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.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REASONS why converging views in psychoanalysis do not blend easily. One apparent barrier to productive interchange among analytic schools of thought is that each has to uphold its own deeply ingrained doctrine. I admit to a psychoanalytic anti-parochialism which is based on my conviction that dogma and personality cults do not promote clinical progress. I consider Harry Stack Sullivan to be among the relatively few genuine innovators in a field that was crafted by Freud's genius. Despite psychoanalysts having tended to be vigilant guardians of territorial boundaries, there is a legitimate need today to incorporate the growing body of empirical data in the overall theory and practice of psychoanalysis.
Experience has shown that open-ended discussions about the merit of one theoretical system over another do not lead to a consensus. More often than not people arrive at a restatement of their formerly held belief systems. A belief is a commitment to something that is beyond proof. It is usually the compulsive adherence to the truth of one's belief that gets in the way of considering another point of view. Psychoanalytic theory functions similarly to the phenomenon of an introject, that is as an internalized common belief system among a group of people who derive their professional identity from it.
Theory and practice in psychoanalysis represent complementary aspects without necessarily being in accord. The actual analytic work with the patient requires a theoretical framework as does the teaching of analytic therapy. Numerous theoretical constructs have been created which to varying degrees serve as useful guidelines