Affirming ‘That’s not psycho‐analysis!’ On the value of the politically incorrect act of attempting to define the limits of our field

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the value of the act of defining the field of psychoanalysis. It examines the reasons why adopting and especially giving voice to a definition that excludes approaches considered by some analysts to be analytic is commonly regarded as unacceptable within psychoanalytic discourse. It then explains the value and advantages of putting forth exclusive definitions. The author argues that clarifying the pros and cons of such acts of definition contributes to the understanding of the nature of psychoanalysis and the possibility of dialogue between opposing understandings of it. It may also contribute to greater freedom of thought and expression which is essential to the development of psychoanalytic theory and practice.

Introduction

“…While psychoanalysts may continue to argue over what constitutes the central features of psychoanalytic practice (Blass 2010), it seems true to say that psychotherapeutic research has helped identify core ideas regarding psychotherapeutic efficacy. Wallerstein himself demonstrated the importance of so-called "supportive" interventions in any viable psychotherapy, including a formal psychoanalysis.…”

On ‘Affirming “That’s not psycho‐analysis!”’

“…Rachel Blass (2010) keeps emphasizing the value of truth. She calls for a “productive dialogue between opposing views” (p. 97), implying that the present climate of supposed ‘political correctness’ blocks such a dialogue, while her proposal for exclusive definitions will allow it.…”

On: Responding to Rachel Blass’ article ‘Affirming “That’s not psycho‐analysis!” On the value of the politically incorrect act of attempting to define the limits of our field’

“…In her argument for a limiting definition of psychoanalysis, Rachel B. Blass (2010) creates a series of false dichotomies that threaten to polarize the field. Using the rhetoric of a call for ‘truth,’ she argues that we should define psychoanalysis based on its ‘essence,’ its ‘meaning,’ and its ‘nature.’ By contrast, she trivializes the alternative, which she dismisses under the rubric of ‘postmodernism,’‘relativism,’ or ‘social‐constructivism,’ claiming that these approaches lead to a radical relativism in which we are left with nothing but opinions, one of which is as good as the next, and without rational arguments to mediate among them.…”