Brief review in Oxford Journal of New Books by Dr. Graeme Pedlingham, University of Sussex This follows a section where he reviewed books that dealt with previous analysts,–Bion for example
2. New Explorations in Psychoanalysis: Different Directions Whilst I have made here a distinction between two strands of work published this year based upon their object of discussion, in this section focusing upon works that explore new directions within psychoanalytic discourses, its dissociation from the preceding section is very far from a decisive one. This is evidenced by the firstbook that I turn to, being Steven J. Ellman’s When Theories Touch: A Historical and Theoretical Integration of Psychoanalytic Thought (Karnac Books). This is an extremely ambitious, substantial work, impressive in its comprehensive scope, although also a potentially controversial one. In this, the first book in a new series entitled ‘The Boundaries of Psychoanalysis’ from the Confederation of Independent Psychoanalytic Societies (CIPS), Ellman presents us with a
text that seeks to articulate a history of psychoanalysis from Freud’s early work to the present day. The first thing to be said about this major undertaking is that it is an incredibly useful resource, one that constructs an accessible and discerning narrative about how the various schools of thought that constitute psychoanalysis arose and interact. This element of interaction is quite key, as Ellman explicitly sets out from the perspective that each theoretical
position is not so much in opposition with others, but that ‘a complete psychoanalytic theory has to blend aspects of both these positions [the drive/structural and relational/structural] (and other positions as well)’ (p. xxii). Indeed, theoretical positions become for Ellman unusually fluid, with movement between positions and the integration of elements from differing positions being not only possible but expected and to be encouraged. Indeed, part of his aim here is to develop an integrated and convergent theory for
psychoanalytic practice that is not afraid to embrace constituent parts from differing models. This, I would suggest, is an appealing although perhaps, and this is self-acknowledged, idealistic point of view. However, it is one aspect that has the potential to make this work a controversial one. Although it should be emphasized that Ellman is not suggesting that there are no oppositions between theorists or even within the same theorist’s thought, but that these oppositions do not necessitate a fixed and dogmatic stance. Rather, they can be seen as productive tensions, and that alternative features of differing approaches can be emphasized over others depending upon the particular requirements of the clinical situation. The second element that could add to the contentious nature of this project is that Ellman is deliberately attempting to present this work in a readable, straightforward way. This may be seen to be at odds with the complexity of the material covered and his rather radical aims with it. However, it is also a characteristic to be credited, and to my mind does not detract from either the strength of his argument or the effectiveness of this text as a work of reference. Indeed, the fact that this work is marked by both of these qualities testifies favourably to Ellman’s skill as a writer.