Frontline—The Turn Away From Social Activism in Psychoanalysis

Psychopathology, and by extension, interpretation in expressive psychotherapy and psychoanalysis, tend toward a conservative venture to the extent they pathologize and/or interpret human inclinations that do not support the reigning order. In other words, the point of psychopathology is to identify thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are not entirely “functional” within the reigning order; and the point of interpretation is, similarly, to reduce symptoms and optimize functioning.

The last point requires further explanation. Interpretation, like systems of psychopathology, tends to seek change through insight into characteristics and symptoms that do not appear entirely functional. The interpretive psychotherapist allows much material to pass and then selects material deemed worthy of comment. That selection contains potential biases equivalent to those inherent in the project of establishing a system of psychopathology. This, in spite of the fact that as a discipline, psychoanalysts and psychodynamic therapists are far and away the most socially progressive branch of the helping professions.

There is a dual potential in psychoanalysis and expressive psychotherapy. On one hand, there is the opportunity to delve beneath surface appearances and uncover deeper truths, and when this critical inclination is aimed at harsh social realities an alternative social consciousness emerges. On the other hand there is the tendency to focus narrowly on clinical issues at the expense of any kind of social consciousness. Currently, in the competition for scarce research funding and managed care authorization, psychodynamic and expressive therapies are pitted against other varieties of therapy, such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and psychotropic medications. In that context, psychoanalysts and dynamic therapists tend to accentuate a narrow clinical perspective