ABSTRACT
In this book we argue for a progressive and humanistic vision of psychoanalysis. We will show that to its detriment, American psychoanalysis has historically defined itself by contrasting itself with its other—psychotherapy—thereby limiting its own range and scope. We call for a broader and more flexible definition, one that has practical implications for how psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic therapy are theorized, taught, and practiced, and that includes psychoanalysis as a social and humanistic enterprise. When asked by Anthony Molino whether psychoanalysis was a dinosaur, close to extinction, Christopher Bollas wittily remarked, “Psychoanalysis just has to survive ‘the psychoanalytic movement’” (Molino, 1997, p. 59). In its efforts to preserve the purity of its methods and protect the status of its practitioners, the psychoanalytic movement has threatened itself with its own extinction. As Stephen Mitchell cautioned,
It is tempting to preserve the purity of one’s practice and work only with patients—generally other mental health practitioners—(or else the very wealthy) who will play it the traditional way—four times a week, the couch, free association and interpretation, and so on, but that is not feasible for most practitioners. Even if it were, it would be hard to avoid a sense of bad faith, that one is preserving one’s purity at the price of turning away people seeking help.
(1991, pp. 150–151)