Author: Jane S. Hall

No one owns psychoanalysis: a plea for ecumenical cooperation
By Categories: Editorials

An editorial by Jane S. Hall

I am dizzy, perplexed, confused, and distracted by all the debates on standards and credentials taking place in the United States. At APsaA there is something called certification after graduation that many see as unfair and archaic; at CIPS people have differing opinions about the NAAP inspired licensing bill; at NYFS there are some (not many) who disagree with the new, non-evaluatory policy about selection of training analysts; in California, a state where people have to drive sometimes long distances for therapy, some analysts in training wish that three times a week was acceptable for a training case; and surely, there are other debates I know nothing about. Instead of focusing on the facts that psychoanalysis is far from the public’s mind and that there is a dearth of candidates, too much energy is being spent on deciding just how many hoops one must jump through to call themselves an analyst and then a training analyst. My plea is for ecumenical cooperation to replace the infighting that is draining our field of the energy needed to re-build the reputation of psychoanalysis as a valid form of treatment and study. Continue reading No one owns psychoanalysis: a plea for ecumenical cooperation

*Invitation to Submit Opinion Pieces*
By Categories: Announcements, scroller

Arnie Richards, our Editor-In-Chief, has been hard at work rounding up topic and regional editors in addition to the at-large commentators. (See the Masthead page for a complete list.) As the newly appointed Op-Ed editor I hope to facilitate a lively and informative dialogue.

The typical two-page newspaper spread of Editorials, Letters to the Editor, and Op-Ed essays does not translate literally to the online world of blogging, but here’s what we have in mind. In the blogosphere, Letters to the Editor are replaced by Comments, and comments can continue long after the original posting is made. Remember Yale Kramer’s April 27th “Special Report: Thirty-Three Dead”? 103 comments have been posted on that piece, the latest one on July 17th.

We want to foster more conversations on the widest possible range of subjects as they relate to our field. Because InternationalPsyhoanalysis.net is more of a group blog, “editorials” — defined simply as opinion pieces – will reflect only the opinion of the author. Editorials and op-ed pieces are therefore one in the same. This is your invitation to share your thoughts. All opinions and ideas are welcome and the process is simple — just email your editorials to me (click on the Contact Us page if you’d like to use the email form provided) and I’ll take care of posting them to the blog.

About That Mean Streak
By Categories: Letters To Editors

My Letter to the Editor appeared in today’s New York Times, as follows:

To the Editor:

Re “About That Mean Streak of Yours: Psychiatry Can Do Only So Much” (Feb. 6): The examples Dr. Richard A. Friedman uses to promote his view that some people “can be mean or bad just like anyone else” give psychiatry a bad name.

Psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy, in my experience, can help a person understand the roots of meanness, and only with such understanding is there hope for modulated change. I would ask Dr. Friedman what he means when he says that one patient had “all the benefits of an upper-middle-class upbringing?” And how did the psychotic patient happen to have the home phone number of a female resident? The vignettes do not substantiate his thesis.

Jane S. Hall
New York

The writer is the founder of the New York School for Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy.

These types of arguments and articles unfortunately reflect poorly not only on psychiatry but on all mental health workers. As a psychoanalyst with a social work background I have treated many people whose so called “mean streaks” are wrecking their lives. Psychoanalytically-oriented work provides a deeper, broader look at why people react in “mean” ways. This off-putting attitude is a symptom of anxiety about closeness and intimacy that has become characterological and though adaptive in one way, also extremely injurious. We must speak up in support of our field and to educate the public.