Letters to the Editor
Re: Unfree Associations: Inside Psychoanalytic Institutes
Dear Editor:
Dr Paul Steinberg’s interesting review (1), of Unfree Associations: Inside Psychoanalytic Institutes, by D Kirsner (2), raises several points that concern all of us who belong to professional organizations.
Steinberg, and apparently not quoting Kirsner, diagnoses 4 psychoanalytic training institutes in New York, Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles, as being “pathologically functioning,” “dominated by narcissistic characters,” and exhibiting “childlessness and fratricidal behaviour.” He further states that they have “irredeemable narcissism, even paranoia.” Such psychopolitical descriptors are usually reserved for books concerning fascists, dictators, or the present “war on evil,” and appear politically dismissive rather than offering useful dynamic insights or objective criticism. He wonders about comparing the functioning of psychoanalytic institutes with other institutions, such as universities and hospitals and their leaders. My recent books (3,4) have attempted to look at some of these factors that faced the founders and affected the functioning of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry and the Toronto Psychoanalytic Institute. Many of these shortcomings cross the boundaries of most, if not all, professional groups. Possibly, some of the factors mentioned are intrinsic, especially in groups wherein charismatic founders devote themselves and attempt to control others to establish certain goals.
There is much to be critical about with respect to these “elite groups,” especially the politics that invariably go with founding and maintaining values, theoretical positions, and even ideologies in all these organizations. They do have much to be humble about, especially at times when interpersonal differences have been exploited and peoples’ feelings have been overlooked yet their leadership, their energetic involvement, and their command are often necessary to establish such organizations, even when there is also bias and obvious self-interest. Eventually, founders and initial leaders become a hindrance, are counterproductive to the now- established groups’ aims, and are, in fact, functionally replaced, even though they are still listed as a professor or as a training analyst.
Gedo’s book, Spleen and Nostalgia, is quoted and conveys the bitterness of one of America’s most important and decorated analysts, who also feels overlooked and irrelevant at the end of his productive career. It is not only the people in psychoanalytic organizations who feel they didn’t get the chance to influence change and scientific thought who have resentments: some of the very leaders who apparently had been ambitious and successful feel they have not accomplished what they had hoped and have not been acknowledged for what they have accomplished. I will not criticize Dr Steinerberg for merely being the messenger of Kirsner’s concerns and criticisms regarding the psychoanalytic institutes’ apparent practice of “anointment, . . . claimed knowledge and implied qualifications” in place of substantive educational accomplishments or an egalitarian interest for the society.
It is unfortunate to focus primarily on the failures of organizations and to describe their functioning primarily in terms of personality pathology. This does a disservice to many and does not enlighten those who wish to avoid the mistakes of the past or to convey to the reader the complexities of emerging professional group dynamics.
References
1. Steinberg I. Unfree associations: inside psychoanalytic institutes [book review]. Can J Psychiatry 2002;47(7):679–80.
2. Kirsner D. Unfree associations: inside psychoanalytic institutes. London (UK): Process Press; 2000. 324 p.
3. Frayn D. Psychoanalysis in Toronto: historical perspectives. Toronto: Ash Productions; 2000.
4. Frayn D. The Clarke and its founders: a retrospective look at an impossible dream. Toronto: Clarke/Coach House; 1996.
Douglas H. Frayn MD FRCPC
Toronto, Ontario
|
