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.
THE CULTURE OF PSYCHOANALYSIS HAS UNDERGONE A RADICAL CHANGE during the past two decades. The bursting forth of object-relational, interpersonal, intersubjective, self-psychological, and other views has invigorated psychoanalysis with an excitement lacking in the recent past. For those of us who grew up as rebels during a period of orthodoxy, the current era of theoretical pluralism has been a liberation and a blessing. However, all liberations carry with them new sets of problems, and Lewis Aron's paper is a wise discourse on some of the issues that now confront us. Aron, continuing his important work on psychoanalytic technique, here addresses some of these knotty problems of our time and also reveals that there may be significant deficiencies in our current capacity to answer the questions that have been raised. His paper is wise, witty, a joy to read, and difficult to discuss because I am in general agreement with so much of what he says. To mention a few of the issues he raises:
He asks, “What is left of the foundations upon which we may build a theory of psychoanalytic technique?” And states, “The very foundations of our discipline have come into question.” Even more strongly, “We disagree with one another to the core because psychoanalysis is so thoroughly value laden. We cannot agree on what a success is, on what our goals are, or on what constitutes a true psychoanalytic process because many of us (and the many different psychoanalytic communities and subgroups with which we are affiliated) maintain
quite different sets of personal and professional values and ideals.” I believe he radically overstates the case, and, in order for there to be a discussion, the “profound subjectivity of psychoanalytic technique” needs to be balanced by agreed-on psychoanalytic propositions. This is a very crucial matter, to which I return.
How do we educate psychoanalytic candidates in an era of psychoanalytic pluralism?
How does one ever know in a clinical situation which one