On: The Definition of Psychoanalysis

Dear Editors,

Psychoanalysis is well into its second century, and the definition of its identity seems still unclear. Recent articles in the Journal show this embarrassing problem. In the “Psychoanalytic Controversies” section of issue 1, 2010 on the difference between psychoanalysis and psychotherapy, the discussants show disagreements. If we are not clear on what psychoanalysis is not, we cannot say what psychoanalysis is. In another paper, Blass 2010 advocates for the need of a definition of psychoanalysis but, prudently, does not define it. In the Letters section of issue 5, 2010, four authors argue that the assertion “That's not psychoanalysis!” is dangerous because it could exclude from the field important contributions.

Those who claim that it is better not to define what psychoanalysis is, confuse theoretical with political issues. Theoretically, it is indispensable to have a position, otherwise we can't even think, and an important issue we might need to discuss is precisely the identity of psychoanalysis. If it means too many things, it risks becoming synonymous with ‘psychotherapy’ (in fact one might arguably say that some ‘psychoanalytic’ theories—especially today—are identical with some ‘psychotherapeutic’ theories).

Politically, one simple solution is that everyone should feel part of the psychoanalytic movement. The accusation “That's not psychoanalysis!” could simply be considered a good opportunity for discussion.

There is no danger of “exclusion”. Even the membership to a psychoanalytic organization cannot be an issue: there are many organizations, and it would be not only illegal, but impossible to consider one of them the “true” psychoanalytic association; most importantly, the reduction of the identity of a discipline to a membership issue would imply the loss of its scientific status. Furthermore, it is not necessary to be a member of an association in order not only to feel part, but to be part of the movement (with articles, books, etc., like in