516
PARTISAN REVIEW
2.)
As
we know, Grunbaum leads the discussion in arguing that psycho–
analysis is not scientific and is contaminated by suggestion. Without getting
into the philosophical details, could you comment on whether the old dis–
cussion of psychoanalysis as an art or as a science still has much value. In
other words, now that most psychoanalysts employ a variety of psychoana–
lytic methods with their patients--self-psychology, ego psychology, object
relations, and so on, and derivations and mixtures of them all-is this ques–
tion at all relevant?
3.) I assume that in your roles as physician, psychiatrist, and psychoana–
lyst you must, after diagnosing a patient, decide what type of approach to
take in order to help
him
or her get better or be happier as quickly as possi–
ble. How do you decide whether to use one or more of the new
mind-altering drugs, to employ short-term or long-term therapy, or a com–
bination of both?
In a more general vein, how do you perceive the state of psychoanaly–
sis? What do you foresee as its role in the near and the distant future, and
how do you explain the growing criticism of psychoanalysis, especially at a
moment when its ideas are permeating most of our culture?
Robert Michels:
Much of this comes down to the same question, which is
"why is everyone so angry at psychoanalysis?" Why all the criticisms, why
all the attacks, why--starting with Frederick Crews and ending up with my
medical and psychiatric colleagues-is everyone so down on psychoanalysis?
I'm not sure I know the answer. I don't think that this is a psychoanalytic
question. It seems to me that psychoanalysis has become a very convenient
social symbol for lots of things. People are angry at it for whatever it might
mean to them. Some people are angry because psychoanalysis has failed to
solve the problems of psychiatric illness and of all other existing social prob–
lems. Nor has it provided an understanding of the mind, or of society. Other
people are angry at it because they once loved it, which made them feel dis–
tressed and enraged at realizing that they once overvalued something they
shouldn't have overvalued, so they turn against it. There are all kinds of rea–
sons why people might be angry at it. I think it is important not to dismiss
all of them because there are some very important criticisms and perspec–
tives embedded in many of the angry attacks. I think we should be curious
about the content of the attacks, not expect them all to be relevant, but not
dismiss them all because some of them aren't relevant.
Let's start with the Crews debate. Professor Crews wrote a book in
which he attacks psychoanalysis primarily because he looked at the recov–
ered memory and the false memory syndrome movements. It is a
complicated book and beautifully written. I am envious of his literary skills
and of the way he constructed his arguments. But there was not much about
