Does “classical” Freudian technique make it harder to be truly helpful to our patients?
That's the question posed by Henry Friedman in the essay that anchors this volume. Dr. Friedman asserts that the traditional technical posture of “anonymity,” rooted in a one-person psychoanalytic worldview, interferes with the healing potential of “give and take” in the psychoanalytic relationship. He suggests that even with our enhanced awareness of the intersubjective nature of that relationship, we tend to remain trapped in a technique that is rooted in anachronistic ideas that make genuine connection more difficult.
In Friedman's view, the use of “classical” language and technique, especially with regard to anonymity, perpetuates a power differential that profoundly impacts on the nature of the relationship and the possibilities it provides for healing. He extends his inquiry into the nature of the relationships we establish with each other in our own professional communities. Anonymity, he argues, is a psychoanalytic concept that should be retired.
Dr. Friedman's paper begets another, implicit question. What would be left of psychoanalytic theory and technique if we got rid of Freud? Can there be a psychoanalysis without core Freudian concepts like transference, resistance and the unconscious? While Friedman emphasizes the implications with regard to psychoanalytic anonymity, our other contributors have widened the scope and, by so doing, try to shed some light on where we're at these days in terms of theory, technique, and the way we employ them—not only in clinical practice, but in our engagement with the greater scientific community
Among our respondents to Henry's essay, we've invited an eclectic group who speak to the issue from a variety of perspectives. Bhaskar Sripada provides us with a scientific and historical context relevant to the
questions Henry poses about contemporary psychoanalytic technique. Lance Dodes approaches the question from the position of a seasoned clinician using theory according to the nuances of each patient-analyst situation. Deana Schuplin addresses the dialectic nature of psychoanalytic theory. Edward Neressian, coming from a neuroscience informed position, highlights the incongruities between classical theory and current knowledge about how the brain works that buttress Henry's arguments from the point of view of our relationship with the scientific community. Dale Gody speaks as a relational psychoanalyst who has come a long way down the road to actualizing what Henry is recommending. And Himanshu Agrawal brings the perspective of a contemporary psychoanalytic candidate.
I hope you enjoy working your way through the varied ways that our contributors approach the issue, and that this volume stimulates your own thinking about where the therapeutic action is in today's psychoanalysis.