President's Report

On the Reported Death of Psychoanalysis-Part Two

As I begin to write my second, and final, letter to you as NCSPP President, I cannot believe that six months have already zipped by since my last letter and that the end of the year is quickly approaching. As they say, time flies when you're having fun, and my tenure as President has been one of the most fun-filled years of my life, due in large measure to the wonderful members of the NCSPP Board who give their time and energy so generously and graciously. But before saying farewell, I would like to take this opportunity to continue with some thoughts and reflections that I shared with you in the spring issue of fort da about the current state of psychoanalysis.

Last spring I commented on two recent media reports devoted to the pending death of psychoanalysis (in Time Magazine and The New York Times). I focused on the need to address the media's incorrect view of psychoanalysis and its narrow interpretation of psychoanalytic organizations and institutions. Nothing has happened in the past six months to change my opinion on these matters. If anything, a recent lecture in Berkeley, jointly sponsored by PINC and SFPI&S, featuring the Australian philosopher, Douglas Kirsner, confirmed much of what I said last spring. Ironically, Kirsner began his lecture citing the same New York Times article that I mentioned in my report last spring! His address consisted of a daylong program including commentaries by Robert Wallerstein, Otto Kernberg, and Joseph Aguayo. I would like to take this time to briefly review Kirsner's talk for those of you who did not attend the lecture.

Kirsner's paper, titled “Psychoanalysis and Its Discontents,” was not devoted to media perceptions as much as the state of psychoanalysis, itself, and the decline of psychoanalysis as a viable profession. In fact, his findings concerning what is the matter with psychoanalysis and what might be done to correct the situation more or less conform with the issues I r