PSYCHOANALYSIS TODAY
The following discussion took place in New York. Readers are invited
to comment.
William Phillips:
I would like to welcome you to one of a series of
evenings made possible by a grant from the New York Council for
the Humanities. The subject for tonight, as you know, is the state of
psychoanalysis and therapy. And I should say that it is no secret that
many people think that psychoanalysis has declined in popularity
and prestige. One of our aims tonight is to examine whether this is
true.
We are also going to try to examine the reasons for the appear–
ance of the many new therapies which are easier, faster, cheaper,
more exciting than psychoanalysis. Among the questions which we
expect to consider is whether there has been a theoretical decline and
a decline in clinical efficacy in the field of psychoanalysis. Or
whether classical psychoanalysis has not been adequate to deal with
the new cultural situation and its effect on personal psychology. Or
whether there has been simply a loss of interest in both its theory and
practice as cultural fashions have changed, although the theory and
practice of analysis might be in a healthy state. We also want to ask
whether the new therapies are fads, feeding the popular appetite for
sensationalism and immediate gratification, or whether they are
genuine and legitimate forms of therapy for people who are not
interested in or who can't afford a standard form of psychoanalysis,
that is, whether they are simply alternative forms of therapy. We also
want to talk a bit about the shifts in the culture that have accompa–
nied or produced the changes in attitudes towards psychoanalysis
and the stampede toward the more exotic and more satisfying modes
of therapy, that is, more satisfying personally, socially, sexuaBy. In
addition, some attention should be paid to the unorthodox, non–
Freudian schools of analysis that have been in existence for some
time. And then there are the French analysts, who, as you know, have
been seducing and mystifying American academics with their rhe–
toric. We hope that someone will be able to comment on Lacan, the
French obscurantist and magician who has married Freud
to
Levi–
Strauss, and thrown in structural linguistics as a wedding present.
This is a tall order for one evening, and we are all too sophisti-
