The Crisis in Psychoanalysis: In Search of a Lost Doctrine by Ahmed Fayek Austin, TX:  Bridgeway Books, 2010,  282 pp.

Fayek's central thesis is that the current crisis in psychoanalysis is due to the rejection and decline of the “classical Freudian doctrine,” and the associated growth and acceptance of theoretical plurality. He warns that only a return to the “classical doctrine,” by which he means a return to the topographical model, can save psychoanalysis, as stated in Boesky (2010).

It is easy to lose sight of the contributions of Fayek's work because the limitations are glaring. Therefore, I will review the strengths first. Fayek highlights core concepts from classical theory that often are neglected, underemphasized, or misunderstood today.

His emphasis on the importance of the unconscious, the endosomatic, psychosexual stages, metapsychology, psychodynamics, the economic, and the intrapsychic is critical for a contemporary psychoanalytic world that often seems to be dominated by interpersonal, environmental, and intersubjective ideas. His concern that the destruction of analysis is due to the profession rather than external factors is provocative.

This text has major limitations that detract from Fayek's message. His definition of the “classical Freudian doctrine” is very restrictive. He devalues the structural model and ego psychology, and dismisses the centrality of Oedipal conflict. His critique of relational theories is superficial. He presents a very narrow view of psychoanalysis and rejects alternate viewpoints without adequate analysis or clinical evidence. The book is difficult to read as a result of his dense writing style and the mass of philosophical and historical data.

Fayek begins by arguing that the current crisis in psychoanalysis—the declining number of patients, candidates, and decreased credibility—is not due to external factors, such as competing treatments, pharmacology, or changing social and economic conditions and values. He argues that the crisis has been generated from within. He questions how a profession can have credibility if it cannot define what p