Chapter 8 Symptoms of Failure and Early Efforts to Modify Psychoanalytic Education1

Introduction

Psychoanalysis is currently under powerful attack within our culture, and within the university, particularly from the viewpoints of a strong biologically oriented psychiatry and a cognitive/behaviorally oriented clinical psychology. Governmental and health delivery systems are questioning the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of psychoanalytic treatment. In some countries, the external demands for research-based evidence regarding the efficacy of psychotherapy and our own concerns as to whether we possess research methods appropriate to the study of psychoanalysis have brought about intense controversies and soul searching in our midst. Questions as to the applicability of psychoanalytic concepts and techniques to psychotherapy and the competition of other psychotherapeutic models with psychoanalytic approaches have combined to raise basic conceptual, clinical, educational and political questions.

In this context, an issue emerges that has not received sufficient attention. I am referring to the responsibility of psychoanalytic institutes to go beyond transmitting psychoanalytic knowledge and methodology to new generations of candidates, and take a major initiative in fostering development of new knowledge about analysis while strengthening the relationship between psychoanalysis and our academic, intellectual,

and cultural environment. The role and functions of psychoanalytic societies, of course, are also intimately involved in these questions and these tasks. Thus the scientific activities of psychoanalytic societies must be integrated with those of their institutes if we are to maximize the impact of psychoanalytic thinking upon the surrounding cultural and social environment. That environment’s interest can be aroused and sustained if psychoanalytic institutes maintain an exciting ambiance of scientific discourse, ongoing systematic development of knowledge, and the collegial collaboration of institute