ENTREVISTA COM ROBERT HINSHELWOOD

Robert Hinshelwood is a Fellow of the British Psychoanalytical Society, and a Professor of Psychoanalysis at the Centre for Psychoanalytic Studies, University of Essex, in England. He is a Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatry. He worked in the British National Health Service as a Consultant Psychotherapist for more than 20 years, including a period as Director of The Cassel Hospital

He has written numerous books, papers and book-chapters, and has given lectures and workshops in many countries on the subject of psychoanalysis, psychoanalytical psychotherapy, group dynamics, the history of psychoanalysis and mental health.

In 1989, when he published the classical and well-known “Dictionary of Kleinian Thought”, Hanna Segal observed in her review of the book, that Hinshelwood “…did for the development of Klein's thought what Lapanche & Pontalis did for Freud”.

He founded and edited the International Journal of Therapeutic Communities, the British Journal of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis and History. He belongs to the Editorial board of many international journals, including the Portuguese Psychoanalytical Review.

Recently he has been concerned about the importance of developing psychoanalystic research (Research on the Couch: Single Cases, Subjectivity and Psychoanalytic Knowledge (2013). Recently he also jointly edited a book on the ideas of Wilfred Bion and where they came from, entitled Bion's Sources: The Shaping of his Paradigms (2013)

In his website rdhinshelwood.net you can find more professional details, and a long list of R. Hinshelwood's publications, some in full text, some videos and also some ideas of his current projects.

Rui Aragão Oliveira (RAO): Bob, you have done a lot for Kleinian and post-Kleinian thought in psychoanalysis, and you also studied a lot on history and psychoanalysis. How do you see the present state of Psychoanalysis in the world? Do you think we can really talk about a contemporaneous psychoanalytical movement? Are there differentiated theoretical concepts and/or technico-clinical issues in the practice of Psychoanalysis today that enable us to talk about a contemporaneous psychoanalytic way of thinking and practice?

Robert Hinshelwood (RH): Thank you Rui, for this opportunity to talk to you about Psychoanalysis and my perception of our field today. Psychoanalysis is a passion for us; but it is not a passion for everyone. Ever since Freud, there have been people threatened by the idea of the unconscious. Today, the development of Information Technology has prioritised rationality, and made cognitive science the dominant school of psychology, so this has put pressure on Psychoanalysis to defend itself, and the unconscious and irrational realms of the mind. We have not done very well at defending Psychoanalysis, so today there is increasing doubt about the value of our knowledge. As a result, the less cogent, and more contemptuous criticisms of Freud and Psychoanalysis have been strengthened.

One could say that there is a decline in the respect for psychoanalysis at present, and an increased emphasis on rationalist techniques for improving mental health, such as pharmacological treatments, and those psychological treatments based on behaviourism and cognitive psychology. It is not very encouraging, for us.

However, my own view is that I believe in pendulums! That is to say, the pendulum has swung recently towards rationalism, but it will swing back, in due course, to a greater emphasis on experience and relatedness. And then we will be ready.

So, I do think that psychoanalysis continues to exist, we continue to stand for listening and understanding human experience, and we understand individual people in their own terms. Of course, this becomes corrupted sometimes as we feel we have to copy other forms of psychology which emphasise generalised psychological theories above the experience of individual persons, and we may turn to statistics, outcome studies of large samples, MRI scans, etc. These are no doubt important in all sorts of ways, but they cannot over-ride the importance of the specific psychoanalytic perspective on the individual person, in both his conscious and unconscious experience.

Having described this less optimistic view, it is important to note that psychoanalysis is strongly advancing in countries that have been emerging from Soviet and Communist regimes. In Eastern Europe, and in the Far East, psychoanalysis is becoming more prevalent and in places positively fashionable. China which has espoused so many ideas enthusiastically (although not always very profoundly) may be of great significance, as the engine of the future of civilisation.

However the idea of a defensive group dynamic leaves unanswered how the anxiety-defence dynamic of the individual becomes the dynamic of a group. And my sense is that Bion is correct in questioning if Freud's model of the group as a family is sufficient; rather Bion suggested that even families tend to malfunction to a greater or lesser extent, and Bion suggests that the underlying model that interferes even with the family, is one based on primitive defence mechanisms, those arising in connection with splitting. Freud alluded to this in his brief description of ‘the narcissism of minor difference’, though did not theorise it fully. We might call Bion's view a part-object model of groups, as opposed to Freud's family model.

It is the case that the unconscious dynamics of psychoanalytic organisations are especially characterised by the division into oppositional

segments – schism, as Bion called it. I do think it is likely that splitting (individuals) and schism (groups) are likely to be related. Speculation on what that relation is should surely be a part of the curriculum of every psychoanalytic trainee.

This approach also provokes the question what is the specific anxiety of psychoanalytic work, which drives the primitive defences? Since we are all working at the unconscious level, it is likely that our specific work anxieties are unconscious ones, maybe especially formed in the unconscious-to-unconscious communication we can only be dimly aware of as we work. These questions are the topics of necessary research, to which I have tried to make some contribution.

Clearly such efforts at outreach are important and must continually be brought up to date. However, they may require a more subtle approach than we realise. Freud's view was that psychiatry is not a problem for psychoanalysis, but that psychiatrists are the problem; that is to say, it is an underlying personal issue that has to be addressed, and that means unconscious attitudes, and not just the conscious ones. This we should be familiar with, as experts in the unconscious. Of course Freud implied that

the personal difficulties were those of the psychiatrists, but it would, to my mind, need to include some examination of our own unconscious and negative reactions to our closest rivals. That self-examination of the inter-disciplinary relations with others may not be at all easy, but it may be profoundly necessary to understand the fears we have of other approaches to our own field of therapeutic endeavour. Frightened psychoanalysts, like anyone else, may become unconsciously defensive psychoanalysts.

This is research to be done, but it goes along harmoniously with the research mentioned above about our own personal stress in the work emerging as group dynamics. I do not in anyway wish to diminish the importance of the outreach work currently being done, as I do believe that there is a huge value in a conscious working response. It is just that we might see ourselves as adding something special; that is, our familiarity adds another dimension to understanding the way unconscious fears and anxieties aggravate the conscious problems, and interfere with the success of consciously planned solutions.

In my own University, I am encouraged by the interest there is in psychoanalysis, or rather in applying psychoanalytic ideas to attempt to solve problems in other disciplines. This is applied psychoanalysis. It may not always be the school of psychoanalysis I like, or may not even be IPA psychoanalysis, but it is at least a respect for the unconscious and for the anxiety-defence model which is fundamental to our work. This is heartening. Currently such disciplines as history, or social science, or philosophy are becoming aware that the emotions have been seriously neglected in the current thinking of their disciplines, they turn to the pre-eminent body of knowledge about the emotions and the irrational – that is, our knowledge. I believe this is very heartening for us.

However, what is not so well tolerated in Universities is the academic study of the ideas themselves. We need much more conceptual research of

the kind that Anna Ursula Dreher recommends. We need to study what is common between the various schools, as for instance Robert Wallerstein addressed with his concern about what is the ‘common ground’ for all psychoanalysts. We need to address the problem of the mass of conflicting and often non-communicating theories which David Tucket has called a Tower of Babel. In short we need to study how psychoanalytic knowledge is made.

These concerns are called, in Britain at least, ‘psychoanalytic studies’ – as opposed to ‘applied psychoanalysis’. And, in my experience, Universities are less able to accommodate such research studies. It is worth remembering that on the whole academic institutions are the places where most forms of knowledge are produced. But that is not so for psychoanalysis; almost all psychoanalytic knowledge is produced in clinical practice. The academy can really only study psychoanalytic knowledge that has already been produced elsewhere – and this is an unfamiliar role for Universities and their academics. It can lead to a suspicion of clinical practitioners, and a restriction of the kind of research which I have identified above as necessary.

At the same time, clinicians do not always have an academic mode of thinking readily available. Indeed, clinical thinking is particularly intuitive and creative, whilst academic thinking is much more prosaic and logical. This divergence creates misunderstandings on both sides. These are hurdles to be overcome in the future of psychoanalysis in the academy.

As to the situation 30 years ago, I cannot really say much as I have only entered academic institutions in the last 15 years. However I suspect that there is a pressure that psychoanalysis should produce something that can be used practically – this is in line with the pressures of all disciplines to create a supply of knowledge that has immediate use. Universities increasingly want to transfer their research to useful employment in solving contemporary problems somewhere. The ‘pure’ research, I have emphasised may be less valued in Universities, at least in England. In other words the pressure for useful knowledge, and therefore for eligible for grant-applications, may be increasing over your time period.

Asking what can be of use to Universities, is itself a problematic question. It suggests we know what the purpose of a University is; and that appears to be changing in recent decades. There seems in Britain at least a turmoil about the purpose of Universities. It is a great public service institution, and would appear to focus on advanced education and research. However, much of the day-to-day running appears to lose sight of what is valuable to teach and research, and instead it focuses on the best means of bringing in fee-paying students who will keep the University near to solvency. Whilst financial considerations are very important, it seems unfortunate to make finances the sole measure of the value of an academic topic and discipline. This reduction of value-assessment from the topic to money-earning affects psychoanalysis particularly. We are less able to bring in high numbers of students from society which now has less respect for psychoanalysis, also it is inappropriate to teach large classes, and the topic does not attract significant research grants.

All this leads to the conclusion that psychoanalysis is not much use to Universities if one applies only financial criteria. At the same time, if we applied another criteria – the need of our wider society to hold persons' experiences as pre-eminent– then psychoanalysis is of great value to teach and research. Senior managers of our Universities should be asked this question, and to reveal their priorities.

A number of similar University Centres have existed in the past, going back 30 years or so. Many have closed. A few have survived. One can only speculate on the factors that promoted survival, and which could therefore be required for any future development of psychoanalytic studies in Universities. It does look as though one factor in survival has been a particular supported by clinicians trained in the British Society, or by a psychoanalytic psychotherapy organisations with standards of training approaching those of the Psychoanalytic Society. By this I mean, we need experienced clinicians who are willing to devote an interest as well as time to the academic study of psychoanalysis. This would require several things.

First there needs to develop a culture within the Psychoanalytical Society which can see the value in academic study as well as clinical work. Second it needs the group of more senior clinicians to provide the academic teachers. Third, clinicians need to understand academic thinking as significantly distinct from clinical thinking. And forth, the Society may need to provide some ‘seed’ money (at Essex, the Centre was enormously enhanced in its early years by a grant for a professor for three years, made by the Jungian, Society for Analytical Psychology). And fifthly, any University approached would have to understand and approve the fact that clinical work is the primary arena for knowledge-production, and not the University itself.

These are exacting conditions. Most clearly for our Societies, they need to promote a view of academic thinking that is different from clinical thinking. In clinical work the central aim is the creation of meaning from which to construct an interpretation. For academic thinking, the aim is to find ways of checking if that meaning is valid. Often clinicians validate their interpretations on the basis that they fit a pre-existing theory. But that is not good enough. We need methods for testing when such theories are themselves valid, or when relevant to a particular set of associations. To some extent clinicians use the ‘response to interpretation’. In my view

they should be much more attentive to that – but I guess it is much more reassuring to make interpretations that resemble one's own analyst (or supervisor). This is really asking clinicians to test interpretations and the theories they rest on, and not just to make interpretations that are meaningful to the analyst and his psychoanalytic group.

This is somewhat critical of my colleagues, but I am also anxious about the increasing range of new theories which we are accumulating, like the Tower of Babel, theories which are not adequately tested and weeded out.

The first attitude is an elitism which assumes that a psychoanalytic training is inherently superior, for usually hard-to-specify reasons. This is often instilled from the training analysis or therapy.

The second attitude is more realist, and allows the view that truly psychoanalytic reflection on the unconscious and the anxieties and defences in the transference and the countertransference, can occur in once-a-week or twice-a-week therapy. In addition such reflection may not always happen in 5 time a weeks work – perhaps because the patient is not suitable, or even that the analyst is not.

These attitudes often become reduced to debating the frequency of sessions in the week. It would be better if some more sophisticated measure of the difference were available, but it is difficult to find one. The best that I have heard (and it comes from my Kleinian background), is that the higher the frequency of sessions, the more chance there is to work with patients using those primitive methods of defence that affect the coherence of the ego, as opposed to those defence that support repression of the Oedipus conflicts.

The role of a psychoanalytic society is, on the basis of these remarks, rather mixed. One tendency is for psychoanalysts, in their

elitism, to communicate, consciously or unconsciously, that they are themselves a step above those in other trainings, merely by virtue of being a psychoanalyst. On the other hand psychoanalysts are likely to be more familiar with the difficult primitive defences – in their patients and themselves, and need to respect that trainees in psychoanalytic psychotherapy are probably going to have a bigger practice of those difficult patients, whilst working less frequently.

If psychoanalysts have less experience of once-a-week work with the more difficult patients, it may be that the role of psychoanalysts should concentrate on the more theoretical aspects. Psychoanalytic psychotherapists experienced with the more difficult patients might therefore be more responsible for the technical practice.

All this is very speculative, and it is a topic that should be exposed to extensive debate between organisations devoted to psychoanalysis, and those devoted to psychoanalytic psychotherapy. Such debate might/should help to expose, and maybe control, the natural tendency to elitist attitudes

I do agree that publishing hard-copy Journals is getting more difficult, and the main players – such as Routledge, or Sage – are very worried. They respond with rather inappropriate demands – especially copyright restrictions which reduces the fluidity and circulation of ideas, in all fields. They also streamline and outsource production, with some loss of quality. These are standard management responses, but maybe some new, original, and out-of-the-box thinking needs to occur.

For instance, I am impressed at how very useful PEPWeb is as a database. This could point the way towards more collaborative efforts between Journals, and not just competition. I wonder what direct publishing to a joint database, by Journal editors (which cuts out

commercial, for-profit publishers) would do to clinical and academic thinking in our field. It is worth noting that PEPWeb was set up by psychoanalytic Journal editors – together with backing from some Psychoanalytic Societies. And a single subscription to such a database may be cheaper for libraries than a number of individual subscriptions to separate hard-copy Journals.

I am also impressed by how useful Wikipedia is, despite its uneven quality sometimes. Could one envisage a sort of PsychoWikipedia? That is a dream to consider!

August, 2013