The New Haven, Conn., study group on psychoanalysis and philosophy was started in 1977 and has been in continuous existence since. It was the brainstorm of a psychology graduate student, Bob Kruger, who was interested in the interface between clinical psychology and philosophy. While visiting a friend in England, he attended a reading group of theologians and philosophers. At their monthly meetings, a paper was read and then there was an open exchange of ideas. The American student decided to start a similar group for philosophers and psychologists.
The initial group consisted of philosophers from Yale and several psychiatrists and psychologists. The format has remained remarkably constant over the years. A reading is determined by Quaker consensus: Members propose readings, then the group discusses them until all agree on a choice. Members are open on what they like and dislike. The emphasis is on twentieth-century European philosophy, but the group has also read books on psychoanalysis, cognitive science, and neuroscience.
The group meets monthly during the academic year, finishing with a traditional fish dinner of Connecticut River shad, hosted by a philosopher member of the group, Mel Woody, in his eighteenth-century home in Lyme, Conn.
There is no formal leader. One of the members takes the lead in organizing dates and places to meet. During the discussions, stronger personalities can predominate, but there is always room for everyone to comment. The group tries to meet when at least some of the four or five core members can be present. These core members have been active from the beginning. Other members have joined over the years, either invited to join a specific discussion or brought in by an existing member. These have included several psychoanalysts and philosophers from other colleges in Connecticut.
How has this group remained active and vibrant for almost twenty-five years?
Everyone seems to like reading material that one would not ordinarily read and discussing it with a group holding diverse views and perspectives. The group shares a love of discourse. There is an emotional color to the discussions that brings the readings alive. The group would agree with Plato's preference for verbal over written interaction.
The core group includes several clinicians who feel philosophy is important for their work
Photo by Robert White
and several philosophers who feel a corresponding need to test their philosophical notions against clinical phenomena. The choice of reading is where conflict is most likely to erupt. A minor and usually friendly tension arises between clinicians who want to read philosophy and philosophers who want to read clinical material.
The major intellectual conflict is between several members who have mystical Christian views and most of the rest of the group, who are non-religious or anti-religious. This gap is bridged because the religious members are opposed to doctrinal views and the non-religious members respect mysticism and are interested in transcendental phenomena. Group members like each other, and there is remarkably little personal attack. Disagreements are taken in good humor. One unsolved issue is that of gender; at least four women have attended meetings, but none has stayed long.
What do individual members find valuable about this group?
For the clinicians, as one psychiatrist put it, there is a long meditation on human existence: What is mind, what are people, what is illness?
Another psychoanalyst describes psychoanalysis as subject to the tyranny of theory. Philosophy is useful to question basic assumptions of psychoanalysis, to think about one's thinking. It provides a frame of reference for empiricism and structure for logical arguments.
One psychologist is especially interested in moral questions. What does society owe individuals? What is individual responsibility? What does it mean to be normal or competent?
All of the philosophers in the group are interested in theories of mind that get away from the Anglo-American emphasis on rationality, cognition, separation of mind and body, and secondary process. One philosopher finds the intersection of religion, philosophy, and psychology endlessly fascinating. Another philosopher often finds something unexpected and unanticipated in the discussions. Several group members find that the discussions eventually enter into their writings.
I was, until recently, the newest member of the group, having joined three years ago. I find it immensely helpful in my own writing to sit outside my discipline and examine its basic assumptions, to think through logical and coherent arguments. It is also fascinating to see that current controversies within psychoanalysis have been argued for centuries within philosophy. Without this group, it would be impossible for me to read the original works, for I do not have the technical training to understand the language. The philosophers in the group explain the text, and the clinicians provide clinical examples.