110
PARTISAN REVIEW
of course, go to the roots of other questions: the social pressures that
challenge the analysts' identity, the change in social origin, level of
sophistication and presenting symptoms of potential patients, the
pseudosophistication through the spread of psychoanalytic jargon by
the media, the increasingly adaptive responses which may themselves
represent new defenses against analysis, the expectation of the " quick
cure" antithetical to the aims of successful analysis, and many more.
As in the past, the difference between psychoanalysis and psycho–
analytically oriented therapy was an emotionally charged-yet
scientific-issue. In America, stated Leo Stone, psychotherapy is the
stepchild in the training program. And Jacob Arlow supported this
position, reminding us that even Freud had wondered
to
what extent
psychoanalysis may serve as the family romance of the analyst. Al–
though every candidate must be analytically trained, both Arlow and
Stone reasoned that one has to deal with the fact that sixty to seventy
percent of patients are getting psychoanalytically oriented therapy.
Daniel Widlocher, a Parisian Freudian, argued against two separate
types of treatment on the grounds that all psychoanalysts practice
therapy during their training, and that they frequently become analysts
only to improve their practice of therapy. Undoubtedly this holds true
for the Parisian ambiance, where Lacanian psychoanalysis (his candi–
dates "graduate" by declaring themselves fit to practice) has become as
fashionable as such American therapies as primal scream, est, roifing,
encounter, or Gestalt. The American contingent at the Congress was
annoyed at Widlocher, who seemed
to
imply that their definition of
analysis relies on techniques, and on the management of situations; his
own goal, allegedly, was broader, and more concerned with values-a
concern that implies moral superiority. Once again the issue of
psychoanalysis as a natural science versus an art, or a combination of
the two, was raised. But this was a mild version of previous disagree–
ments, which already for Freud had led to institutional splits. Widloch–
er's position seemed to be welcomed by the Argentinians, the Mexicans,
and to some extent by the Israelis; London analysts have incorporated
their splits by the coexistence of three currents (Freudian, Kleinian, and
Middle group) within their institute; and the Germans, who lack
teaching analysts for their many candidates (two-years wait to begin
training) do not yet think of splitting. In any case, the discussions
about training anticipated some of the topics Edward Joseph, the
president of the I.P.A., touched on in his inaugural address.
Joseph summarized psychoanalysis's past, its areas of investiga–
tions, its increased knowledge of mental life, which, in turn, changed
