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.
During the last decade of the 20th century the crisis of psychoanalysis has been a recurrent theme. The essence of most of these discussions has been the diminishing appreciation from the surrounding society and subsequently the diminishing economical support of psychoanalysis. In spite of being relevant to some extent, much of the arguments from us psychoanalysts have had a rather tedious taint of confined self-interest.
It was therefore very refreshing to take part in a seminar in Cuernavaca in Mexico, where the spirit was the opposite; thus “what can we as psychoanalysts and psychotherapists contribute to our fellow human beings”. The setting of the seminar was special in many ways. It was organised by two small groups from widely separate parts of the world. One group came from the Therapeia foundation in Finland and the other was the Seminario de Sociopsicoanalisis in Mexico. The theme of the seminar was Life and Death. Morning sessions with lectures and discussions were combined with afternoon and evening excursions into the Mexican society. The excursions were devoted to “anthropological studies regarding ‘el dia de los muertos’ and all saints day. We were invited to visit homes in small Indian societies where someone had died during the preceding year and take part in the reunion of dead and living.
My experiences in the seminar prompted some thoughts on psychoanalytic customs. Psychoanalytic practice, like all other scientific disciplines, has its rules and routines for how the adduction of new knowledge is permitted to take place, as well as regarding what, when and through whom. These rules and routines on the one hand have open and discussed rationales, going back to recognised assumptions and hypotheses. On the other hand psychoanalytic experience has emphasised, perhaps more vigorously than any other science, that in seemingly rational formulations, there usually exist hidden levels of influence. Nonetheless psychoanalysts have often remained unaware and