The “Commons” is a conceit referring to a shared pool of resources that is used collectively for the public good. Water is a good example. So is the Internet.
In this still new century, the new Commons is the collective pool of information and ideas. Psychoanalysts have a renewed opportunity to put our ideas and theories out into the informational world of the new Commons. This opportunity arises from a change in our internal culture, away from ivory tower isolation and misconceived neutrality, and the explosion of new means of communication. This shift, however, involves some trust, some letting go, and some roughing up of our old, elegantly tailored image.
I happen to hold the perhaps radical and extreme belief that we as psychoanalysts can probably find something psychoanalytic to say about a great many things in the general world of culture, ideas, arts, politics—nearly anything involving human lives. By “something psychoanalytic” I mean something about the unconscious, transference, development, or the underlying forces in relationships, as well as free choice, aggression, and the things people do to maintain a stable sense of self.
And by something psychoanalytic I also mean this: There are things we know, with certainty and based on long experience, that we can say about mental health. Essentially psychoanalytic contributions to the intellectual Commons as it applies to mental health include the ideas that privacy and confidentiality are essential to treatment, that problems that took a long time to develop will likely take a long time to resolve, that the stories of people are as important as their symptoms, that emotional healing occurs in the context of relationship and community. We can explain much about healthy development and what happens to children exposed to trauma or raised by traumatized parents.
With this background of principle, I argue that it is proper and necessary for APsaA to take an active role in commenting on the social events and issues of our time—whenever and wherever we can. Our task in being actively engaged in social issues is to find a particularly psychoanalytic, not a political, position.
We should focus our voice in the intellectual Commons by advancing arguments that specifically derive from our psychoanalytic knowledge and that are unlikely to be articulated by those without our perspective.
The election signaled a dramatic change for the country in the election of President Obama. But another vote, the approval of Proposition 8 in California, banning marriage between couples of the same sex, was a surprising and painful event for many. For APsaA, Proposition 8 stood in direct opposition to a carefully worked out and formally approved set of position statements we had adopted opposing discrimination against gay families on mental health grounds. The morning of November 6, we were able to issue a press release on behalf of APsaA denouncing the passage of Proposition 8, deriving our authority from the pre-existing psychoanalytically based positions the organization had taken in this area of social policy.
This event provided a model of how we can best wield our voice in the Commons. A dedicated committee of APsaA had spent years synthesizing research and writing position statements supported by data. These position statements were approved by APsaA's board of directors over a period of years, and were readily available to the current president and communications staff when a new and unexpected event occurred. Our public information staff is in place and experienced. The press release we issued after the Proposition 8 vote allowed for the possibility of increased exposure of “living psychoanalysis” in the media and created a tool that allowed us to connect to other organizations interested in this issue.
Psychoanalysis will not survive unless the educated public is aware of our continued vitality, is informed about some of the core principles we espouse, and can see some value to finding ways to connect to us. Well thought-out stands on societal issues, conveyed quickly as events unfold, keep our field alive in the public mind. Contributions to the conversation in the Commons, adding our perspectives on the unconscious, transference, development, and other fundamental psychoanalytic issues, enrich and enliven that conversation and increase our professional viability.
There is more than one wrong way for psychoanalysts to comment on public affairs. The most notorious example in our field of wrongful social commentary occurred in 1964, just before the presidential election. Fact magazine (now defunct) surveyed over 1000 members of the American Psychiatric Association about their views on the mental fitness of Barry Goldwater to serve as president.
Prudence L. Gourguechon, M.D., is president of the American Psychoanalytic Association.
Published responses included the characterizations of Goldwater as paranoid and grossly psychotic. Goldwater successfully sued the magazine.
It is ethically wrong—and not smart—to offer diagnoses about public figures. The post-Goldwater ethical principle is that no psychoanalyst should offer a professional opinion about any individual he or she has not personally examined.
Lately, I was tested in this regard. I live a block away from Illinois's former governor, who was recently undergoing an impeachment trial. The streets were clogged with satellite news vans, camera crews, and reporters with microphones. I had a recurrent fantasy of being stopped and asked my opinion about the governor whose behavior certainly invokes both voyeurism and curiosity, and begs for an explanation. But as I toyed with my own fantasy I was relieved to discover that the temptation to advance a psychoanalytic explanation of his behavior was actually absent. I can say a lot about the needs and fears of people in general, and would like to have more conversations with the press about these matters, but I have no idea about this particular man and what he is up to. Thus the “Goldwater rule” works internally, as well as an external prohibition.
Two new position statements were approved by our board of directors at the January meeting. One, called “Gays and Lesbians in the Military,” argues for the rescission of the military's psychologically damaging “Don't ask don't tell” policy. The second, “The Inner Wars Come Home: The Traumatic Impact on Families and Veterans When Our Veterans Return,” talks about the effect of war trauma on families and children. Within APsaA, we have an excellent process for developing position statements, with much time for input and a broad and redundant approval process. I hope to see more statements coming forward. There are one or two ideas germinating among our child analysts, and several more statements will be forthcoming in the Soldiers and Veterans Initiative. I am available to talk to any committee that would like to explore this process, and I plan to write a template for committees interested in participating in the conversation in the Commons through the development of APsaA position statements.
I know there are some members who find this kind of activity uncomfortable, or “unpsychoanalytic.” I hope you will hold us to a high standard but keep an open mind. I am asking for an expansion of the discipline to include a knowledge base legitimately conceived of as reaching beyond the consulting room. But I am also asking that our social commentary be persistently psychoanalytic. We should focus our voice in the intellectual Commons by advancing arguments that specifically derive from our psychoanalytic knowledge and that are unlikely to be articulated by those without our perspective.