EDITH KURZWELL
117
sands and anal ysts of given sexes and ages, Erikson concl uded that
psychoanalysis remains the prime method for the study of generational
relativity of human experience.
U ndoubtedl y, Erikson's topic belongs in the philosophical
realm-the level of psychoanalysis which, according to Waelder, is the
most removed from clinical experience. But as Freud's general works
were better known than his clinical concepts, so Erikson 's words carry
more weight than those of "simple" clinicians. (Erikson has said about
himself that he is more popular than Freud because he is easier to
understand.) This is not to denigrate Erikson's outstanding clinical
abilities or his contri butions on the life cycle, but to point to the
paradox in the social and cultural climate which engenders psychoana–
lytic investigation while appreciating only its global wisdoms. To
some extent, featuring Erikson on prime congress time-as the con–
cluding panelist-itself indicates the recognition by Freudian analysts
of the need for a better press. Branded reactionary, insular, and
secretive, during the last few years, they had good reason for concern.
Still, the press might have ignored the congress, had it not found
" popular" issues such as psychoanalysis in relation to the handi–
capped, to the holocaust, or to birth control on the program.
I am not arguing that these issues are irrelevant, or less valid than
studies of personality disorders or transference phenomena, nor that
the program committee of the I.P.A. played to the press, but only, that,
as in the past, the most interesting (and frequently abstract) contribu–
tions of psychoanalysis remain ignored. For the deep and important
insights about personality formation and interaction continue to
originate in clinical psychoanalysis, and then are quickly adapted,
watered-down, and distorted by the media and by media-prone thera–
pies. Whether this represents a new type of psychic defense, economic
adaptation, or social stratification is a moot poinl. Many of the
therapists who denounce the Freudians are clever enough to copy parts
of their findings; and many psychoanalysts who do not practice have
used their training to become high-level administrators in the helping
professions. Clearly, psychoanalysts are accepted individually and
mistrusted as a group. But this, again, opens up sociological questions
which, so far, we cannot answer.
