“Ye great teachers: listen to what you say!” –Goethe
Fred Busch raises interesting questions about the transmission of psychoanalytic knowledge. I am grateful to have been invited to respond. We are both seasoned analysts with similar training and equal years of teaching experience but we do see things differently. My 40 plus years of teaching, supervising and treating patients, preceded by training at a classical institute in the days when Melanie Klein was verboten, allow me to both understand Fred's message and to comment on his conclusions.
I agree with Fred that teachers in all fields deserve far more respect than they seem to get. Most teachers work very hard to prepare meaningful classes and renumeration is often low. Their observations and impressions should be heavily weighed when evaluating candidates' progress in psychoanalytic institutes. Listening only to supervisors is a mistake, one that must be corrected. Teachers see how a student interacts with others. Often, transference phenomena not expressed in analysis or supervision, are given vent in the classroom. Usually it is the negative type, and the teacher must be aware of and prepared for this. Institute teaching is not easy because of the expression of negative transference.
My disagreement with Fred is about seeing post-modernism as the culprit that causes his difficulties teaching advanced seminars. And I strongly disagree that students think they know it all. I'm sure Fred realizes that such arrogance when it occurs, is a cover for anxiety. I would encourage him to look for other reasons for his disappointment. Also, Fred's use of the word expert troubles me.
Considering oneself an authority or expert carries with it prestige but it also has a downside. In fact, it can be dangerous, for it tends to close one's mind. Experts are known to forget humility along with the idea that there is always more to learn. It is true that some students want experts and prefer papers filled with jargon and complex concepts in order to idealize. But idealization has been a major problem in psychoanalysis for too long. It is time to get rid of the pedestals. We all have unique experience to share respectfully. There is a strong tendency in our field to hide behind complex language. It is the enthusiastic exchange of ideas that keeps a class and a teacher alive. Fred's invitation to learn his way of listening was not greeted eagerly by a class which preferred listening to each other as well. Fred's conclusion that they considered themselves equal to him was unfortunate. Yes, his years of experience which he codified in his latest book “Creating an Analytic Mind” is certainly worth reading but an advanced class needs to express their ideas.
Each class responds differently to a teacher. For me, this is the joy in teaching. Connecting with a new group is challenging, for just as with each patient, every class is unique and the bond that is formed, whether negative or positive, is worthy of attention. Teaching advanced students who have been together for several years is particularly challenging, for they have developed strong ties to each other, and they have heard each other's cases over time, leaving the teacher often feeling like an outsider. Teachers must not be surprised by this. Once I taught a small 4th year class heavily influenced by Lacan at the Contemporary Freudian Society. This was hard for me, not knowing much about Lacanian language. But I also tuned into the hostility beneath their love for Lacan so rather than reading up on Lacan, I tried understanding the anger. Their use of Lacan turned out to be a shield that kept me out. I learned that one class member had just failed the readiness-for-control interview and the group of three was upset. They were not in the mood to learn but preferred to punish the authority. They were angry and secretly frightened. I was the stand-in for the institute. I wish I could say that I was prepared for the situation. But I did learn a lesson. Teaching is hard and full of surprises. Happily, this was not a recurring situation.
Fred speaks about truth and knowledge. But what can we really say about truth in psychoanalysis? The dogmatism that once haunted us has lessened for many but the melody lingers on, particularly in ApsaA
institutes. Analytic knowledge is tricky because we want it to be based on truths. I see few truths/facts for there is little scientific evidence regarding theory or technique, as many have pointed out. Freudian psychoanalytic theory is one fascinating way of understanding the inner life of man. In fact, most of what we psychoanalysts call knowledge is based on Freud's ideas and their development, and a fierce loyalty to Freud persists. The training analysts at ApsaA institutes had to pass certification, which is a highly unreliable way to measure competence. Those who apply are known to doctor cases and to take classes that prepare them to present in a ritualized manner. The selection of training analysts is also based on loyalty to Freud, and depending on the institute, this selection is known to be political. Students are in the perfect position to question teachers not because of post-modernism, but because of curiosity, sometimes disbelief, and sometimes due to amazement. Questions need not be heard as challenges. But when a teacher is adamant or considers her/himself an expert, these questions may appear to be hostile. Realistically, what has been shared, often persuasively and often as holy grail, does not measure up to a truth or fact that is generalizable. See Fonagy for a thorough discussion.
We analysts cry out for research but sometimes ignore it. For instance, Beebe and Lachmann, Tronik, Stern, and others have done excellent research finding that early attachment affects character development. Character analysis is what most of us do but that takes a very long time and so it is easier to focus on neurotic conflict which can usually be found. Beebe and Lachmann's research on Bowlby's theory of attachment could alter much of our thinking. Bowlby's work is finally being recognized after years of disregard. Daniel Stern's research on infant development challenging Mahler's theories is still being debated. Even theories of development are often questioned by orthodox analysts. So there is much to ponder. What I am saying is that new theories of development are challenging some dearly held beliefs, creating heated discussions among seasoned analysts. Certainty is subjective, to say the least. Each of us takes a side for personal, often unconscious, reasons. So there really are no experts or even authorities, and knowledge must be acknowledged as personal. This is an uncomfortable idea but one that should help create an open mind. This is not post-modernism as I understand it. Rather it is to be expected and also appreciated. Receiving wisdom from a different
century or even quarter century requires discernment. For instance, reading Storms in Her Head, edited by Harris and Dimen, gives us a modern look at Freud's construction of hysteria.
In this time of new ideas based on research, the Oedipus complex and castration anxiety continue to remain at the center of theory, crowding out early effects of the first period of attachment. This of course adds to problems in teaching. Knowledge is shifting, as it should, and many of Freud's ideas are under scrutiny. Our anxiety about this needs to be faced. The development of a searching attitude and an acknowledgement of the brain's complexity are necessary for us all to acknowledge – student and teacher. Too often, though, we see more competition than cooperation. Yes, competing is normal but it needs tempering with a search for truth. Because of the uniqueness of each dyad and of each group, there are no set answers.
In his book Creating a Psychoanalytic Mind Fred tells us about his work with Eric. The vignette is quite informative as to how Eric, in the termination phase, regresses and then analyzes himself out of the wish for Fred to ‘clean up his mess’ by observing a messy interpretation in the previous session that annoyed him. Fred's explanation of his aim and method of creating the analytic mind is impressive but what perplexed me in Eric's case and in other vignettes was the quality of the connection and the development of the analytic third as Ogden might say. In other words, the intellectual quality of Fred's astute interaction with Eric, who was indeed using his analytic mind, seemed to miss the underlying affect. By focusing on the early toilet trainer/superego aspect, what I missed was the feelings about the impending end of analysis and the wish to remain a dependent little boy. It seemed to me that Fred was being perceived as expecting a good, clean boy and Eric was trying to please him by avoiding needs from an earlier level. Another vignette alluded to a patient's homosexual fantasy without exploring the non-erotic love for the analyst. I worry that this approach with its goal of creating any kind of mind is an intellectual process and that it spills over to Fred's teaching technique. Eric becomes a good analysand but how is he feeling? So I wonder if Fred is feeling superior and that Eric is measuring up. I envision the analyst as guide or witness (Poland) on a journey, and not as leader or judge. Now, of course this is one vignette from a whole analysis and I only use it to ask Fred where his heart/libido/feelings
about ending are. Is this approach one that may get Fred in trouble in other situations? Do Fred's advanced students pick up on Fred's camouflaged superior manner? Does intellectualism screen out intense feelings? Doesn't a good teacher find ways to allow the students to develop their own minds out of loving concern? Teachers are expected to know more than their students but how they present their knowledge is worthy of a long discussion. Do they adjust themselves to each class? And more importantly, how do they create a space for individual growth. Merriam-Webster definition of ‘seminar’ says: a group of advanced students studying under a professor with each doing original research and all exchanging results through reports and discussions.
Now, the above thoughts perhaps reflect my agenda more than actually and accurately explaining Fred's method. I was lucky to have studied for many years with Martin Bergmann—a highly sought-after teacher who held private seminars five days a week with waiting lists for decades. And yes, at times I idealized his manner. He was my role model for teaching. Martin exuded love of learning and learners. He had charisma—a vibe that made his students feel included in the search for knowledge. He seemed eager to hear his students think. His enthusiasm was contagious. One thing he often said that I shall never forget: “You will always find something of use even in articles you basically disagree with.” Seminars ranged from 20 to 5 members and each participant felt listened to with respect. He greeted new and unusual ideas with interest, sometimes with excitement. His agenda, like Fred's, was to create analytic minds through his attitude of respect—even love. I could never imagine him saying as Fred does: “I consider myself an authority on thinking about aspects of clinical technique from my perspective.” I don't think Martin would have spoken of himself as an authority on anything (although he surely could have) —he was always interested in learning more, and his students adopted this view.
Fred's paper seems joyless and pessimistic and devoid of ideas to change what he is perceiving. I have chosen several key sentences from his paper followed by my comments:
Busch: …in the larger picture teaching seminars has not been our strongest suit.
Hall: Agreed. Seminars are highly underrated in psychoanalytic education. Why? What an opportunity to share, with regularity and in a safe space, different ideas! Different ideas are stimulating and disagreements are nourishing if our minds are open. Teaching is an art. It requires an ability and a desire to bring material to life. Most of all it requires connecting with the group and warding off humiliation with respect. Even seemingly absurd comments hold a kernel of interest. If a teacher can zero in on that kernel with tact, instead of criticism, she/he sets an important example for students. Our field is filled with clinicians who have suffered as children. We rarely admit that, but it is time to. Our own analyses hopefully modify our reactions to the damage we suffered so that we can empathize with our patients, classmates, teachers, and our students. An effective teacher is like a good host—providing good ‘food,’ introducing participants, encouraging conversation, and adding to it. Each group has different dynamics. It is the teacher's job to tune in. Not everyone or every group will like the teacher but being liked is not the goal. The goal, in my mind, is to create a playing field for thinking and expressing thoughts in a non-critical manner. It is a rare teacher who can engage all students as Martin Bergmann did.
Busch: A candidate in a clinical seminar, where we all took turns presenting clinical material, said she wouldn't present a case because she was pleased with the way she was seeing the case. …this lack of curiosity and clinical arrogance was nothing compared to the shock I had when I brought this incident up in our education committee when discussing this candidate's work, and no one seemed bothered by this information.
Hall: Why not meet privately with the student? There are no doubt reasons for reluctance to present. Going to the progression committee first seems inappropriate and unproductive. This should be a personal matter of concern between the instructor and student. A private meeting between an empathic, concerned teacher and a reluctant student could do wonders.
Busch: I consider myself an authority on thinking about aspects of clinical technique from my perspective. ….in the midst of a discussion a candidate interrupted to say she liked the previous way a clinical seminar was taught, where everyone sat around and just said what
he or she thought about the case. …That is, we were now all the same, no one knew anything more than anyone else, and everything was supposed to be nice.
Hall: Nice? What about considerate! This was an advanced seminar and I wonder why this student's suggestion was experienced as offensive. Why not consider what lays beneath this request? Did you, Fred, allow yourself to reflect on your affect? Obviously, you were perturbed, even injured, judging by the phrasing of your statement. Advanced students may differ with a certain perspective which is important. How to express their differences can be modeled by the teacher. Education, in my opinion, is meant to enable and encourage thinking throughout life. Blaming post-modernism is a red herring. Those who study psychoanalysis are adults with different ways of perceiving. Often these ways are refreshing and worth considering. This is how we learn different ways of hearing and reacting. Respect is a two-way street and the teacher's respect for the student will be returned.
Busch: …we (educators) are put in the positions of trying to help candidates learn about psychoanalysis, but have to act as if the candidate already knows everything there is to know.
Hall: Teachers who feel this way might meet with other faculty members and also with candidates. Yes, some students may appear arrogant but so do some teachers. We know that arrogance covers anxiety. Open discussion does wonders.
Busch: Our psychoanalytic history is rife with deceptions and self-deceptions, which I believe played a role in what happened next…i.e., the attack on authority. The problem of deception is not defined by locale, rather it is a psychoanalytic problem.
Hall: This is an issue that cannot be truly measured because of the ‘fear factor’ I have often mentioned on the ApsaA list serve. Speaking up risks losing referrals. In an association once run by BoPS, we still suffer from the paranoia it fostered. Certification interviews reflected a ‘toe the line’ approach and many applicants doctored their cases or took classes on how to pass. Despite change, the tension persists. The DNA inherited from Freud which includes authoritarianism and is passed along by training analysts may be with us forever. The solution, now underway,
is including different approaches and theories. Welcoming WAW and the Horney institute/society will hopefully be followed by reuniting with Adlerians and Ferenczians, Lacanians, Jungians, etc. Our gene pool needs expansion. All of us have ideas worth sharing and of course there will be disagreement. No kumbaya moments are required.
Busch: Of course, the notion that an analyst could keep a certain distance from any part of his thinking is anathema to a post-modern analyst. Subjectivity, relativism, perspectivism…these are the new coins of legitimacy.
Hall: These are valuable coins, Fred. I cannot help but feel a note of sarcasm or criticism of the inter-subjective influence that has made a resurgence with psychoanalytic thinkers and clinicians. While I understand the difficulty in change, it is exactly this lack of open-mindedness that is a serious problem. I think a teacher's ability to welcome new ideas and to examine unproven theory will be appreciated but, more than appreciated, it will pay off. If a teacher said: Let us greet our points of view with respect and curiosity, as we do our patients, and we will all learn. A new learning environment will have been created. Blaming post-modernism seems like a smokescreen for deeper issues.
The last part of the paper verges on the polemics and the scholarly aspects of knowledge which to this reader serves as resistance. I prefer plain English. Perhaps what really goes on between therapist and patient at a basic level is like a parental dialogue that never took place or took place with negative repercussions. It is not just what therapists say—but when they speak and how they speak with their partner on the journey of understanding; how they balance nurturing with encouraging freedom; how they function as holders of pain until it can be recognized and dealt with by the patient. Specific material is like the fuel that gets the motor going but beyond that, what a patient is most often asking is: Can I trust you? Will you hurt me? Will you hold the intolerable until I can face it? Can you tolerate my rage that I never expressed? Can you love me? Will you listen to me without judging? Can you stand me? Will you shame me? Can you explain patiently what I can't figure out? Will you let me wonder? And will you let me go when it's time?
Instead of further comments on Fred's conclusions, I will include some wise quotes that pertain to skepticism.
“In science it often happens that scientists say, “You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,” and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”
–Carl Sagan
“When I examined myself and my methods of thought, I came to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.”
–A. Einstein
“It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before breakfast. It keeps him young.”
–Konrad Lorenz
“New ideas are always criticized - not because an idea lacks merit, but because it might turn out to be workable, which would threaten the reputations of many people whose opinions conflict with it. Some people may even lose their jobs.”
–physicist, requested anonymity
“All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident.”
–Arthur Schopenhauer
“Loyalty to a petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul.”
–Mark Twain
“The soft-minded man always fears change. He feels security in the status quo, and he has an almost morbid fear of the new. For him, the greatest pain is the pain of a new idea.”
–Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“Sit down before facts like a child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.”
–T.H. Huxley
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
–Aristotle
“You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself.”
–Galileo
“I can't see any farther. Giants are standing on my shoulders!”
–unknown
“There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made.”
–Richard Feynman
“The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on “I am not too sure.“
–H.L. Menkin
“There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.”
–Louis Armstrong
Thank you for reading. And thank you Fred for sharing your thoughts. Jane Hall