Psychoanalytic Scholarship Forum Committee
Chair: Erik Gann, M.D.
Members: Phyllis Cath, M.D.;
Luba Kessler, M.D.;
Richard J. Kessler, D.O.
Have you seen the musical Hamilton? Perhaps the question deserves some skepticism: a musical? A terrific production perhaps, but music? One walked out after My Fair Lady humming a tune, but this rap stuff? How did we get from Pinafore to this current rap musical that has changed musical theater history?
In fact, if one tunes in, one can follow the variegation of beats from Gilbert and Sullivan couplets through Ragtime to Gershwin (listen again to the off-beats of the melody of “Fascinating Rhythm” set against its accompanying background, or to the complex syncopated piano solo in his “Concerto in F”), to Les Misérables and John Adams with a side bar along the way to the Beat Poets (poetry read over a jazz ensemble background) to the rhythmic poetry called “rap.” Changing musical syntax accompanied the narratives of unfolding social history and mores of the times. In parallel developments, physical sciences were discerning new theoretical and technological realms of laws of nature.
What about psychoanalysis? Positioned as the prepotent medium for understanding human psychology, it is located at the intersection of all these transformations as they inform and affect its practitioners and subjects alike. How are we to make sure our own theories and practices remain rigorous and relevant amidst the unavoidable, and frankly welcome, flux? If music is still music, and musicians are still musicians, despite the vast changes in style, instruments, presentation and technique, what about us? What musicians are and what they produce is still definable. It contains unifying characteristics that define it and distinguish its body of knowledge, experience and performance from other endeavors.
And so, with psychoanalysis and psychoanalysts. We face the exciting challenge of articulating and cohering around the essential core of psychoanalytic identity while welcoming its expanding territory of practice and application. It is in the spirit of this commitment to broadening the horizons of our thinking with the intention of integrating it into APsaA’s educational efforts that we have created the Psychoanalytic Scholarship Forum (PSF) in the fabric of the recently launched Department of Education. The proximal goal is to deploy the PSF as an arena in which psychoanalysis can be brought more fully into the mix of contemporary, 21st century scientific and intellectual thinking. The ultimate goal is to enhance the education of our students, encouraging their creativity and, thereby, investing in the future development of our field.
How might this work? The forum will be open to all interested members as a space for ongoing debates and conversations. We hope to stimulate your thinking in new ways and to have you voice your ideas. We will invite
contributions aimed at opening the discourse and promoting an ongoing exchange.
The kick-off of this session will be in the upcoming 2018 National Meeting in New York. While the specific structures and formats are yet to be delineated, we would like to propose some initial direction, in keeping with the project of defining the common psychoanalytic ground to stand on. We offer the following considerations:
First, the work of Joseph Sandler provides a particularly relevant model for the integrative conceptual needs of the moment. His contributions in the decades of the ’70s and ’80s are positioned at the intersection of several important developments in psychoanalysis, such as the expanding influence of object relations and self-psychology, the growth of intersubjective perspectives and the challenge of infant research data. His articles on a basic psychoanalytic model, motivation and the relation between theory and technique serve as a vital foundation for further integrating updates. The review of his work may provide a useful common platform to begin the PSF project.
Second, in a recent communication to members of the Science Committee, Mark Solms offered evidence that such “common ground” has actually been demonstrated in the comparative process psychology literature. A 2000 article by Matthew D. Blagys and Mark J. Hisenroth, (“Distinctive activities of short-term psychodynamic-interpersonal psychotherapy: A review of the comparative psychotherapy process literature,” in Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice) reviews such literature, documenting elements of psychotherapy correlated with positive outcome regardless of what type of therapy the practitioners thought they were performing. These are: (1) unstructured, open-ended dialogue between patient and therapist; (2) identifying recurring themes in the patient’s experience; (3) linking the patient’s feelings and perceptions to past experiences; (4) drawing attention to feelings regarded by the patient as unacceptable; (5) pointing out ways in which the patient avoids them; (6) focusing on the here-and-now therapy relationship; (7) drawing connections between the therapy relationship and other relationships. Sound familiar? We are standing on psychoanalytic ground.
Finally, the formation of the PSF with its focus on consolidation and creative integration within the new Department of Psychoanalytic Education is testament to the progressive turn in APsaA’s recent organizational history. Opening opportunities for membership and training has brought an influx of new psychoanalytic ideas, perspectives, experience and expertise. Applied psychoanalytic dialogues provide mutual interdisciplinary enrichment as well as community involvement. Neuropsychoanalysis has provided invaluable, albeit controversial, opportunities for revisiting and debating the psychoanalytic view of the mind as well as inspiring a new generation of young psychoanalytic researchers.
Stay tuned for the announcements in the fall. We welcome your interest, participation and ideas—a cappella!
From the Issues in Psychoanalytic Education Editor
The Psychoanalytic Scholarship Forum of APsaA’s Department for Psychoanalytic Education is slated to be inaugurated at the upcoming 2018 National Meeting. It is a novel structure positioned to promote ongoing scholarly conversation among the members and funneling the ever-evolving psychoanalytic insights into the training of candidates. The hope is that creating such a space will facilitate continuous integration of intra- and interdisciplinary contributions, nurturing the shared core of psychoanalytic discourse and the preparation of candidates for the modern demands of the profession.
—Luba Kessler