You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
DISCUSSION: Dr. Sebek said that his current group consists of twenty-two members. Many in the intellectual community were at first positively disposed toward communism, but their hopes were relatively quickly shattered, which led to an influx of candidates asking for psychoanalytic training. Dr. Sebek stated that under communism drives are suppressed (aggression, sex, etc.), as are the envy and resentment created by economic differences in society. Creativity and the "true self" are also suppressed. Survival patterns based on a "false self" have to be formed. Dr. Sebek trained in a department whose psychoanalytic attitude had to be overtly denied, leading to a subculture of psychoanalytic thinking and dialogue which was not publicly acknowledged. He spoke about the real dangers to analysts, who did not know when or by whom they might be denounced, and of the dangers to their families.
Dr. Alexandra Rolde suggested that perhaps one reason this group of psychoanalysts was able to survive was precisely because they were a group and could use each other for support. There was evidently a great amount of esprit de corps, friendship, and loyalty among them, which served as an antidote to the hostile environment. Dr. Sebek noted how much he took that fact for granted. Dr. Evelyne Schwaber asked if everyone in the group could be trusted. Dr. Sebek admitted that sometimes this was questionable. Once there was a rumor that one of the analysts was sexually involved with a patient. It was a difficult situation which had to be handled within the group. It was not possible to have sanctions in the underground. Since the establishment of democratic Czechoslovakia, the group has created sanctions. Dr. Rolde commented that under communist rule, the danger was that if a member were dismissed, that member might denounce the others in the group. Illicit behavior (belonging to an underground group) was seen as "good" in the group, but was "bad" as judged by society. Dr.