EDitorial: Identity in Change

Abstract

As we look at the evolution which has occurred in the field of psychoanalysis over the last fifty years, it is simply not possible to discuss contemporary psychoanalysis without invoking Freud. Our conference, of course, is dedicated to contemporary psychoanalysis; therefore, it is entirely appropriate for us to explore this topic.

Early contemporary psychoanalysis, I would suggest, began with the gradual evolution of the libido theory. Subsequently, contemporary psychoanalysis increasingly concerned itself with the early pre-oedipal dyadic relationship between mother and infant as well as the concomitant development of the ego. Finally, Freud's monumental and long lasting contribution to the clinical understanding of hysterical symptoms is increasingly relegated to the status of a superfluous antique. Analysts who are familiar with the ongoing contemporary significance and utility of Freud's early conceptualizations concerning the dynamics of hysteria and its treatment understand that the symptoms often represent and express an incompatible idea which has been repressed. When the analyst directly interprets the symptoms in a timely and accurate fashion, transference analysis is stimulated and enhanced.     

Editorial

Abstract

This paper will examine the current crisis in psychoanalysis in terms of the profession's decline, the apparent lack of patients, the ongoing debate over what constitutes psychoanalysis versus other therapies, and the lack of clinical focus in those debates. The concept of analytic contact will be introduced, and clinical material is used to showcase this concept as a bridge from the circular political debates to a more meaningful examination of what is psychoanalytic. In addition, case material will explore how patients tend to fight off the establishment of analytic contact in favor of safer, less threatening modes of relating. The author suggests that most patients fight off analytic contact and try to shift the treatment into something less analytic. It is up to the analyst to detect this, interpret it, and notice any countertransference collusion that may occur. Although the state of psychoanalysis as a profession is less than stellar in the eyes of the public, and the profession is apt to sabotage itself with endless debates about what constitutes true analytic work, the end is not necessary near. This paper proposes analytic contact to be the more useful focus of research and productive area of clinical exploration. If the decline of our field is to turn around, it will be on the clinical battlefront, not in terms of the theorizing among disagreeing groups of territorial analysts afraid of losing their political high-ground. The concept of analytic contact assumes that a deep exploration of intrapsychic phenomena, conflicts, and defenses, all within the realm of the transference, is the best clinical method of helping the mentally troubled individual. This genuine chance of change is best administered by a trained psychoanalyst. This simple idea is something the profession has contaminated with its often pointless arguments over frequency, analyzability, couch, and so forth. The clinical material will show that what happens in the room between analyst and patient is what best defines the true psychoanalytic treatment.     

CAPTIVE GAZELLES IN IRAQI JEWRY IN MODERN TIMES IN RELATION TO CULTURAL PRACTICES AND VERNACULAR HOUSING

As late as in the first half of the twentieth century, there were some Jews in Iraq who kept gazelles for meat, even in urban homes. This was made possible by the features of vernacular housing this article explains. Far more prominent, however, was the use made in Iraq of gazelle hides in the manufacturing of Torah scrolls, which were ubiquitous in Iraq, and many were exported from there at various times. The prevailing custom of dedicating Torah scrolls (typically, in memory of one's deceased relatives) made it necessary for gazelles to be raised in captivity as hunting alone would not have been sustainable for generating a supply that would meet the demand.     

Tradition, Authority and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was passed into law in 1990 and since that time has been implemented in ways that merit attention from scholars of religion. This article explores the legislative history of the law, analysing Native American appeals to ‘tradition’ in their quest to establish authority over disputed human and cultural remains. After a preliminary theoretical section that sets out relevant issues and questions, the essay engages a close reading of pivotal legislative hearings and reports, with attention to uses of religious and moral language. Building upon this reading, a dual analysis of Native American ‘traditional’ rhetoric is developed that examines the persuasive features of minority-specific claims, majority-inclusive claims and the combined force of these. Next, this line of analysis is framed in comparative and historical terms through a consideration of ‘revitalisation movements’. In light of this comparison, a case is made for interpreting NAGPRA and related movements as a primary means by which Native Americans manage their relationship to modernity, acting as critical citizens who demand their rights as Indians, Americans and human beings. The essay concludes by arguing for an understanding of social and discursive boundaries that neither limits nor is limited by ‘tradition’.