstand the pressure of the absurd reality of human existence by breaking free from the constraints of rational thought.     

Ghosts of paradigms past: the once and future evolution of psychoanalytic thought

An example of the psychoanalytic mode of thought is put forward concerning how psychoanalytic theories have historically been constituted and transformed. The model of world hypotheses, characterized by multiple irresolvable truth claims, captures the nature of most psychoanalytic theorizing until about 1970. Each of two world hypotheses--one grounded in intrapsychic conflict (seen when the analyst observes from outside the transference) and the other in interpersonal internalization (seen when the analyst observes from inside the bidirectional interactive processes)--is an autonomous and self-sufficient aggregate. The stance taken by the analyst-observer with respect to the analytic interaction is key to seeing how the two world hypotheses are made manifest in clinical work and in theory. By contrast, the model of competing programs captures the essential nature of most psychoanalytic theorizing since about 1970, and is characterized by the necessity of each progressively evolving through a particular kind of commerce with its neighbors. Such commerce is necessary when a program is in danger of degenerating. In this way of thinking, there is a fundamental tension between classical psychoanalysis adapting to the demands and exigencies of its particular and ever evolving historical niche and simultaneously retaining the core commitments that guarantee continuity. Honoring the forces of progression displaces the quest for truth as a paramount goal of psychoanalysis. A developmental lag in recognizing this transformation has hindered progress toward a comparative, process-centered psychoanalysis.     

Mr. Farrell and the refutability of psychoanalysis

Mr. B. A. Farrell has argued that psychoanalysis is refutable, without clarifying different senses of ‘refutable’. Once this clarification is done and the relevant literature examined, however, it is seen that psychoanalysis is not refutable in several important senses of ‘refutable’, although it is refutable in a sense that is quite uninteresting.     

Innen, Außen, Zwischen

The so-called “intersubjective turn” (or “relational turn”) in psychoanalysis is closely associated with the work of Winnicott. It was him who added a new dimension to the psychoanalytic theories of a separate inner world, a dimension focussing on the mediating processes between the separate spheres of psychic and external reality: a space between subject and object, drive and civilisation, Ego and reality — the “potential space” that unconsciously connects our self to the Other as well as to a shared physical and social world we live in. Winnicotts paradoxical notions of the self are traced in this paper and unwrapped from their often enigmatic, developmentally and epistemologically confusing veils: the infant who does not exist without a holding mother; who is not aware of his/her being held because of its evidence, and only has an experience when falling; who him-/herself creates that reality which is already there; who must destroy the object in order to use it; who can only be alone when another person is present. The author, starting from apparently narcissistic phenomena of the media society, rehabilitates the term of “in-between” in contemporary psychoanalytic discussion which for a long time was considered as suspect, as being part of a “non-psychoanalytic” superficial social psychology (as the intersubjective, the interpersonal or the interactive). Under the strong influence of Winnicott, and overarching the different schools, contemporary psychoanalysis is focussing on intersubjectivity and relationality. The paper is an appeal for reformulating classical intrapsychic concepts — including the theory of the unconscious—in intersubjective terms, thus unfolding a relational approach inherent in Freud’s metapsychology.     

An overview of the treatment of severe narcissistic pathology

This paper provides an overview of narcissistic personality disorders as they present clinically along a spectrum of severity ranging from the best functioning forms of pathological narcissism to the most threatening to the patient's psychosocial and physical survival. It proposes a general interpretive psychoanalytic stance with all these clinical syndromes that range from standard psychoanalysis to a specific psychoanalytical psychotherapy for the most repressive and life threatening conditions that may not respond to standard psychoanalysis proper. This general psychoanalytic approach is placed into the context of related developments in contemporary psychoanalytic understanding of pathological narcissism and its treatment.