In 1919 in “On the Teaching of PsychoAnalysis in Universities,” Freud wrote:
In the investigation of mental processes and intellectual functions, psychoanalysis pursues a specific method of its own. The application of this method is by no means confined to the field of psychological disorders, but extends also to the solution of problems in art, philosophy, and religion. In this direction it has already yielded several new points of view and thrown valuable light on such subjects as the history of literature, on mythology, on the history of civilizations, and on the philosophy of religion. Thus the general psychoanalytic course should be thrown open to the students of these branches of learning as well. The fertilizing effects of psychoanalytic thought on these other disciplines would certainly contribute greatly towards forging a closer link, in the sense of a universitas literatum, between medical science and the branches of learning which lie within the sphere of philosophy and the arts.
Freud's vision is essential to bear in mind as our profession evolves. We live at a pivotal moment, a time of great opportunity and great challenge. Some of our members have full practices and some struggle. Some are engaged in teaching in institutes and in other academic settings, while others worry that psychoanalysis may be dying.
There is no doubt that our profession is being challenged. Freud's notion of a universitas literatum provides us with a cornucopia of potential solutions. Various fields of interdisciplinary scholarship are presently ripe for cultivation and some are already bearing fruit. This is the time to strengthen existing partnerships with universities and form new ones. The Committee on Research and Special Training represents one such effort. Another is APsaA's 10,000 Minds Project, which is developing a coordinated set of efforts to increase the exposure of undergraduates both to psychoanalytic ideas and to the benefits of psychoanalytically informed treatment (TAP 39/2). Even more needs to be done to strengthen the links between our institutes and academic communities on the local level. Increasing the number of alliances between analysis and other disciplines will lead to the generation of new knowledge, as well as increase the number of those appreciative of, knowledgeable about, and interested in psychoanalysis. This will inevitably result in more people seeking out psychoanalytic treatment and psychoanalytic education.
Such efforts have a long history in places such as the Columbia University Center, the NYU Institute at the New York University Medical Center, the Denver Psychoanalytic Institute in the University of Colorado Medical Center, the University of North Carolina-Duke University Institute, and the Emory University Institute. These psychoanalytic institutes were developed within their respective university's medical schools. The New York Psychoanalytic Institute has recently affiliated with Mount Sinai School of Medicine, to their mutual benefit. The Emory institute, in association with the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, developed a unique psychoanalytic studies program with over 30 graduate students in the humanities currently enrolled. In St. Louis, a joint research project between the institute and Washington University's Department of Psychology is well underway. In addition, the development of academic centers that could support psychoanalytic scholarship and empirical research is being actively pursued in St. Louis and at Emory. Perhaps many examples of such institute-university collaboration exist. The point is that we need much more institute-university collaboration to foster the growth and development of psychoanalysis in the 21st century.
There is great interest in psychoanalysis within various parts of the academic community. Well-known scholars in the humanities and the social sciences utilize psychoanalytic concepts in their work. Psychoanalytic studies programs attract numerous highly interested students. Neuropsychoanalysis, a new area bridging psychoanalysis and neuroscience, has emerged. In this atmosphere, analysts as collaborators, co-investigators, and co-teachers have been welcomed in graduate schools and schools of law and business, in addition to departments of psychiatry. To give a few specific examples, psychoanalytic researchers such as Peter Fonagy, Mark Solms, Howard Shevrin, and Drew Westen have forged alliances with the neurosciences and with academic psychological research. Distinguished neuroscientists such as Damasio, Edelman, Kandel, Sacks, and others have become increasingly appreciative of how Freud's early insights are compatible with modern knowledge of the brain and how it works. To quote Eric Kandel, co-recipient of the Nobel Prize in Medicine, in his 1999 article in the American Journal of Psychiatry, “Biology and the Future of Psychoanalysis: A New Intellectual Framework for Psychiatry Revisited”: “…the biology of the next century is, in fact, in a good position to answer some of the questions about memory and desire, … these answers will be all the richer and more meaningful if they are forged by a synergistic effort of biology and psychoanalysis. In turn, answers to these questions and the very effort of providing them in conjunction with biology, will provide a more scientific foundation for psychoanalysis.”
Beth J. Seelig, M.D., is secretary of the Board on Professional Standards.
Eric J. Nuetzel, M.D., is chair of the Board on Professional Standards.
One might ask why all institutes have not forged alliances with universities. Not all psychoanalytic institutes are geographically situated in areas with major universities, but most are. Not all universities have departments with faculty members who are interested in psychoanalytic approaches to research and/or scholarship. Yet even in areas in which there would be great potential for new alliances, there is frequently reluctance on the part of the psychoanalysts. One reason may be mistrust of academia. Historically, institutes have been connected with university departments of psychiatry. In many such departments, analysts have been marginalized, or pushed out entirely, as academic psychiatry became more centered on psychopharmacology, neuroscience, and empirical research. The mutual resentment between analysts and biological psychiatrists has been destructive. Unfortunately, some analysts' feelings of suspicion have extended to a mistrust and devaluation of academia in general. In order to take advantage of new opportunities, we must turn our attention from past battles and work to forge new creative alliances.
The opportunity is ripe to form alliances between analysts and non-analyst scientists and scholars. Analysts can find receptive partners, if they are open to the idea of reaching out. Psychoanalysis, an effective clinical technique as well as a powerful interpretive framework, is inherently interdisciplinary. We need to forge partnerships with academics in related disciplines. If we embrace the opportunity to realize the full interdisciplinary potential of psychoanalysis, we will foster a psychoanalytic renaissance in the 21st century.