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.
AS A LONGTIME ADMIRER of Dr. Eisold's contributions to the study of psychoanalysis and its organizational infrastructure, I relished the opportunity to again enjoy his nuanced, even-handed observations on our political life. I applaud his courage as well as his scholarship in exploring the secrets, shibboleths, and shameful rigidities of our field. And I welcome his adding his voice to the rising chorus demanding that the psychoanalytic establishment become more attentive to the needs of individuals and society. His discussion of the current beleaguered state of the profession resonates with the concerns finally being acknowledged by organizational leaders, that our field is in serious trouble, and that the trouble is largely of our own making (Lionells, 1999; Prince 1999). Nonetheless, my response to the current essay is difficult to organize. I am not sure I fully understand the premises Dr. Eisold presents concerning the “project” of professionalization, and I find myself unable to fully subscribe to his conclusions because I believe they point in the direction of increasing rather than decreasing the complexity of our situation.
Dr. Eisold introduces a contemporary sociological view of the project of profession building to suggest that psychoanalysis has failed to meet the criteria that ensure being granted exclusive status by the larger community, and therefore has not achieved the stature and prerogatives of other professional groups. He uses these criteria, I think, to explain why psychoanalysis has declined in popularity, attracts fewer patients and students, and has had difficulty withstanding attack by other scientific and professional groups. I confess I am not familiar with this analysis of the “project” of profession building, and cannot speak to the formal aspects of Dr. Eisold's assertions. But I believe that the problems facing psychoanalysis stem as much, or perhaps more, from its historic successes than from whatever its failures in the political an