Psychoanalysis and Research III:

A Future for Psychoanalysis

Without giving an appropriate explanation of the distinction I make between functional and structural psychoanalyses I should expect analysts to yawn in boredom and lose interest in following the posting to its end. This distinction is specifically in regard to the evolution of psychoanalysis, in particular its training, and its future as a 'certifiable' profession. Psychoanalysis has been losing status, credibility, the trust of patients, the interest of a new generation of candidates, and lacks a defined future perspective. Despite this real gloomy picture there is a glimpse of hope. It is becoming clearer every day that psychoanalysis has evolved, and its traditional system of training- in apprenticeship institutes- is the obvious direct cause of its decline. The time assigned to learn, and train is not enough anymore, to generate competent analysts. To become an analyst nowadays needs fulltime dedication, several more years of study and training in one of the ‘psychoanalytical specialties’ chosen by the candidate, and acknowledging that psychoanalysis is not merely a designation in the three clinical discipline that take on the task of training in psychoanalysis, but a specialty in many fields of knowledge. It is sad to notice the effort the IPA is making to bring some zeal in psychoanalysis the way marketing expert use to bring to life an old forgotten product.

Another encouraging feature is in the indications that departments of psychology and maybe some universities are starting to offer academic programs in psychoanalysis. This sign is encouraging because in a short time there will be better venues to study psychoanalysis than the IPA institutes. The academic venue will (already)face resistance from the present senior (age) analysts and most of the presently active and practicing analysts. When the departments of psychology in universities open their doors for programs in psychoanalysis there will be a demand to qualify the graduates in one of the dozen or so specialties in psychoanalysis, and the monopoly of the therapists will quickly loosens up. The most important outcome of having a new venue to learn and train in psychoanalysis it the gradual (and maybe a fast) deterioration and decline of the parochial IPA system of training in institutes that have no quality control on its endeavors. The most significant and extremely important outcome of that shift is separating the membership institution from the educational and professional institution. In any respectable profession education and certification are independent of each other.   

If, and eventually, when psychoanalysis will become an academic specialty it has to take a functional or a structural approach to its subject matter. This distinction is the core issue in designing and building the teaching and training programs and curricula.  If the program is geared toward studying and working with the subject (clinical and nonclinical) psychoanalysis, in this case, would be more geared toward functionalities: causes and effects.  Functional psychoanalysis involves psychotherapies and studying issues like creativity, child development, etc. However, functionality is not simple reduction of issues into what causes this or that effect. It has to deal with intricacies of the psychodynamics of the interaction of causes and effect [ How does the mother’s attitude toward a child at age three affects his sense of autonomy]? A second trend in psychoanalysis in academics would be geared toward studying social phenomena in general. A sizable part of Freud’s work was on social and group phenomena: Group Psychology and the analysis of the Ego, the Taboo of virginity, Thought for the Times of War and Death). This field of interest requires a structural approach to get to common denominator in the social (group) phenomenon.

Two Obstacles in the Way to Academia:

I mentioned above that contemporary psychoanalysts are, would resist, and discredit any attempt at changing the present status of psychoanalysis. My ‘impression’ is that contemporary analysts would feel inadequate to be academicians and moving psychoanalysis to Academia would eventually weaken the apprenticeship system that requires extraordinarily little, compared with academic expectations. Although psychoanalysis is dying or at least is disfigured badly with the effort to keep it under the auspices of ‘an international organization’, the IPA is unsuccessful in maintaining its previous high quality in training and catching up with its evolution. In other words, the resistance to moving psychoanalysis away from the IPA methods of managing its affaires comes mainly from the analysts and not from anything that could call or justify keeping the status quo. This is from the psychoanalytic point of view. However, there must be some resistance in Academia too to include psychoanalysis in its syllabus. Some come from old disregard of psychoanalysis because of its doubtful scientificity. Some other come from the attractiveness of psychoanalysis as deeper sort of psychology, which could affect the interest in academic psychology as a science of the conscious processes. Those two opposing sources of resistance to ‘academize’ psychoanalysis will not succeed any longer. Psychoanalysis place is naturally next to psychology. The psychology of the conscious functions has to join its long-missed side of the psychical coin, i.e., the psychology of the unconscious.

Whatever is right and the other is wrong, and whoever is correct in his stand and the other is incorrect, psychoanalysis is losing its grounds outside academia for the simple obvious reason: The psychology of consciousness or cognitive functions has to be in dynamic link with the psychology of the unconscious or the affective side of the subject. They should be the subject matter of one and the same academic program. If I put that reasonable deduction in question, we find ourselves face to face with a puzzle: Wundt’s introspection and Freud’s free association were realized almost at the same period of time. However, they did not materialize in the same place: one in the Clinique and the other in Academia. The resistance of the medical professional of psychoanalysis and the relatively busy other analysts is causing a grave harm to themselves and to psychoanalysis. They are more permissive of deviations from the proper practice of psychoanalysis and less keen to maintain the recommended practices in each side. The current status of psychoanalysis and with less urgency in psychology will cause both to sink.

Addendum

I am reading a magnificent book by Noah Feldman entitled "The Arab Winter". It is a reaction to the previously celebrated events called the "Arab Spring". The book is a Model of  structuralism (in social politics). It answered the question of What, When, How, but never the question of Why. Freud's psychoanalysis started with an eager wish to answer questions of Why, but continued and ended with answering only the three structural questions, and few insignificant answers to insignificant questions of Why. The right answers to the structural questions could reveal the why, but not as an answer to question, but as elucidation of the inquiry that leads to a natural understanding of the matter. The dream is a wish fulfillment [why]  because of the workings of the primary processes.

 

Research ... Research

It was my impression that the issue of the scientificity of psychoanalysis has subsided, if not because that it failed in coming up with hypotheses or suggestion of research, it would be because it is a ruse and displacement to the real problem in psychoanalysis: we just think that it works but have no prove to confirm that belief. Still, we keep seeking rescue from science. The latest appeal was few days ago:  One area for research that would be valuable is to examine what kinds of features "failed cases" or impasses, or negative therapeutic reactions have in common from the perspective of the clinician or the analytic pair. The notion of a Personal analyst in a dyadic situation assumes that one person is a capable match for the entirety of an analysand's developmental issues.

I will venture and IMAGINE a research done (by who!!) in that area:

We need four experimental groups of ‘failed cases, impasses, negative therapeutic, and successful analyses. Due to the original small numbers in psychoanalysis in general, each of those four groups could be 25 persons. The statisticians will raise the validity coefficient if they consider 25 a small number to guarantee validity of the coefficients. The members of the four groups have to be identical or very much similar to each other in age, gender, socioeconomic background, etc. They should also go through a battery of psychometric measures regarding the reason for referral to psychoanalysis. There are other aspects of the similarities that should be considered but this is not the place to go into details.

Then we come to the analysts: how similar in what and how we could judge them to be of equal competence. Add: four years of analysis with same number of sessions, duration, and circumstances. To avoid the sarcasm of my colleagues of Experimental Psychology I would say: I, personally-as psychoanalyst- do not think that any serios research in the field of psychotherapies is possible. The validity of psychoanalysis comes from internal consistency and correspondence between theory and practice. Based on the changes that happened in the field of theoretical and practicing psychoanalysis in the last ‘few’ decades, this link is quite questionable now. Analyst (in the USA at least) who are calling for research to validate their work are not paying enough attention to the theory and the practicing of that theory in their work. We should keep in mind that psychoanalysis reached its peak of credibility from 1900-197….. without any experimental proof of its validity: It was bringing to the attention the unconsciously obvious in the human subject.