3.The Theoretical Field: A Disguised Mess.

I will start with the question: do we have a theory of psychoanalysis or a theory of psychopathology?

Freud’s recognizable theories are supposed to be theories of psychoanalysis. His first metapsychology was the topographic theory which started with a conception of the psychical system. Yet, a theory of catharses was a background to the topographic theory. When he moved to the ‘structural’ model of the three agencies the background changed to be urges and resistance to their controls of the agencies (Freudian psychoanalysis was never a drive psychology like McDougall’s hormic psychology. Psychoanalysis is a theory of Trieb, wrongly translated to instinct; a theory of pressure put on the mind to represent that pressure. A third unarticulated theory is the theory of interpretation (making the unconscious conscious). The three theories were mostly theories of psychopathology with implicit reference to the psychology of the patient (the sick human subject).

Because the Freudian technique of treating psychopathology was always characterized as “free association” it was inevitable that serious confusion between a theory of psychopathology and a theory of techniques would happen, and remain unarticulated. Free association was originally a Jungian understanding of what Freud was doing, but because of the inevitable transcendence of consciousness in associating there is no real freedom in that process. The best to achieve is to listen first and understand later.  Fee association is a misnomer of the psychoanalytic technique. Yet, I do not remember or know of any mention of the distinction in the literature or the scientific meetings between the theory of psychoanalysis and a theory of practice or technique. The absence of such distinction resulted or suited the domination of the clinical concepetion of psychoanalysis and the lack of any need to look into the other distinction between a theory of the patient and a theory of subject.

The absence or lack of attention to certain aspect in the theories we adopt and use would have created deficiencies in our clinical practice, but not a mess.  The proof that what we have now is a mess started with accepting theoretical plurality, presumably for political expediency. The accepted theoretical plurality was of theories of technique and not of any theoretical merit. The discovery of psychoanalysis was the discovery of the existence of unconscious intrapsychical dynamics. I do not see or know of any open retraction of this main postulate in any of the various theories that were called schools of ‘psychoanalysis’. Therefore, it is safe to say that plurality was not theoretical. Only the means to reach that unconscious intrapsychical world started to gradually take different directions. It moved from suggesting exploring the patient’s object relations, to ego defences, fragmentations of his identity and narcissistic core, relationalities, the transference-counter transference dynamics (intersubjectivity), etc.

This diversity is still not enough to create the mess we are in, because supposedly they all were and still are seeking the patients’ unconscious intrapsychical formations. However, because of personal proclivities that were very much active in creating those variations something else happened. Clinical analyst (from their writings!) forgot that their theories are just means to an end, and considered their means to be ends, in their own right. The new schools used the classical vocabulary to mean other concept, created new vocabularies to mean different things than their ordinary connotations, and derived meanings from other sources that are related to but not typically psychoanalysis. We are now in a mess: loss of the central conception of psychoanalysis, varied techniques that are supposedly used for the same objective, disappearance of the distinction between theory as the abstraction of an objective and formulating the link between the work and the means. The critics of psychoanalysis and its serious advocate realize that we, the contemporary psychoanalysts, have considered coining new terminology and confusing theory and techniques a new way of revitalizing psychoanalysis and advancing it.

In my opinion, the current theoretical mess is the result of the deterioration in preparing and training psychoanalysts properly. The outcome is not only messing up the field of psychoanalysis; it is also the deteriorating status of psychoanalysis. Moreover, the propositions offered to dealing with the crisis reflects inadequate comprehension of that deterioration. That is how I also understand the resistance to considering a radical change in the policies of educating, training, and preparing future psychoanalysts for a new and different psychoanalysis. We, the old generation, are not equipped to doing that alone as we always though that we are unique in that field; something we hate to admit after a century of believing that are unique.