214
PARTISAN REVIEW
Helen Meyers:
A hundred years of psychoanalysis-starting in Vienna in
1896 wi th the
Studies
if
Hysteria,
or more properly in 1900 wi th the pub–
lication of
The Interpretation
if
Dreams.
Psychoanalysis then and now. A
great deal has changed in psychoanalysis in these hundred years-in paral–
lel with its cultural, philosophic and economic surroundings. Indeed I am
not sure whether the theme of this symposium, Breaking Tradi tions, be
best applied to psychoanalysis itself since its beginning.
Freud certainly broke with tradition when he created psychoanaly–
sis-as a psychological theory, a treatment method and an investigative
tool-with his stress on the unconscious, unconscious motivation, uncon–
scious fantasy, and psychic determinism, his discovery of infantile sexuali ty,
and his theory of drives, his revelation of intrapsychic conflict, the infan–
tile roots of trauma and conflict resolution, and psychic reality. But, while
these basic concepts have been maintained, much has also been changed
and added. From a monolithic and somewhat authoritarian theory in
Freud's day, psychoanalysis has moved to a position of egalitarianism and
pluralism. While in the early days deviance was not tolerated and their
originators like Rank,jung, and Adler were excluded from the psychoan–
alytic movement-except for Ferenczi who, though uneasily, was
permitted to remain within the group- today there is an acceptance of
multiple frames of reference within the international psychoanalytic
world: Freudian structural theory, modern ego psychology, British object
relations theory, modern, Kleinian-Bionian theory, American object rela–
tions theory, self-psychology, French Lacan-to name the leading theories.
However this acceptance is nei ther unanimous nor unqualified, but covers
a whole range of attitudes. There are those who, while aware of the exis–
tence of different psychoanalytic theories or frames of reference, feel they
are incompatible and are convinced that one theory is more meaningful,
coherent and explanatory, and therefore preferable. Thus a classic Freudian
American ego psychologist like Leo Rangel, for example, will feel that the
ego psychologic frame of reference is sufficiently inclusive and applicable
to all psychoanalytic activi ty-al though he will have accepted extension
and innovations within this framework over years; and ego psychology, as
practiced nowadays, is a far cry from the original Freudian view. Similarly,
in England, a current British Kleinian analyst like Betty joseph will apply
Kleinian-Bionian concepts
to
all psychoanalytic work, though this modern
Kleinian view is a quite modified version of the original work of Melanie
Klein. Then there are those analysts who feel there is merit in a pluralis–
tic view and that different psychoanalytic theories, each equally complete
and meaningful in themselves, though incompatible with each other, are
applicable and useful for different pathologic conditions, such as neurotic
characters, narcissistic personality disorder, or borderline conditions. Then
there are those analysts, as described by Fred Pine in his book
Four
