Psychoanalytic Discourse at the Turn of Our Century: A Plea for a Measure of Humility

Since Freud's death in 1939, American psychoanalysis has grown from a small, homogeneous, and hierarchical community that resolved disputes primarily by ostracizing dissidents to a larger and more democratic one notable for its intellectual and cultural diversity. Theoretical pluralism and an increasingly heterogeneous population of practitioners have precipitated a renewed struggle for equilibrium between subversive energies and older traditions and have tested the civility of our discourse as perhaps never before. Although these challenges should not be underestimated, the present moment affords analysts in the United States a unique opportunity for mending fences and building bridges. To this end, I would urge adherents of the various analytic traditions to forgo a discourse of dichotomy and polarization and instead approach one another in a dialectical spirit. Just as the essence of science is to be open to evidence that might refute one's preconceptions, so too is it the essence of the psychoanalytic wisdom to which we all aspire to avoid defensiveness and to acknowledge our mistakes. Human nature being what it is, a counsel of perfection is not what I have in mind; a plea for a measure of humility on all sides, however, seems eminently worth making.

Given the long shadow cast over the psychoanalytic movement by Freud's powerful and paradoxical personality, it is an indication of how far we have come in our collective journey that few analysts today