Freud would not have been happy with this one. Or, my, how things have changed!
I just finished reading L’avenir de la psychanalyse: débat entre Daniel Widlöcher et Jacques-Alain Miller (Le Cavalier bleu, 2004). This is essentially the text of a debate that took place in Paris in June 2002, at the time when Widlöcher was the head of the IPA and Miller of the AMP.
Three of Widlöcher’s declarations regarding the IPA would not have sat all too well with Freud, I imagine. Here are the quotes (in the original French, followed by my rough translation):
On the designation:
L’Association Psychanalytique Internationale n’a plus du tout le sentiment d’un monopole. Nous ne revendiquons pas d’être les seuls psychanalystes. Nous considérons que nous avons une certaine idée de la psychanalyse et de ces pratiques, et qu’il y a des psychanalystes qui, en dehors de l’API, ont les mêmes pratiques. (15)
The International Psychoanalytical Association no longer has the air of a monopoly. We do not claim to be the only psychoanalysts. We believe that we have a certain idea of psychoanalysis and of its practices and that there are psychoanalysts who, outside of the IPA, have similar practices.
So, the IPA no longer sees itself as the gatekeeper to the profession as it continues on promoting itself as “the world’s primary accrediting and regulatory body for psychoanalysis“ (see here)! (“Primary”? if the reference here is to numbers then the text should read “largest” instead. If, on the other hand, quality—as in rigour, standards, or proficiency—is implied, then the claim is mere advertising.)
Freud and his legacy have not been entirely irrelevant to the in-fighting that has plagued the organisation from its earliest days onwards as to jurisdictions and qualifications, the quarrels over allegiances and claims of purity, the rivalries over how close to the Freudian root (or is it trunk?) one could place oneself on the psychoanalytic family tree in order to carry higher or lesser clinical authority. Have all the in-fighting, quarrels, and rivalries now come to nought?
On the cure, Widlöcher states that within the association’s membership “cure” no longer carries the weight of a pre-scripted standard of health or normalcy; rather:
Je n’aime pas le terme “standard”. Je croix que le problème est d’offrir à l’analysant le maximum de chances de vivre une expérience analytique aussi enrichissante que possible. (31)
I don’t like the term “standard.” I believe that the issue is to offer the analysand the greatest chance to live an analytic experience that is as enriching as possible.
It seems that talk of “genital love,” “resolution,” and “development” is no longer necessary, or even desirable; instead, it is the “analytic experience” itself that has taken pride of place over whatever notion of “health” and “pathology” may have previously motivated the analytic cure. On second thought, what is one to make of the “as enriching as possible” qualification here? Might it leave a backdoor open for the argument that, after all, only “genital love,” “resolution,” and “development” can indeed be “enriching”?
Last but not least, Widlöcher declares the attention to the counter-transference as a principal unifying element amongst the various orientations within the IPA; he adds:
Je pense que ce qui se passe pendant la séance, c’est une élaboration induite et réciproque qui fonctionne comme une associativité partagée, qui aboutit à des idées pouvant être communiquées à l’un et à l’autre, et que ce travail implique le contre-transfert, mais n’est pas pour autant un moyen thérapeutique pour l’analyste. (47)
I think that what takes place in a session is an induced and reciprocal elaboration that functions as a shared association—that leads to ideas that may be communicated to the one and to the other—and that this work involves the counter-transference, without being a therapeutic means for the analyst.
In light of this, Freud’s warnings about the counter-transference in a 1909 letter to Jung as the therapist’s inappropriate reactions to the patient and/or treatment and again in 1910 in “The Future Prospects of Psycho-Analytic Therapy” as the outcome of the patient’s influence on the analyst’s unconscious seem outdated, even primitive.
To recap, according to Widlöcher, the IPA no longer holds itself as the sole arbiter of professional legitimacy, no longer subscribes to generalised principles of normalcy, and recognises the humanity of its members on par with that of the population it aims to serve.
Heavens, all this is almost enough to make me want to join the IPA, almost but not quite; and about that, thankfully, Freud would not have cared either way.
