Couple Psychoanalysis in the United Kingdom: Past,Present, and Future

ABSTRACT

The evolution of couple psychoanalysis in the United Kingdom is historically rooted in, and currently supported by, what might be called the Tavistock tradition, which principally derives from the work of Tavistock Relationships, a London-based organization combining clinical practice, training, and research. Practitioners working within this tradition draw on a range of psychoanalytic theories and differ in the ways they are applied in clinical practice and with different client groups, but they are united by their focus on relationship dynamics and how these can be affected by unconscious processes. This article charts how the main ideas and practices associated with the Tavistock tradition of couple psychoanalysis came into being, describes the conceptual building blocks that provide the platform for current training and practice, and identifies nodal points that might indicate directions of growth in the future.     

Psychoanalysis: The Sacred and the Profane

Colleagues from a variety of perspectives have written about the propensity to enshrine psychoanalytic theory. The meaning of the word “enshrine” is to cherish as sacred an idea or philosophy and protect it from change. In other words, the way we view psychoanalysis, our theories of mind and technique, become holy writ and we have divided the world of theory into the sacred and the profane. This is the kiss of death for theory, which must constantly evolve and change, but comforting for the analyst who believes he is on the side of the right, the sacred. In this paper I will discuss how our propensity to enshrine theory has had a debilitating effect on the development of psychoanalysis and, in particular, as a treatment for the most vulnerable people who seek our help. I also address the idea that movement away from enshrined positions allows us to construct different versions of reality. In this context, the notion of “action at a distance” is presented along with the attendant idea of psychoanalytic entanglement.     

The Truthfulness of Psychoanalysis

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics -     

Turn of Fortune in Psychoanalysis: The 1924 Rank Debates and the Origins of Hermeneutic Psychoanalysis

The history of psychoanalysis can be characterized by conflicts that besides their personal content meant a closure and an opening in the development of the theorecial and practical (self )understanding of the discipline. The 1923-24 conflict that resulted in the separation of Rank from the movement and showed the first signs of uneasiness against the mainstream of psychoanalysis in Ferenczi's approach is relatively less known. However, its theoretical, or more general: discoursive impact on psychoanalysis was enormous.The debate took place among the top leaders of the movement, Rank and Ferenczi on one side, Jones, Abraham, Sachs on the other. In the center of the discussion there were two books, The Trauma of Birth by Rank and the The Development of Psychoanalysis by Ferenczi and Rank. With the help of documents I try to show that Freud first supported his Vienna-Budapest friends, later changed over to the other camp. As a general effect, I suggest that this debate resulted in the withdrawal from the earlier more hermeneutic-dialogical, therapy centered psychoanalysis toward a medical, objective, systematic and metapsychology oriented discipline. Besides the general theoretical change the power centers of psychoanalysis shifted toward West, Vienna and Budapest was substituted first by Berlin, later by London and New York.     

The Intersect of Psychoanalysis and Totalitarianism

This conjunction is fraught with danger, with difficulties, and with irreconcilables. I discuss three examples: (a) very briefly, the Soviet Union, where psychoanalysis, established before the October Revolution, came finally to be abolished, as incompatible with Soviet-enforced psychological theory; (b) somewhat more, Nazi Germany, where psychoanalysis struggled to survive in a truncated and grossly distorted form, as a Nazi-sponsored “Aryanized” depth-psychology stripped of Freud’s name and of its necessary conditions of safety and confidentiality; and (c) in considerable detail, my personal experiences on behalf of the International Psychoanalytical Association, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, dealing, after the overthrow of the military junta that had ruled in the 1970s, with the psychoanalytic aftermath, the complete breakdown of the analytic society’s functioning consequent to the shielding of a government torturer during the dictatorship years.     

The Therapeutics of the Fee in Psychoanalysis

This paper seeks to provide context for the fee and its varied meanings in the ordinary workings of psychoanalytic treatment. Drawing in particular on the contributions of D.W. Winnicott, it sets out a framework for approaching the topics of fee-setting, raising and reduction, and seeks to account for the difficulties that ensue when practitioners accept fees or allow debts that are out of sync with their personal needs for monetary compensation. It argues that the integrating rituals around fee payment, indispensable as they are to the material foundations of psychoanalytic practice, are also intrinsic to the vitality of analytic relationship as a therapeutic system or “analytic third.”     

The Politics of Relational Psychoanalysis

Given the foundational premises of relational psychoanalysis, the lack of attention to the social and political world on the part of analytic writers who identify with this orientation is curious. Perhaps relational psychoanalysis itself, particularly in its democratizing impulses (e.g., emphasis on mutuality, concern with questions of authority and self-disclosure), has become a replacement for politics, an effort to provide for patients (and analysts) in the consulting room an experience of a world that no longer seems attainable outside it. The analytic situation thus created would represent a recasting of the world as analysts wish it could be, projected into therapeutic space.

This development in the analytic field is part of a more general cultural shift away from a belief in the possibility of social transformation and a redirection of energies into ameliorative projects. This discouragement dispirits the work of those relational writers who do engage a political aspect in their thinking. The author argues that the recovery of a sense of political efficacy would vitalize analysts' endeavors inside and outside the therapy office and could help to balance the overinvestment of the clinical dimension of psychoanalysis that has accompanied the ascendance of the relational perspective.