The Well is Running Dry
by Jane S. Hall
Barrier busting is a business term recently used by Amory Lovins, an energy wizard and CEO of the Rocky Mt. Institute. He was referring to the need for all those concerned with oil consumption and alternative energy to work together towards finding solutions. Psychoanalysis needs to bust barriers too.
Since my essay on Barrier Busting (link) www.internationalpsychoanalysis.net I have been thinking about an equally and related serious problem that must involve all post-graduate psychoanalytic institutes: universities and colleges are no longer teaching psychodynamic theory. Medical schools, psychology departments, and social work schools (both masters level and doctoral level) have turned almost completely away from Freud’s ideas to the point that a recent graduate might not have read one paper by him or by anyone interested in the human psyche in terms of the unconscious. It looks like a generation will have been skipped and that the next one will be mesmerized and inspired to study the brain and genetics, completely ignorant of psychoanalytic theory, let alone psychoanalysis.
It is as though we psychoanalytic thinkers and clinicians have broken off the polar ice cap and are both drifting and melting away.
What can we do? How can we continue our incessant bickering about theoretical differences when our roots are rotting before our eyes? When will we look at the reality of our shrinking institutes, journals, and literature? Where can we come together to exert any power we may have to correct this disastrous situation? What do our leaders have to say and will they be able to guide us into a future where psychoanalytic work will capture younger minds? A colleague, working with 14 year olds in a New York public school interested her students in their dreams. This topic fascinated them and they started learning about and even reading Freud. (F. Traeger, 2006) High school is the place to begin!
But we analysts are distracted. At the American Psychoanalytic Association much attention is being given to whether or not certification of a graduated analyst is necessary and if so, who should do it. At the American Psychological Association only two out of many divisions are devoted to psychoanalysis. NASW, the national social work umbrella organization is not at all interested in clinical work let alone psychodynamic theory and as a reaction, a newer group, the American Association of Psychoanalytic Clinical Social Workers are dedicated to keeping the profession alive. But this group of skilled clinicians, some with MSWs and some with PhDs have been segregated against by both psychologists and MDs for too long.
How can we explain this arranging of chairs on our psychoanalytic ship while it sinks? “So many questions” you might say. But, questions must come before answers.
Having asked so many, I will offer one idea and one reminder.
The idea is ‘joining together’. In my mind, there should be a doctorate in psychoanalysis that all would respect. Such a doctorate would include analysts of all stripes and would encompass all theories of technique leaving the individual analyst free to use what is best for each patient. There is only one way to accomplish this non discriminatory practice and that involves accepting and respecting our ability to practice psychoanalytic work, whether x times a week, on the couch, using the here and now exclusively or connecting it to the past, using symbols as in Jungian analysis, paying attention to Bion, Klein, intersubjectivity, and so on with the one goal of patient centered work. Since no one has been able to agree on what exactly a psychoanalytic process really is, and since there is no consensus on what analyzability means, we must begin to respect each others’ integrity, knowing full well that nothing and no one is perfect. We all talk about standards and with the stormy seas we are in, focusing on standards, though important, cannot keep us afloat. No one has a corner on the market of standards. The American Psychoanalytic Association has a great stake in its particular way of practicing analysis. This is a large group of dedicated people who have grown with the times. But, there is more growth needed. Psychoanalysis belongs to everyone. If the ACPE, now headed by Sheila Hafter Gray, were to increase its membership, including members from all chartered or licensed institutes, in this country, a doctorate degree could be constructed state by state. Hard work indeed, but has this been tried? There is such a program in Boston, and I think a discussion amongst our leaders should take place with the ACPE. Psychoanalysis has common enemies and needs something like a NATO to address it. Perhaps the IPA would widen its doors. Crayton Rowe in an article (in press) in the Clinical Social Work Journal calls the enemy psychophobia. I see our common enemies as arrogance and the quest for power. Analysts must stop their superiority complexes and begin learning that none of us has THE answer. I would hope that more answers would come by sharing ideas and experiences.
Analysts have always enjoyed criticizing each other. Freud set us up to exclude those who differed. This exclusion has to stop. Inclusion and constructive debate can and must take its place if we are to grow. Disrespect had driven us to the edge and drains us of the strength we need to survive. We call our work ‘the talking cure’ so why can’t we analysts of all stripes talk to each other.
Closed minds are dead minds. What reasonable analyst today would treat Winnecott with the disrespect he was shown at the NYPI many years ago? What reasonable analyst would disdain the work of brain research? Not so many years ago, Kohut was marginalized because some felt he disregarded the aggressive drive and proposed a narcissistic line of development. Whether or not one agrees, his focus on empathic listening was a major contribution that has affected us all. Many analysts use a Kohutian model today and are successful in their work of helping people. When I was a candidate the work of Melanie Klein was verboten. Her ideas are now embraced by many. Fairbairn, often neglected, has so much to offer. The distance we have traveled is an indicator of how far we can go. We must stop shunning and start admiring those who dare to give us new ideas.
The reminder I spoke of is this: all people deserve second chances. Rich and poor need to be listened to with benevolent curiosity. Diagnosis is not a psychoanalytic concept. I propose that we all open our consultation room doors to a percentage of those who cannot afford our fees. How we do this is a personal decision but one that we could all honor. The time has come to reach out to our communities starting in the high schools and spreading to our clinics. If we analysts could begin to respect each other, think of the creative energy we could spend on real outreach.