FROM CASES OF HYSTERIA TO THE THERAPEUTIC SOCIETY
231
establishment," and accelerating the competitions of who would be the
true descendants of Freud.
In
the interim, as Helen Meyers has demonstrated, many so-called offi–
cial organizations were founded and psychoanalysts made theoretical and
clinical leaps. As they kept analyzing and training psychologists and social
workers who, too, became practi tioners and, in turn, launched others, not
only the culture but the theoretical landscape as well was transformed. By
now, as Philli p Reiff predicted already in 1966, we are the therapeutic soci–
ety par excellence.
In
1984, there were over two hundred and fifty
recognized therapies, and at present there must be at least three hundred
and fifty-most of them either referring positively to psychoanalysis or
rejecting it. Still, few of their proponents dispute the existence of the
unconscious, a concept that the current culture accepts but denied a hun–
dred years ago. Of course, therapists are responding to the malaise induced
by a combination of ever accelerating societal demands and individuals'
inability to balance these with their actual abilities and aspirations. Yet,
despite some of the current criticisms, psychoanalysts' clinical work has
moved beyond Freud's original doctrines. Unfortunately, the frequently
well taken reproaches have overshadowed these changes, and the psycho–
analysts' theories are too technical
to
be of general interest.
At national and international meetings, on the other hand, psychoana–
lys ts are likely to get involved in organizational poli tics. These more or less
determine whose theoretical and clinical papers will be presented-which
means that even when their contents are not endorsed they at least will be
debated. And personal likes and dislikes as well as ins ti tutional affiliations
enter into these decisions.
Over the years, therapists' concerns and practices have been dissemi–
nated, commented on, and debated in the media. This has induced an ever
wider gap between those who do therapy and those who defend specific
theses about Freud's and his disciples' personalities, their suppositions and
speculations, the meaning of the interactions among them, their corre–
spondences, and the impact of
all
these matters on later generations of
Freudians, on acadenucs, and on the culture. Criticism of Freud comes
from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. They now reinterpret Freud's
dreams, speculate on the motives for his views, and dispute whether psy–
choanalysis is an art or a science. All of the "Freud studies" gain in
currency when we are reminded that Freud's dreams and fantasies are cen–
tral to
The Interpretation of Dreams.
Moreover, opponents' own fantasies and
speculations are being justified when bolstered by recently constructed
social and psychological theories--structuralism, deconstruction and post–
modernism-and by newly available letters and memoirs.
The ensuing brouhaha in the media about the fate of psychoanalysis is
magnified by the many counter-therapies that compete with more classical
