The rain clouds lifted, the cold weather warmed, and the 300 participants at the eighth annual meeting of the International Association for the History of Psychoanalysis (IAHP) who gathered in Versailles, France, on July 20–22 were bathed in sunshine and good fellowship. Participants came from almost every country in Europe as well as the United States, Canada, Mexico, Hong Kong, Turkey, Israel, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Uruguay. The venue for the meeting was the Palais des Congrès, a comfortable, modern building a stone's throw from the entrance to the Palace of Versailles. Simultaneous translation was provided in English, French, German, and Spanish.
The plenary session on Thursday opened with a paper by Otto Kernberg, president of the IPA: “Recent Trends and Controversies in American Psychoanalysis.” Daniel Widlöcher, president-elect of the IPA, presented “What Has Become of the ‘New Paths’ in Psychoanalysis?” which focused on changes that have taken place in response to the demands of society and the dynamics of psychoanalysis itself. Widlöcher discussed the influence of the pluralism of analytic schools on the practice of psychoanalysis, citing the example of the Lacanian movement in France.
The final paper of the day, by Werner Bohleber, editor of Psyche, was “The Re-establishment of Psychoanalysis in Germany After 1945: Some Main Points of the Development of Clinical Theory.” Bohleber discussed the long period of recovery after World War II and the subsequent over-idealization of psychoanalysis.
The English-speaking group began the Friday presentations with a paper by Ann-Louise Silver: “The Evolution of the Clinical Psychoanalytic Practice with Psychotic Patients.” Silver reviewed the early history of the application of psychoanalytic theory to the treatment of severe mental illness, the development of teaching centers on psychoanalysis and psychosis, and the current status of these institutions. She highlighted the contributions of analysts who specialized in the treatment of psychosis.
Anne-Marie Sandler from the Anna Freud Centre spoke on “The Evolution of the Clinical Psychoanalytic Practice with Children.” She limited her discussion to England and the British Psychoanalytical Society, noting that with the arrival of Melanie Klein in 1926 and Anna Freud at the outbreak of World War II, child analysis had a very rich beginning.
Robert Hinshelwood, former editor of The British Journal of Psychotherapy, spoke on “The Evolution of the Clinical Psychoanalytic Practice with Groups (Psychodrama, Group Therapies, etc.).” He considered the ideas of Trigant Burrow and Jacob Moreno, both important pioneers in the development of group analysis.
Richard Gottlieb spoke on “The Evolution of the Clinical Psychoanalytic Practice with Psychosomatic Patients.” In a comprehensive paper he traced the interest in psychosomatics from Pierre Janet to Flanders Dunbar and Franz Alexander. Gottlieb discussed the work of Michel Fain, the so-called Paris psychosomaticiens, and Joyce McDougall.
Leo Rangell spoke on “The Evolution of the Practice of the Psychoanalytic Psychotherapies.” He traced the evolution of dynamic psychotherapy through the complex and multidirectional history of pluralistic theories and compared psychotherapies as derivatives of alternative pluralistic theories. Rangell noted the seminal importance of Leo Stone's widening scope of psychoanalysis.
The afternoon English-speaking panel began with a paper by Thomas Kirsch, past president of the International Association for Analytical Psychology, on “The Evolution of Jung's Clinical Theory Since 1913.” This welcome paper on the history of Jungian analysis stood out as a minority voice, in a sense representing all the other non-Freudian techniques. Kirsch noted that since the Freud-Jung split in 1913, there has been a political taboo against the name Jung and the study of Jungian theory and practice. He outlined areas of convergence between Jung's analytic psychology and contemporary psychoanalysis, including preoedipal issues, creativity, the relational basis of the analytic relationship, and growth throughout the life cycle.
Henry Nunberg spoke about the sharp decline in psychoanalytic practice in the United States, averring that the decline in practice plays a significant role in the proliferation of splits and schools and who is or is not an analyst. Paul Roazen, a noted historian of psychoanalysis, in a provocative and thought-provoking paper informally raised a number of questions about the future of psychoanalysis, reviewed the history of training analysis, and questioned the scientific validity for training analysis.
On the final day there were numerous presentations in English on subjects including the free clinics of Berlin and Vienna, the Ferenczi-Groddeck relationship, Freud's renunciation of instinct, the influence of twentieth-century Italian literature on the development of psychoanalysis in Italy, changes in psychoanalytic technique in north America over the past half-century, Sandor Rado's thinking on scientific method, and China in the history of psychoanalysis.
The final afternoon presentation included a summary, with simultaneous translation, moderated by Harold Blum and Alain de Mijolla, president of the IAHP. There were gala dinner receptions on both Friday and Saturday evening at the Palais des Congrès. A wonderful sound and light show in the gardens of the Chateau de Versailles on Saturday night included dancing, fireworks, and music.
Presentations by the French, German, and Spanish groups included papers by Salomon Resnik, Klaus Hoffmann, and Valentin Barenblittt. Workshops in French and Spanish included distinguished analysts from France, Argentina, and Mexico.
Although the conference provided many exciting and stimulating presentations that I believe were particularly valuable for a non-North American audience, it was limited by a failure to include trained historians who might have offered less of an insider's view of psychoanalytic technique. In many of the papers that I heard, the official, insider, or “company” history of psychoanalytic technique was written by those who are practicing psychoanalysis rather than by outsiders who might have been able to present a deeper and broader picture.
Joseph Reppen, Ph.D., is the editor of Psychoanalytic Psychology, the journal of the Division of Psychoanalysis, American Psychological Association.
As Thomas Kirsch commented, “The conference experience did not match my expectations. Psychoanalysts were selected to give most of the papers, and historians were not much in evidence, so it was much like any other IPA member–dominated psychoanalytic meeting.” He added that he had attended the meeting in the “hope that this would be a venue where there would be more openness than is customary at analytic meetings” and that although the organizers welcomed diverse viewpoints, few were in evidence.