Why One Should (Or Shouldn't) Read Freud: Commentary on “Returning to Freud” by Richard D. Chessick

Let me begin by saying that I am sympathetic to and concerned about many of the issues raised in this article. Richard Chessick is passionate in his commitment to Freud (as, so it happens, am I) and has already discussed it in detail, most recently in his 2007 book, The Future of Psychoanalysis. His thesis is threefold; that Freud has been marginalized by contemporary psychoanalysis, that he should be studied by beginning candidates who are learning psychoanalysis, and read and re-read by all of us. He places Freud's “original psychoanalysis” at the heart of psychoanalysis, a fundament from which all else follows (including theory). Of Chessick's three points, I am in partial agreement with the first and third but have particular objections to the second point and the manner in which it tends to be carried out. His claim that Freud's work lies at the heart of psychoanalysis in contemporary times as it did a half-century ago I consider unsustainable (as I would such a claim for anyone's work or any one “school” of analytic thought). I have written elsewhere on the subject (Leffert, 2007a, 2007b, 2010) and will discuss my reasons for having reached this conclusion. I see little value in offering a critique of Chessick's article, but instead will begin by discussing the three issues he raises pertaining to marginalization, didactic instruction, and continuing education. How these issues are viewed is fundamental to contemporary psychoanalysis and its future.

The best place to start involves the positioning of Freud's work in the contemporary cultural episteme of American psychoanalysis. An episteme is frequently misunderstood as referencing the Zeitgeist of some particular era. It actually refers to the rules for formulating and