The Disintegration of Psychoanalysis and the Schools:

The theory of the Survival of the Fittest awakened the human race to the fact of evolution and kept developing and advancing to what it became now: possible to edit genes. Psychoanalysis also came to awaken the human race to acknowledge the existence of a psychical core behind what is displayed of the human subject. Since Freud said: “Hysterics suffer mainly from reminiscences (1893-1895)” he kept developing and advancing his theory of catharses to his last theory of the intrapsychical structure of three agencies that are different in function but similar in structure (Ucs., Cs., Pcs.). This is the natural way for any substantive theory to survive: the original theoretical issue (evolution-intrapsychical, etc.) remains, to be developed and unfolded by new generations of scientists.

For several decades this feature in the psychoanalytic theory was well maintained, by Freud in particular, who kept advancing it in the same direction toward a better conception of the intrapsychical dynamics. The controversies in England- after Freud’s death- advanced the theory intact: the intrapsychical remained the subject matter of the issues that were in debate. The difference between “identification” and “introjection” did not make Anna Freud and Melanie Klein heads of two different schools of psychoanalysis. Putting the intrapsychical in the context of the early child-parent relationship was not new to psychoanalysis, but they highlighted serval processes that could explain matters in the intrapsychical that were not considered before. But then they were considered from the unconscious angle. The Kleinians were more insightful in showing that aspect of the intrapsychic. Glover and Bion were not contradicting each other; they were concerned with two aspects of the same theory. In France, the splits were not creating new “psychoanalyses”, they were all pertaining to issues related to the “subject” of psychoanalysis and its basics propositions (early Lacan was more concerned about the human subject than the early traditional French psychoanalysis). The differentiations between Klein and Anna Freud, and between Lagache and Nachte did not announce a birth of schools of psychoanalysis, but two approaches regarding the same subject.  In Europe-as far as I knew- the conflicts and disagreements within the psychoanalytic community where about the subject matter of psychoanalysis and not about psychoanalysis itself as a theory of the subject. Therefore, the issue of the “schools” did not exist and still does not exits, because the original theory is preserved and still prevails.

In the USA the situation was different. Ego psychology was the most agreeable theory to a medically oriented psychoanalysis. The attention was concentrated on turning the subject matter of psychoanalysis into a quasi-nomothetic issue that has the flavour of something that could get sick and could be cured. Hartmann reified the Ego to almost embalming it. The ego became the reification of a subject and stood for him but without any features of psychological life. Psychoanalysis was not, anymore, the growing theory of the intrapsychical, but a theory of some entity called Ego. Naturally, psychoanalysts had to find a way out of that dead end. The most intriguing thing in that matter is concentrating their efforts on finding a substitute to the embalmed ‘ego’ and not the loss of the dynamics of the psychical processes. Kohut came up with the concept of self as a substitute for ego. It bred few more concepts but got stuck in what could bridge to gap between the self and the self-object [the other!!]. Empathy! How could we train someone to be empathic and what would happen after the termination of analysis with an empathic analyst? Is cure an improvement in the subject’s empathetic potential!

Yet, no doubt self-psychology gave a jolt to ego psychology and started a movement. The movement was rejecting the subject as the psychoanalytic issue and wanted the relational aspect to be the issue (analysis of relations not subjects). In a discussion with a relationist colleague (few years ago) he was not able to make up his mind: am I--as the analyst- work to treat the patient so he would improve his relationships with other or treat his relationships so he would not be neurotic?

This is when psychoanalysis in the US started to disintegrate in a specific manner. The first change was freeing the ego from its reified nature to become a relational object. The critiques of analysis (like R. Holt) and the announcement of a new psychoanalytic paradigm were calling for the reinvention of psychoanalysis in a relational format. Wallerstein (1988, 1998, 2005) was expressing the anxiety of the classical traditional analysts in regard to the disintegration of psychoanalysis, manifested in the rash of schools or what he called later ‘plurality’. I am characterizing it as disintegration because “relational psychology” permits and even condones plurality, i.e. breaking the unitary theory of psychoanalysis into several different theories and leaving it without a theory is disintegration.

It makes a difference if the IPA- as the institution in charge of training- has the function and responsibility of unifying training and learning psychoanalysis in its vast number of training institutes, all over the world. However, it goes without saying that it is not advisable that such a function be given to an organization of membership. Therefore, we should ask: is the ongoing model of learning and training in the IPA capable of securing and guaranteeing that all analysts are getting the same training in psychoanalysis and all are qualified to be called psychoanalysts. The answer is definitely no: it hasn’t been, it is practically impossible to be (though it should) and with eruption of schools of psychoanalysis it would be ridiculous to expect something of the sort. No training organization the size of the IPA could monitor all its training centers. Moreover, the divergent theoretical claims in different parts of the world makes it logically impossible certifying all the members as psychoanalysts unless we admit that that certification has no professional weight. Therefore, why are we still insisting on maintaining the IPA: it is has no input in training, has no professional significance, and has a confusing type of existing. No Respectable Profession Anywhere has our system of organization. The IPA has no function of any convincing way; moreover, it has a distinct harmful impact. It is giving legitimacy to illegitimate distortions of psychoanalysis. We will get to that next.

The position we are taking from the IPA remind me of a joke:

 A narcissistic masochist was frustrated because he cannot find someone to torture and humiliate him. Talking to himself begging for that sadistic person he came to a mirror and continued begging. His reflection  looked back with a certain smile and said no.