Modernism or Postmodernism?: Binswanger, Sullivan, and the Problem of Agency in Contemporary Psychoanalysis*

Clinicians seeking to come to terms with current discussion and debate in psychoanalysis are often confronted with a division between modernism and postmodernism. This bifurcation is essentially a product of the tension between classical and contemporary psychoanalytic traditions and represents the efforts of interpersonal, relational, and intersubjective psychoanalysts to differentiate themselves and their work from their Freudian colleagues. It is also the result of attempts to integrate into psychoanalysis the postmodern intellectual critique of such modernist ideas as subjectivity and individuality.

The distinction between modernism and postmodernism in psychoanalysis takes many forms, affecting the way in which clinicians formulate theory and view technique. The reliance on the analytic neutrality and objectivity that defined classical psychoanalysis has given way to an analytic relationship based on mutuality, in which traditional assumptions about authority and reason yield to ambiguity and uncertainty. In place of such foundational concepts as objectivity and truth, postmodernists emphasize constructivism or perspectivism. And in contrast to the materialistic, isolated entity that characterizes the so-called modernist self, the postmodernist tends to see the self as generated and maintained by the relational, linguistic, and cultural contexts in which it is embedded.

The bifurcation of modernism and postmodernism is a reflection of changing theory and practice in contemporary psychoanalysis. Yet, any attempt to differentiate between varying perspectives inevitably raises certain questions. Do modernists really adhere to the notion of an immutable