510
PARTISAN REVIEW
subject, so does their continual development presage a postanalytic
type. The widespread recognition within psychoanalytic circles of
different indications for analysis and modifications of technique
bears witness to just such an eventuality-as does, indeed, the even
more striking appearance of a babel of new therapies during recent
decades. These developments are widely observed, but almost no
attempt is made to comprehend them as a manifestation of deep–
seated historical forces.
Do the dwindling fortunes of psychoanalysis point towards its
demise in a society of increasing scarcity and administration? Fool–
ish as it may be to predict, I would venture to guess that this will not
occur, despite the whole sea of troubles which threatens to swamp it.
I do so on the basis of the fact that history is not reducible to
economic or crudely material factors. Thus any development that
captures the spirit of an age will remain as an active, indeed as a
material, force no matter how beset by objective exigencies. And
since it was Freud who, more than anyone else, showed us the
reasons in the human heart why this should be so, I do not think that
what is hopeful in the future will ever let psychoanalysis go.
Psychoanalysis may seem at times like the last wheeze of our
humanistic tradition; but so long as it clings to its critical spirit it
may yet fulfill Freud's hope to become a living part of the humanism
that may come.
William Phillips:
Thank you. I hope that there will be time later for
somebody to question you. To press you on what the clinical
implications might be of what is obviously a class theory of psycho–
analysis.
The next speaker will be Dr. Jacob Arlow, editor of the
Psycho–
analytic Quarterly,
past president of the American Psychoanalytic
Association. Dr. Arlow.
]
acob A rlow:
If
distance lends enchantment, it also supplies perspec–
tive. This is one advantage historians have over those who comment
on the current scene. I am keenly aware of this as I confront the
subject of psychoanalysis today. During the past ten
to
fifteen years,
many voices have been heard proclaiming that psychoanalysis is
dead. My presentati-on may be regarded as a rebuttal to this state–
ment. Most of these pronouncements seem to have been made in the
context of ideological struggles, sometimes professional, sometimes
political in nature. In support of their claims, the doomsayers of
