Some
people hold that the emergence and growing international influence of
associations of psychotherapists pose some kind of threat to psychoanalysis.
It is true, of course, that their very existence means that we have to
ask ourselves a certain number of questions concerning the relationship
between psychotherapy and psychoanalysis. Discussion of these issues has
in fact already been of some benefit both to psychoanalysts and to psychotherapists.
The emergence of psychotherapy associations - in particular as regards
psychoanalytic psychotherapy - such as the EFPP, is henceforth part of
the march of History…
Though we may find it regrettable, we have to realize that nowadays much
of the work we would call psychoanalytic is in fact being done by psychotherapists
who are not psychoanalysts in the strict sense of the term.
We could say that, relative to its psychotherapeutic dimension, much psychoanalytic
work lies outside the narrow confines of psychoanalytic societies and
associations, though these may retain the heavy yet delicate responsibility
for education and training.
In the grand debate between psychoanalysis and psychotherapy that is very
much to the fore today within the I.P.A., it may well be the case that
the deep-rooted hostility shown by some and the enthusiastic support proclaimed
by others as regards associations such as the EFPP are a reflection of
an underlying conflict between advocates of very divergent points of view
concerning psychoanalysis itself.
It is also the case that, in the public health sector, there are a certain
number of very down-to-earth pressures:
- We live in a time of considerable societal evolution, with new parameters
and specific demands;
- We are called upon to deal with new kinds of clinical situation and
practice;
- We are heirs to new conceptual instruments, both technical and metapsychological,
invented by some remarkable psychoanalysts;
- An increasing number of our professional colleagues in the health sector
have had some experience of psychoanalysis. They find in its ideas a way
of enhancing their own practice; even though they may have no particular
wish to embark on a career as psychoanalysts, it would be absurd to expect
them to put all of this to one side in their everyday work.
This pressure is only one of the factors that have contributed to the
creation, over the past few decades, of national associations of psychotherapists
in some countries and, more recently, to that of international associations
such as the EFPP.
There are some who see this as an unfortunate and potentially harmful
development. I can understand their concern - particular attention has
to be paid to issues such as education and training of psychoanalytic
psychotherapists in order for a genuine link with the living experience
of psychoanalysis to subsist. These issues will have to be thought about
in depth. For example, the specific nature of different analytic settings
with their operational parameters and their limitations will have to be
carefully explored, and the ethical aspects of these various approaches
will also have to be closely examined.
Others are pleased to see these developments take place, for they see
the "classic" psychoanalytic treatment as one point along an
axis that runs all the way to supportive psychotherapy. I can understand
their concern - they want the undoubted uniqueness of every psychoanalytic
endeavour to be recognized and preserved, whether as part of a classic
psychoanalytic commitment or as participating in one of the many psychotherapeutic
ventures that already exist or may yet await us sometime in the future.
Dr
Bruno Fraschina
President,
Belgian French-speaking Federation for Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy,
Constituent Society of the EFPP.
August
2001.
