Difference between revisions of "The Question of Lay Analysis"
(The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (<a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles">https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles</a>).) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Freud wrote The Question of Lay Analysis as an occasional piece in support of one of his friends, Theodor Reik, who had been accused of practicing medicine illegally (he was not a physician). He cast it in the form of an informal conversation with an "impartial interlocutor," probably Julius Tandler, the Viennese city councilor for welfare, with whom he had in fact discussed the Reik case. | + | [[Freud]] wrote The Question of Lay [[Analysis]] as an occasional piece in support of one of his friends, Theodor Reik, who had been accused of practicing [[medicine]] illegally (he was not a physician). He cast it in the [[form]] of an informal conversation with an "impartial interlocutor," probably Julius Tandler, the Viennese city councilor for [[welfare]], with whom he had in fact discussed the Reik [[case]]. |
| − | The question of "lay" analysis had been of concern to Freud and his students for a long time because not all of them were physicians. The gap had progressively widened between those who, like Freud, felt that sound training as an analyst was all that mattered, regardless of any previously acquired diplomas, and those (particularly Abraham A. Brill and the Americans) who, considering analysis to be a medical discipline, wanted to prohibit non-physicians from practicing. Ernest Jones launched a major survey of the analytic community before the Innsbruck International Congress in September 1927, at which twenty-eight contributions on the subject were discussed without any agreement being reached. Freud wrote a "Postscript" for the occasion, maintaining his claim that analysis could be practiced by non-physicians. | + | The question of "lay" analysis had been of concern to Freud and his students for a long [[time]] because not all of [[them]] were physicians. The gap had progressively widened between those who, like Freud, felt that sound [[training]] as an [[analyst]] was all that mattered, regardless of any previously acquired diplomas, and those (particularly [[Abraham]] A. Brill and the Americans) who, considering analysis to be a medical [[discipline]], wanted to [[prohibit]] non-physicians from practicing. Ernest [[Jones]] launched a major survey of the [[analytic]] [[community]] before the Innsbruck International Congress in September 1927, at which twenty-eight contributions on the [[subject]] were discussed without any agreement [[being]] reached. Freud wrote a "Postscript" for the occasion, maintaining his [[claim]] that analysis could be practiced by non-physicians. |
| − | Freud opens the imaginary conversation of The Question of Lay Analysis by describing disorders for which the ordinary physician can offer no real help, then proceeds to outline the methods of free association, dream analysis and so on, which seek to shed light on unconscious processes. He provides his putative interlocutor, whose supposed criticisms and questions frequently punctuate the exchange, with some notion, from the dynamic point of view, of his structural theory of the mind, of the instincts and, from the economic point of view, of repression and anxiety, of childhood sexuality, of the Oedipus complex, and so on. This metapsychological overview is followed by an account of the procedures of analytic therapy (transference, resistance, and the art of interpretation). Neither general medicine nor psychiatry prepares the physician for any of this, Freud declares; they may even constitute an obstacle. Special training is required, beginning with a personal analysis, without which even a physician may be no more than a quack. Any legislation on the subject would therefore be more of a hindrance than a help. Freud therefore concludes that analysis may perfectly well be practiced by non-physicians. Such an analyst would nevertheless need the help of a physician, prior to the analysis, in order to settle diagnostic questions or, in the course of the analysis, to take over in the case of disorders beyond the scope of the analyst: but the same holds for the physician analyst. Freud concludes by tracing the program of what the ideal analytical training might involve (p. 246). | + | Freud opens the [[imaginary]] conversation of The Question of [[Lay Analysis]] by describing disorders for which the ordinary physician can offer no [[real]] [[help]], then proceeds to [[outline]] the methods of free [[association]], [[dream]] analysis and so on, which seek to shed light on [[unconscious]] [[processes]]. He provides his putative interlocutor, whose supposed criticisms and questions frequently [[punctuate]] the [[exchange]], with some [[notion]], from the [[dynamic]] point of view, of his [[structural]] [[theory]] of the [[mind]], of the [[instincts]] and, from the [[economic]] point of view, of [[repression]] and [[anxiety]], of [[childhood]] [[sexuality]], of the [[Oedipus]] [[complex]], and so on. This metapsychological [[overview]] is followed by an account of the procedures of analytic [[therapy]] ([[transference]], [[resistance]], and the art of [[interpretation]]). Neither general medicine nor [[psychiatry]] prepares the physician for any of this, Freud declares; they may even constitute an obstacle. Special training is required, beginning with a personal analysis, without which even a physician may be no more than a [[quack]]. Any legislation on the subject would therefore be more of a hindrance than a help. Freud therefore concludes that analysis may perfectly well be practiced by non-physicians. Such an analyst would nevertheless [[need]] the help of a physician, prior to the analysis, in [[order]] to settle diagnostic questions or, in the course of the analysis, to take over in the case of disorders beyond the scope of the analyst: but the same holds for the physician analyst. Freud concludes by tracing the program of what the [[ideal]] analytical training might involve (p. 246). |
| − | This work has had considerable influence on the debates that continue to this day on the "question of lay analysis" and the training of analysts. On the whole—though with noticeable variations from country to country—the International Psychoanalytical Association has adopted Freud's position. | + | This [[work]] has had considerable influence on the debates that continue to this day on the "question of lay analysis" and the training of [[analysts]]. On the whole—though with noticeable variations from country to country—the International [[Psychoanalytical]] Association has adopted Freud's [[position]]. |
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| − | # Freud, Sigmund. (1926e). Die Frage der Laienanalyse. Unterredungen mit einem Unparteiischen. Leipzig-Vienna-Zurich, Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag]] | + | # [[Freud, Sigmund]]. (1926e). Die Frage der Laienanalyse. Unterredungen mit einem Unparteiischen. Leipzig-[[Vienna]]-Zurich, Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag]] |
* [[GW, 14: 207-286]] | * [[GW, 14: 207-286]] | ||
* [[The question of lay analysis. SE, 20: 177-250. | * [[The question of lay analysis. SE, 20: 177-250. | ||
Latest revision as of 02:01, 21 May 2019
Freud wrote The Question of Lay Analysis as an occasional piece in support of one of his friends, Theodor Reik, who had been accused of practicing medicine illegally (he was not a physician). He cast it in the form of an informal conversation with an "impartial interlocutor," probably Julius Tandler, the Viennese city councilor for welfare, with whom he had in fact discussed the Reik case.
The question of "lay" analysis had been of concern to Freud and his students for a long time because not all of them were physicians. The gap had progressively widened between those who, like Freud, felt that sound training as an analyst was all that mattered, regardless of any previously acquired diplomas, and those (particularly Abraham A. Brill and the Americans) who, considering analysis to be a medical discipline, wanted to prohibit non-physicians from practicing. Ernest Jones launched a major survey of the analytic community before the Innsbruck International Congress in September 1927, at which twenty-eight contributions on the subject were discussed without any agreement being reached. Freud wrote a "Postscript" for the occasion, maintaining his claim that analysis could be practiced by non-physicians.
Freud opens the imaginary conversation of The Question of Lay Analysis by describing disorders for which the ordinary physician can offer no real help, then proceeds to outline the methods of free association, dream analysis and so on, which seek to shed light on unconscious processes. He provides his putative interlocutor, whose supposed criticisms and questions frequently punctuate the exchange, with some notion, from the dynamic point of view, of his structural theory of the mind, of the instincts and, from the economic point of view, of repression and anxiety, of childhood sexuality, of the Oedipus complex, and so on. This metapsychological overview is followed by an account of the procedures of analytic therapy (transference, resistance, and the art of interpretation). Neither general medicine nor psychiatry prepares the physician for any of this, Freud declares; they may even constitute an obstacle. Special training is required, beginning with a personal analysis, without which even a physician may be no more than a quack. Any legislation on the subject would therefore be more of a hindrance than a help. Freud therefore concludes that analysis may perfectly well be practiced by non-physicians. Such an analyst would nevertheless need the help of a physician, prior to the analysis, in order to settle diagnostic questions or, in the course of the analysis, to take over in the case of disorders beyond the scope of the analyst: but the same holds for the physician analyst. Freud concludes by tracing the program of what the ideal analytical training might involve (p. 246).
This work has had considerable influence on the debates that continue to this day on the "question of lay analysis" and the training of analysts. On the whole—though with noticeable variations from country to country—the International Psychoanalytical Association has adopted Freud's position.
See Also
References
- Freud, Sigmund. (1926e). Die Frage der Laienanalyse. Unterredungen mit einem Unparteiischen. Leipzig-Vienna-Zurich, Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag]]
- GW, 14: 207-286
- [[The question of lay analysis. SE, 20: 177-250.
- ——. (1927a). Nachwort zur Frage der Laienanalyse (1926e). Internationale Zeitschrift für Psychoanalyse, 13: 326-332]]
- GW, 14: 287-296
- [[Postscript: The question of lay analysis. SE, 20: 251-258.
