Psychoanalysis and Academia*

A Glimpse of Hope, but Just a Glimpse

It seems that it became obvious to psychoanalysts in North America that tinkering with the present state of affairs in psychoanalysis is not going the stop its deteriorating condition. Only lately, there seem to be an awakening interest in linking or looking for ways to relate psychoanalysis to academia. There is some hope there, but just a glimpse of hope. The reason for my guarded hope is two-fold:

A.   For the last two decade or maybe a little more (actually since 1995) it was clear to everyone in the practice of psychoanalysis, including the governing body of the IPA, that psychoanalysis is becoming an endangered specie. In 2000 I published a book on the crisis concentrating on putting together a comprehensive picture of the fundamentals of the core theory of psychoanalysis, and cautioning for the demise of psychoanalysis if we let go of the basics of its doctrine. The book did miserably for over ten years, and it is now close to being out of print. So mush about the book but there has been sort of an awakening to the fact that the crisis is real. Yet, all the attention in North America is about the deteriorating state of the practice of psychoanalysis and there no mentioning of the state of psychoanalysis itself. I will come to that later.   

I was witnessing the deterioration in North America, at the same time getting wind of the European’s attention to Academia-not only as escape hatch from a sinking ship-but as a new conception of psychoanalysis. In North America there were several desperate and serious attempts at reviving the “practice” of psychoanalysis which all came back either with failure or suggestions of changing psychoanalysis itself. Desperation is eventually leading to a glimpse of flexibility and hope that analytic circles are considering academia a proper and possible consideration; a last resort not an actual solution.

B.    All the replacement theories of the classical theory proved to be theoretical soap bubbles, and they burst one after the other without catching the attention of analysts or patients. The call to consider academic learning and training as the venue to take is not, anymore, blasphemous. Nevertheless, it only meant taking our failing psychoanalysis to academia to get resuscitated. If we want to change the situation, we should bring academia to psychoanalysis not the other way around. Academia is not school building, budgets, resources, etc., Academia is a way of thinking, an attitude regarding knowledge that could help in improving the practice of that knowledge.  Despite the exitance of some psychoanalytic institutions that are affiliates of reputable universities in the USA, psychoanalysis-even in those institution- avoid declaring themselves as purely academic, because ‘we’ use the term in its popular meaning of theoretical, idealistic not practical (practice).  Possibly, the main obstacle in the way a proper link between psychoanalytic learning and training and academia in North America is matter of reputation: real psychoanalysis is the one you can get in the purely IPA institutes, which allows being elected to its membership.

 In Europe, psychoanalysis is already well entrenched in academia. Presently, there are academic institutions all over Europe that either opened themselves to psychoanalytic education with attached training in psychotherapy, or offer post graduate degrees in psychoanalytic research, or both. However, the existence of universities (in Europe) specialised in psychoanalytic teachings, or noteworthy departments of psychoanalysis in other major universities, reveal ‘points’ of debate that have to be addresses sooner than later.

The people who advocated and established the presence of psychoanalysis in academia are psychoanalysts who got their training (status as analysts) in the IPA system of training institutes. They are also the main professors in those academic institutes. This fact creates the first point of confusion: What is the difference between learning and training in the IPA system and in what takes place in Academia? Do we have to have two systems if the faculty is mainly the same? If there is a difference why do we create it or not try to eliminate? Why make the change, maintain it, and apologize for continuing it?

The Advantages of Academic Training:

In any way we try to compare the two systems we will notice that the time dedicated to getting an academic degree in is psychoanalysis, even just at the master’s level, is much more than what is offered in the IPA institutes for a full period of training. The syllabus in the academic departments of psychoanalytic studies are -at least- well defined and constitute a curriculum that could be judged in terms of quality and fulfillment of objectives. The system of the seminars in the IPA institutes lacks clarity, cohesiveness, compatibility with what was delivered by another faculty or in a similar institute. Teaching in institutes is more or less dependant on the faculty’s theoretical bend and interest in the subject he presents to the class.  The academic faculty teaching psychoanalysis has to cover the subject in a systematic way and make sure that all its aspects of the syllabus are covered are delivered in manner that allows other faculty know what the student has been informed about. Quality and measures of assessing that quality exist firmly and clearly in academia, while they are not adhered to as a tradition in the IPA institutes.

This point of confusion leads to another more drastic in importance. The programs of psychoanalysis in those universities are recognized and accredited by the university, which bestows its credibility on its educational system as whole. This is the rule in all respectable professions, particularly the ones that deal with citizens.  It is the rule that is seriously followed in clinical psychology, psychiatry and clinical social work. A system of that nature gives the academic degree in psychoanalysis the status of a professional certificate, and the credential of that program comes from an accreditation of the university.  The graduates from the IPA institutes have no professional credentials except the ones they acquired in their academic specialization as professionals.  This point highlights the issue of professional credibility which training in IPA institutes does not guarantee. Rightly so; there is no unified measure of learning, training, assessing and evaluating the curricula in that system of training except the opinion of the training analysts (no wonder that the relationship with the faculty in the IPA institutes is always coloured by personal factors).

Everything related to deferring learning and training in psychoanalysis to academia shows the big advantages of doing that. Yet, even analysts who support the academic model are obviously not taking the sensible and necessary step of closing the IPA shop and expanding the academic shop. The reasons I heard about this dilemma ranges from nostalgia to the tradition to ‘ower’ independence that would be lost in academia. In addition the is fear of other human sciences absorbing psychoanalysis and making it merely a subspecialty in a larger domain. There is nothing to fear in that context except limiting the flexibility of improvising new schools of psychoanalysis haphazardly and irresponsibly.

Psychoanalysis-in academia- will get and take more time to learn and train, its syllabus will be organized and delivered in manner that eliminates the chancy ingeniousness of some faculty, and would finally adheres to the academic standers of quality. Psychoanalysis becomes a respectable profession instead of remaining a guild, as it is now.

However, resistance to change and the conflict of interest of the senior of analysts who are supposed to lead the movement to ‘academize’ psychoanalysis are issue to consider when we think of hope. This is another issue.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*In a previous posting I was introducing the issue of structuralism in psychoanalysis as a neglected point of change that affected psychoanalysis since the nineteen thirties. It is a central issue in the humanities since, and specifically in the arguments with Lacanian psychoanalytic thought.That topic was unfamiliar with most North American psychoanalysts. However, I received an email from a colleague asking me if there is something wrong with me and if I needed some help.

This posting too contains some unfamiliar ideas about the topic of academia and psychoanalysis. I want to assure my colleagues from the beginning that I am OK and do not need  help regarding my mind.