In New York, perhaps more so than in the rest of the country, turf wars are increasing as the turf itself seems to be shrinking. Waging war is expensive in terms of time and money. Such war waging is costing the art, craft, and science of psychoanalysis precious energy and it is for this reason that I post this editorial written by Arlene Kramer Richards. This short and eloquent piece will be delivered at the December 1 and 2 Conference: The Future of Psychoanalytic Education, an ecumenical meeting with Jurgen Reeder as keynote speaker. (Click here for conference details)
Jane S. Hall, Op-Ed Editor

————————————

Why Do I Want to Include Our Colleagues in Licensing as Psychoanalysts? by Arlene Kramer Richards

Different points of view about psychoanalytic education and theory can be grouped, I think, into two categories. One camp argues that psychoanalysis must be safeguarded from those who would debase it by using the name to include therapies that are scheduled for less than three times per week. The other camp argues that psychoanalysis is, as Freud himself defined it, the use of the concepts of transference and resistance to understand the unconscious and especially unconscious affects, wishes, prohibitions and fears. Who is right?

The question has theoretical and practical aspects. Continue reading Why Do I Want to Include Our Colleagues in Licensing as Psychoanalysts?

Douglas Kirsner discusses his new research published in his recent article, ‘Do as I say, not as I do: Ralph Greenson, Anna Freud and Superrich Patients’ (Psychoanalytic Psychology, Vol. 24, 3, 2007, pp. 475-486).
Op ed by Douglas Kirsner
     Today it can be difficult to imagine a time when psychoanalysis ruled the roost in mental health. During the 1950s and into the 1960s the major psychiatry programs were psychoanalytically oriented and more than half the chairs of psychiatry were analysts. Psychoanalysis was the default option for understanding and for cure. Psychoanalysts effectively controlled psychiatry, where psychoanalysis commanded immense respect as they did in the culture at large where it was an important part the zeitgeist, not only in New York. Continue reading Op-Ed by Douglas Kirsner

Edwin Fancher has responded to No one owns psychoanalysis (the first editorial posted on August 7th). He addresses the issue of times per week by giving us his history of Freudian psychoanalytic training starting with the Eitington model in Berlin. Mr. Fancher’s contribution is presented as an opinion piece rather than a comment because of its substance, as was Jennifer Harper’s piece, NAAP and Licensing: Fact and Fiction, (August 28th) because of its depth and breadth.

There are many schools of psychoanalysis. This Editorials section of the blog is open to all who are interested in writing Op-Ed articles and comments on them.

The Op-Ed format gives us a forum for exchanging ideas with each other and expressing opinions. The blog form is not impeded by space requirements so all opinion pieces and comments can be posted. Analysts have a tendency to talk past each other instead of listening with open minds. Vehemently defending our beliefs affects our ability to see beyond them. Civil dialogue leads to growth.

Write soon.
Jane S. Hall, Op-Ed Editor

——————–

An editorial by Edwin Fancher
a founding director, Washington Square Institute for Psychotherapy and Mental Health founding president, New York School for Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis

I would like to support Rick Perlman on the issue of the inadequacy of the standards of training for the New York State Licensed Psychologist status, which are based on standards promoted by the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis (NAAP). I have many disagreements with the NAAP standards, but believe that the most important issue is the lack of a frequency in the requirements for psychoanalytic training, which I will address.

Frequency has a long and complicated history in psychoanalysis, but I believe it is worthwhile to review some of that history, and I will touch on a few points in regard to how the issue of frequency influences: 1, the definition of psychoanalysis itself, 2. the distinction between psychotherapy and psychoanalysis, 3. the controversy over lay analysis, 4. scientific research into clinical technique, and 5. political controversy between organized professional groups on a state and national level. Continue reading Training Standards and the NAAP

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