Psychoanalysis: Improve or Change:

Prologue

The view that psychoanalysis is in a crisis is an acceptable concern by most, if not considered by some an established fact. Its status is not the same in the different parts of the world where it is practiced. However, in the best case it could only be said that it is relatively better in some parts of the world than others. This is the basis for condidering psychoanalysis in crisis. If we cannot relate its declining status to particular parts of the world or associate its declination to time-based factors, then it must be in a crisis that is affecting it irrespective of temporary or enduring circumstances and everywhere. The crisis of psychoanalysis has been acknowledged by IPA more than thirty years ago. Still I could say with confidence that the IPA did nothing in regard to that crisis. Its feeble attempts at finding a remedy to that crisis were all unworthy of being called “serious” because they were not founded on any spelled out diagnosis of the causes of the crisis. Thus, it is fair to say the IPA is’now’ the cause of the crisis: it is neither doing anything to explore the causes of the crisis, yet continues to claim the absolute right to be the only responsible organization that should do that exploring.

This prelude is to give a background for my opinion that neither the current psychoanalysts nor their organizations are disposed to reaching a solution to the crisis. There are several ways to introduce this idea but one in particular could corner the answer within a clear limitation: does psychoanalysis need improvement to regain its previous status and appeal, or requires change to get rid of what made it lose its credibility and what makes it unable to point to possible solutions. If psychoanalysis needs improvement then the present system of IPA training institutes remains the way to qualifying psychoanalysts, which means that the method of training is right but some improvements should be made to the what is required to learn and train, and maybe add improvements to the function of the “training analyst’. This suggestion does not respond to what might have gone wrong over the last hundred years since the inception of its system of training, instead of what should have been expected of getting better with gaining insights and experience.

Psychoanalysis reached its high reputations in the sixties and seventies of the last century. Before that time psychoanalysis was still struggling with finding its theoretical anchors, integrating new insights and old workable but not totally correct concepts (Trieb or Drive psychology!), and standardizing the three basic elements of training. However, during the century of exploring a completely uncharted field of knowledge psychoanalysis maintained its focal point about the subject: his intrapsychical dynamics. Although some cracks were showing in the conception of sexuality and repression on one side and ego psychology and defense mechanisms on the other, new discoveries (Klein, child analysis, new concepts emanating from exploring new psychopathologies, and the contributions of remarkable psychoanalysts and the intellectual communities) enriched the psychoanalysis of the intrapsychical beyond the wildest expectations of the early pioneers, including Freud. Psychoanalysis remained anchored in its original base: the psychical core of the subject.

A period of transition from old psychoanalysis to contemporary psychoanalysis changed the scene of the IPA: ‘the international psychoanalytic association’. Although the IPA has an early(historical) functional link with the advancement of psychoanalysis it did not have a defined function outside the training endeavours. Its biannual meetings were not official events to advance the theory of psychoanalysis. They were the time to reorganize it so it could preserve its international qualification. The theoretical presenations in those meeting were usually of less qaulity compared with the published works of the membership.  In better terms, the IPA was an organization with one function: sanctioning its own training undertakings.

At the beginning of the analytic movement, future psychoanalysts had to go through training in IPA institute because there was no where else to learn and get trained. The training institutes mushroomed all over the world and the IPA, had to delegate the actual training and recognition of the training responsibilities to the regional and local branches and remained mainly a shell for ‘psychoanalysis’. At the same time, trained analysts were the only ones whose personal contributions to the theory were recognized as coming from a bona vide psychoanalyst. This arrangement created a confusing and an unhealthy situation in psychoanalysis. In all learning and training institutions or apprenticeships the relationship between the student or the pupil and the institution used to end by the completion of the task of educating and traing the newcomers. In psychoanalysis the relationship continues far beyond the period of formation, and to some degree remains forever in one form or another. The certified candidate seeks membership in the same organization that certified him. Those relationships could only be sustained by something implicit that lurks in the background of training inpsychoanalysis: infantilization. I mean by that, that the IPA’s system of the formationof the nalyst creates a personal conviction that training in psychoanalysis is a process of growing up under the guidance of the older generation of analysts. This setup is unacceptable in regular academic or traditional professional institutions. Once ‘finished training’ the graduate cuts the umbilical cord with his school. This feature is clear in the differences between admiring a professor or a teacher and idealizing (or its opposite) a training analyst. In more clear and observable way: the result of training and learning psychoanalysis in the inherited IPA system is unending, indelible, and with no doubt seeps into the analyst’s image of himself (ambivalence). This is the model of relating to Freud in the early days and is perpetuated in the IPA system of training till now.

In the next part of this post I will give my answer to the question of whether psychoanalysis needs improvement or substantial change.