Chapter 1 The Work of Psychoanalysis

No chapter of any general work on psychoanalysis has changed so much as that which concerns the psychoanalyst’s praxis. And yet it remains surprising to read Freud’s articles on technique (1904-1918, with the exception of the writings of 1937) which still have a certain contemporary relevance. Up until about the 1950s, psychoanalysis seemed to be quite a homogeneous discipline, with an indisputable identity, its purpose being psychoanalytic treatment stricto senso. The parameters of the latter could vary somewhat occasionally, but they rested on a set of propositions shared by all psychoanalysts. At the time, what was later called – depending on the country – orthodox classical psychoanalysis (United States) or the classical treatment (la cure type, France), constituted their activity almost exclusively. As time passed, the problems of the variations of technique were given consideration, but there was general agreement that psychoanalytic treatment remained the activity to which they devoted themselves. In recent years, the psychoanalytic field has been diversified by the progressive addition of derived techniques (group psychoanalysis, psychodrama, etc.) or again of applications of psychoanalysis (with ad hoc technical modifications) to different types of patients (children or adolescents, psychotics, psychosomatic patients, psychopaths), often practised in specialized settings (community clinics or hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, prisons, etc.). To avoid encumbering my exposition, and despite the interest presented by these technical innovations, I will confine myself to speaking of a more circumscribed field. I have proposed that a distinction be made between the following:1

• 1 The work of psychoanalysis: that which is carried out in the analyst’s consulting room; it may be divided up into analysis properly speaking, analysis with temporary or permanent technical variations and, finally, a subject which deserves all our attention today, psychotherapies practised