Max Eitingon and a Question of Politics

Max Eitingon is thought not to have left behind original theoretical work, despite the fact that he wrote some 40 articles and a dozen psychoanalytic congress reports. He has been almost forgotten over the years, even though he occupied an important political place in the history of the psychoanalytic movement. In recent times, he has again become a subject of attention. In this article the author takes a look at Eitingon as an activist who was intensely involved in the social and political struggles of his time. He represents the political aspect of psychoanalysis on two counts: first, within the psychoanalytic movement, where he had a particular role in the institutionalizing of psychoanalysis, and, second, in relating it to wider social and political ends.     

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.     

Psychoanalysis in a changing world

The author reflects, in this opening speech of the IPA Berlin Congress, on some changes in the world, in Germany and in psychoanalysis in the 85 years that have elapsed since the previous congress in Berlin, in 1922. He emphasizes important developments in psychoanalytic theory and practice, research and applications to understand several wider realms. He also stresses the importance of psychoanalysis for the current discussion on the transgenerational effects of traumatic events, and connects all these aspects with the theme of the Congress-remembering, repeating and working through.     

Validation of psychoanalytic theories: Towards a conceptualization of references

The authors discuss criteria for the validation of psychoanalytic theories and develop a heuristic and normative model of the references needed for this. Their core question in this paper is: can psychoanalytic theories be validated exclusively from within psychoanalytic theory (internal validation), or are references to sources of knowledge other than psychoanalysis also necessary (external validation)? They discuss aspects of the classic truth criteria correspondence and coherence, both from the point of view of contemporary psychoanalysis and of contemporary philosophy of science. The authors present arguments for both external and internal validation. Internal validation has to deal with the problems of subjectivity of observations and circularity of reasoning, external validation with the problem of relevance. They recommend a critical attitude towards psychoanalytic theories, which, by carefully scrutinizing weak points and invalidating observations in the theories, reduces the risk of wishful thinking. The authors conclude by sketching a heuristic model of validation. This model combines correspondence and coherence with internal and external validation into a four‐leaf model for references for the process of validating psychoanalytic theories.     

Attachment theory and psychoanalysis Some remarks from an epistemological and from a Freudian viewpoint1

The author examines Bowlby's attachment theory and more recent versions of it from an epistemological viewpoint and subjects it to questioning on whether they are in line with central concepts of Freudian psychoanalysis. He argues that Bowlby's basic tenets regarding attachment theory, which later attachment theorists never seriously questioned, do not conform to scientifi c standards, and that psychoanalytic issues such as the dynamic unconscious, internal confl icts, interaction of drive wishes and the role of defence in establishing substitutive formations are either ignored or not treated in suffi cient depth. In the light of this, Fonagy's assertion that psychoanalytic criticism of attachment theory arose from mutual misunderstandings and ought nowadays to be seen as outdated is reversed: psychoanalytic criticism can only be regarded as outdated if either basic tenets of Freudian psychoanalysis, or attachment theory or both are misunderstood.     

The enigmatic “nature of the subject”

Freud once placed psychoanalysis in a “middle position between medicine and philosophy”. Yet, the meaning of that position has never been sufficiently clarified. The author suggests that the essence of the psychoanalytic experience is defined by the fact that its clinical practice operates within a basically relational or intersubjective frame containing the analysand's self-interpreting reflection, which here is identified as ethical in nature. It is further argued that late modernity is experiencing a crisis in the art of reflection, accompanied by a flight from this ethical dimension. A common social response is to fall back on the authority of neo-positivistic science, making psychoanalysis increasingly redundant. To meaningfully connect with the consequences of this state of affairs, psychoanalysis needs to deepen the understanding of its unique essence. To that end, a model for collaboration with philosophy is briefly sketched.     

A successful trial utilizing the Leuzinger-Bohleber methodology for evaluation of psychoanalytic treatment: Preliminary report

Utilizing audio-recorded psychoanalytic interviews of both patients and their analysts, group discussions of these interviews, and the application of questionnaires commonly used in psychotherapy research, the authors investigate the potential use of the Leuzinger-Bohleber methodology as an objective evaluative instrument to assess the quality of psychoanalytic treatment. Preliminary study results were obtained through interviews conducted with seven analysts and their respective patients, three of whom were treated with psychoanalysis (three or more sessions per week, for a duration of no less than one year) and four with psychotherapy (one or two sessions per week, for a duration of no less than one year). Patients were found to be eager to participate, and no adverse experiences were reported by analysts, patients or the research team. In addition to the interviews, further data were obtained through review of mailed-in questionnaires completed by 21 patients. The authors present both preliminary observations regarding the methodology as a whole, as well as the detailed results of one specifi c case subject treated with psychotherapy. Review of study fi ndings supports the utilization of this methodology as an evaluative instrument which may ultimately advance current knowledge of the process and outcome of psychoanalytic treatment.     

The so-called rule of abstinence revisited

The paper discusses whether the rule of abstinence is still valid in the contemporary theoretical arena of psychoanalysis. Not only is this a debate on principle. It also raises the question of how gratifying the analyst should be in the analytic encounter, still remaining within the psychoanalytic paradigm. Current criticisms of the concept of abstinence are reviewed. The author replies to the objections. He argues that the so-called rule of abstinence is not a “rule” which describes the particular behaviour of the analyst, but a general principle describing the essence of the psychoanalytic cure. In the opinion of the author, abandoning this principle may have detrimental consequences both theoretically and technically. Finally, the author discusses the emotional presence of the analyst in the analytic setting and suggests an updated version of the idea of analytic abstinence.     

Grasping psychoanalysts’ practice in its own merits1

The central objective of this presentation is to reflect on the obstacles involved in the task proposed by the Chicago Congress, which is to explore convergences and divergences in psychoanalytic practice. The author discusses two major obstacles. First, the epistemological and methodological problems in relation to the construction of theory in psychoanalysis and especially the inaccessibility, in any reliable way, of what psychoanalysts really do in the intimacy of their practice. He proposes to separate, at least in part, theory from practice in psychoanalysis, in an attempt to grasp psychoanalysts' practice in its own merits. He then outlines a phenomenology of the practice of psychoanalysis, which reveals that, in their work with patients, analysts are guided more by practical reasons than theoretical reasons; that is, their interventions are predictions rather than explanations. Since these practical reasons need to be validated constantly in the analytic relationship based on their effects, he discusses the subject of validation in the clinical context of the core theory of therapeutic change in psychoanalysis, that is, the conditions required for clinical practice to satisfy the thesis of an inseparable union between gaining knowledge and cure. He ends by challenging the core of the psychoanalytic theory of change, arguing that it neither does justice to the practice of psychoanalysts nor to contemporary knowledge of processes and mechanisms of therapeutic change. Finally, he proposes that we detach practice from theory, in order to study the former in its own merits, utilising a plurality of methods ranging from systematic investigation to the recent methodology of the Working Party.     

Toward a Genealogy of Culture

Using psychoanalytic theory, this paper attempts to trace the natural history of the phenomenon designated as Culture. It postulates that psychoanalysis, a product of the Hegelian philosophical revolution, is still one of the best instruments to understand Culture. It traces the origins of culture as postulated by Freud and the pioneer anthropologists and its course from early and evolved religion through humanism, science, and finally postmodernism. It emphasizes the dialectical concepts in psychoanalysis and reviews summarily those psychoanalysts that, according to the author, have had a major impact on the study of culture: Freud, Horney, and Lacan.     

The case against neuropsychoanalysis: On fallacies underlying psychoanalysis' latest scientifi c trend and its negative impact on psychoanalytic discourse

The authors offer a critical examination of the claims of the proponents of the growing neuropsychoanalytic trend, that neuroscientifi c fi ndings are relevant and important for the development and justifi cation of psychoanalytic theory and practice. They bring to light some of the intuitions that have led to the popularity of the neuropsychoanalytic claims and the fallacies that underlie these claims and intuitions. They argue that it is crucial at this time to articulate the case against the neuropsychoanalytic trend because, underlying the debate over the relevance of neuroscience to psychoanalysis, there lies a struggle over the essential nature of psychoanalytic theory and practice. Relying on a biologistic perspective, whereby only what is biological is real, this new trend in effect offers a vision of psychoanalysis that limits the signifi cance of the unique psychoanalytic concern with the understanding of meanings and the role of discourse in discerning and justifying these meanings.     

Expressions of vernacular psychoanalysis

The present paper examines the clinical integration of theory and experience from the perspective of clinicians’ subjective shaping of inquiry. The author suggests that the historical, conceptual development of clinical psychoanalysis parallels the progressive articulations of consensual understanding within the clinical hour. He suggests that the clinician's utilization of vernacular elements, derivative of direct experience as well as of reference to the wider range of psychoanalytic thinking, addresses gaps and disconnections within the abstract understanding of the clinical psychoanalytic process. Providing examples from psychoanalytic history, he concludes with a contemporary example of psychoanalytic papers, reflecting vernacular elements that are of use to practicing clinicians.     

The crisis of psychoanalysis and psychoanalytical training: The suffering of the candidate on the long road towards qualifi cation1

The author assesses the impact of the so‐called ‘crisis of psychoanalysis’ on the training of candidates, and on those who accompany them through the course. Different causes of the most relevant symptom of the crisis, i.e. the diffi culty of fi nding patients for a four‐sessions‐weekly analysis, are considered. According to the author, analysts themselves must bear some of the responsibility for it. She draws attention to a number of interrelated phenomena, such as: trainees' tension in their encounters with potential analysands, due to awareness of their own needs as trainees; the necessity to accept very disturbed patients whose selection might arouse criticism from the training committee; analyses in which trainees seem to become patients' hostages because of ever‐present fears of interruption; the diffi cult construction of a psychoanalytic identity in trainees who also are in full‐time psychiatric practice; trainees' profound uncertainty about the future both of psychoanalysis in general and their own careers in particular. In agreement with Kernberg, the author stresses the importance of considering the ‘crisis of psychoanalysis’ as a phenomenon whose development may be infl uenced by the analysts themselves.     

Can research influence clinical practice?1

After briefly reviewing the unfavourable reception accorded empirical research by parts of the psychoanalytic community, as well as some of the benefits to clinical practice of analysts being involved in research activities, the author examines whether the findings of process and outcome research in psychotherapy and psychoanalysis can help identify the most appropriate forms of intervention for producing therapeutic change, given the specific condition of the patient and the relationship that the individual establishes with the analyst. He argues that research findings can influence clinical practice on various levels and in different areas, and goes on to examine a number of related issues: the specificity of therapeutic interventions versus the relevance of common curative factors; the dyadic conception of technique and ways of understanding the therapeutic action of the treatment alliance; and the strategic or heuristic conception in psychoanalytic therapy. Finally, the author presents clinical material with the aim of illustrating how the knowledge acquired through research can be applied to psychoanalytic treatment.     

Psychoanalysis, Nazism and 'Jewish science'

In this paper the author offers a partial examination of the troubled history of psychoanalysis in Germany during the Nazi period. Of particular interest is the impact on psychoanalysis of its 'Jewish origins'-something denigrated by the Nazis but reclaimed by more recent Jewish and other scholars. The author traces the rapid decline of the pre-Nazi psychoanalytic institutions under the sway of a policy of appeasement and collaboration, paying particular attention to the continuation of some forms of psychoanalytic practice within the 'Göring Institute'. He suggests that a feature of this history was the anti-Semitism evidenced by some non-Jewish psychoanalysts, which revealed an antagonism towards their own positioning as followers of the 'Jewish science'.     

Psychoanalysis,science, and art: Aesthetics in the making of a psychoanalyst1

This paper critically examines the relationship of psychoanalysis to science and art. Its point of departure is Michael Rustin's theorizing. Specifically, in considering the possibility of a psychoanalyst's having an aesthetic orientation, the author analyses: 1) the difficulty of there being any connection between psychoanalysis and science because science's necessarily presupposed subject‐object dichotomy is incompatible with transference, which, beginning with Freud, is basic to psychoanalysis; 2) the complex relationship between psychoanalysis and aesthetics using Maurice Merleau‐Ponty's philosophical perspective as well as Luigi Pareyson's theory of aesthetics; 3) the Kantian foundations of the psychoanalytic notion of art as the ‘containing form of subjective experience’ 4) intersubjectivity, without which clinical practice would not be possible, especially considering matters of identity, difference, the body, and of sensory experience such as ‘expressive form’; 5) the relationship of psychoanalysis and art, keeping in mind their possible convergence and divergence as well as some psychoanalysts' conceptual commitment to classicism and the need for contact with art in a psychoanalysts's mind set.     

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.     

Symposium on The Ego and the Id after fifty years. Clinical formulations and research.

The Ego and the Id has served as an organizing model which has advanced psychoanalysis as a science and as a therapy. The paradigm offered by the structural formulations provided a framework for many developmental and clinical studies as well as an approach to a general psychology of human behavior. Therapeutic advances have been made, but the art of therapy has not kept pace with the scientific advances. Dissatisfaction with psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic theory is discussed. Theories have become too far removed from their clinical base; a changing sociologic climate that has reduced the impact of the rational attitude offered by psychoanalysis and the failure of psychoanalytic therapy to cure all ills have contributed to the dissatisfaction.     

Psychoanalytic application and psychoanalytic integrity

In this article, the author offers an analysis of psychoanalytic application, defined as the breaking of new conceptual ground in some field of knowledge whereby the new idea is conceived, and later articulated, with the aid of reference to analogous phenomena in psychoanalysis. It requires apt analogy based on competent understanding of the applied field and of psychoanalysis. Only when the relevant differences between the applied and psychoanalytic fields are grasped can the extent of certain parallels emerge. The thinking by analogy that comprises psychoanalytic application may be intuitive and implicit, but should be susceptible of explicit theoretical elaboration that specifies, precisely, the point(s) of correspondence between psychoanalysis and the applied field in relation to a precise specification of their relevant differences. Applied psychotherapy at the interface of the internal and external worlds (historically rooted in casework) is employed as a model. By analogy with Donnet's concept of the analytic site, the author proposes the concept of the psychodynamic (case)work site, and elaborates it for that applied field in order to elucidate the proposed principles of psychoanalytic application.     

Between the frontier and the network: Notes for a metapsychology of freedom2

The author examines the paradigm of the frontier and encounters the establishment of the paradigm of the network, a tendency that currently runs through diverse fields of thought. The network is not proposed as a globalising structure that would neutralise what is different, but as integration based on preservation of what is plural and its transformations. The author moves between these two paradigms in psychoanalytic metapsychology and clinical practice. The concept of frontier is intrinsic to the entire theory: repression, which separates the unconscious from the preconscious, the barrier against stimuli, the delimitation of spaces and agencies. But psychoanalysis is also a precursor of the paradigm of the network, with its concepts of unconscious, free association and evenly suspended attention. She points out that it is psychoanalysis that, in the area of scientific thought, subverts the radical split between subjects and their objects of observation, through the concepts of transference and countertransference, thus inaugurating a revolutionary theory of knowledge. This perspective can later be seen as a forerunner of changes in other disciplines. This text legitimises the contribution of psychoanalysis to thinking and knowledge, as well as the potential of a therapeutic method that provides the tools for crossing frontiers, unknotting and weaving networks, operating in the face of risks of pathological consolidations, thus holding to its unavoidable commitment to freedom.