You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
According to Barnaby Barratt, psychoanalysis “is the process of breaking-down assumptions. That is, of perpetually being willing to call oneself into question” (2019, p. 50). This is fortunate, because reading his trilogy, one might be forgiven for thinking that being willing to call oneself into question was not the mark of an experienced “radical” psychoanalyst. There is a great deal of certainty in these books. Everyone else is wrong. Most psychoanalysts—sometimes including Freud, especially in his post-1914 metapsychological works—are in fact just “psychoanalysts,” the scare quotes being deliberate. Those who talk about psychoanalysis as “a relationship” usually “deteriorate into drivel when asked what sort of dyadic encounter makes this process distinctive” (2013, p. xv). Writers of “undergraduate textbooks in psychology” are “simple minded” (2013, p. 12) whilst little can be found in the “theoretical structures” of relational and intersubjectivist psychoanalysts, despite their “grandiose” claims, “to distinguish their conduct from a sophisticated version of the practices of counseling and coaching” (2013, p. 38). This is all from the opening salvos in the first book, but at least Barratt is consistent. The second volume criticizes pretty well all schools of psychoanalysis (ego