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.
This book reminds me of some well-known psychoanalysts who joined Anna Freud in 1953 in examining efforts to widen the scope of psychoanalysis' application. Anna Freud stated: “How do analysts decide if they are given the choice between returning to health half a dozen young people with good prospects in life but disturbed in their enjoyment and efficiency by comparatively mild neuroses, or to devote the same time, trouble and effort to one single borderline case, who may or may not be saved from spending the rest of his life in an institution? Personally, I can feel the pull in both directions, perhaps with a bias toward the former task” (A. Freud 1954, pp. 610-611). As decades passed, however, individuals with conditions above and beyond mild neurotic problems continued filling psychoanalysts' offices. Meanwhile, the classical psychoanalytic tradition of placing the influence of external events in the shadows while conducting psychoanalysis also continued. After World War I ended, Freud (1920) wrote that patients suffering from traumatic neurosis were not much occupied in their waking lives with memories of their traumatic event. “Perhaps,” he added, “they are more concerned with not thinking of it. Anyone who accepts it as something self-evident that their dreams should put them back at night into a situation that caused them to fall ill has misunderstood the nature of dreams” (p. 13). After World War II, for a long time there was in general “silence” about the Holocaust in the clinical setting. It is beyond my scope here to examine the combination of reasons why, but outside of a few exceptions, psychoanalysts did not focus much on how traumas impacted the psychopathology of the people they were treating (for an examination of these reasons, see Volkan 2015). After