Chapter 11 Psychoanalysis and the University: A Difficult Relationship1

The pressing need for psychoanalysis to establish or re-establish a strong relationship with universities and academic centers of higher learning has become broadly acknowledged and accepted by the psychoanalytic community in recent years—at least, in principle. Statements by leading educators and scholars of the International Psychoanalytic Association have underlined this need, and called for action in this regard (Auchincloss & Michels, 2003; Cooper, 1987; Ferrari, 2009; Garza Guerrero, 2006, 2010; Glick, 2007; Holzman, 1976, 1985; Levy, 2009; Michels, 2007; Paul, 2007; Wallerstein, 1972, 1980, 2007, 2009). The reasons for these alliances are quite obvious: psychoanalysis has been accepted as a major contribution to the culture of the twentieth century, but its future role as a science and a profession is uncertain and being challenged.

Attacks from academic and cultural centers, challenging the scientific status of psychoanalysis and its effectiveness as a treatment, have become fashionable as psychopharmacology and cognitive behavioral treatments have gained ascendancy, offering as they do, short term, less costly alternatives to all manner of psychopathology once the exclusive province of psychoanalysis. From a simple economic viewpoint, the restriction of payment for extended psychotherapies on the part of insurance companies and National Health Service systems have particularly affected psychoanalysis, reinforcing its

negative image within the professions of clinical psychology and psychiatry. Psychoanalytic institutes, in regions where they have long been established, have experienced significant reduction in candidates seeking psychoanalytic training, and in patients seeking analysis (Thomä, 2010).

The fundamental contributions that psychoanalysis has made to the related fields of psychology and psychiatry have been absorbed and integrated by those disciplines, but are less and less cited as scientific and professional cont