Search

The article offers the author's insights on the translated 1970 paper of doctor Hermann Argelander regarding American ego psychology. The author believes that Argelander's paper has depicted the development of postwar German psychoanalysis. The author also mentions that the paper has opened inquiries on two related subjects such as the formation of symptom and character, which were both rejected in psychoanalysis.

While Bion's 1967 memory and desire paper reflected a crucial episode in his clinical thinking during his epistemological period, it was also central to his evolution as a Kleinian psychoanalyst who worked with seriously disturbed adult patients. The author explicates and contextualizes these claims with a new archival document, the Los Angeles Seminars delivered by Bion in April 1967, and the full-length version of Notes on memory and desire. Bion here instigated a radical departure from years of theory-laden work when he made his clinical work and ideas accessible to a new audience of American Freudian analysts. While this new group was keenly interested to hear about Bion's clinical technique with both borderline and psychotic patients, there were varied reactions to Bion's ideas on the technical implications of the analyst's abandonment of memory and desire. Both the Los Angeles Seminars and Notes elicited responses ranging from bewilderment, admiration to skepticism amongst his audience of listeners and readers. These materials also however allow for a more complete and systematic presentation of important ideas about analytic technique - and while his ideas in this domain have been long valued and known by many psychoanalysts, this contribution stresses the crucial aspect of the reception of his ideas about technique in a particular American context. American analysts gained a much more explicit idea of how Bion worked analytically, how he listened, formulated interpretations and factored in the analyst's listening receptivity in the here-and-now. The author concludes with a consideration of the importance of Bion's American reception in 1967. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The way that anthropologists understand the Oedipus complex, in particular, is a good example of how they understand psychoanalysis in general. Indeed, it has crystallized a set of reactions marked by ignorance, misunderstanding, distortion and screening out and at the same time has provoked suspicion among anthropologists as to psychoanalysis, according to the preconceptions of the various schools of thought and authors implied, and this from the very first contacts up to nowadays. In what way did the psychoanalysts contribute to this and what representation did they, in turn, elaborate of anthropology? The purpose of this paper is to expose the epistemological and historical conditions of the emergence of this debate, and then to develop it by following chronology up to the 1950s and 1960s, while differentiating three major cultural areas, Great Britain, the USA and France, in order to get a clearer picture. From that point on, we will try to diversify our inquiry and to formulate some interpretative hypotheses. In particular, we think that a traumatic event may have inaugurated and organized the history of the relationship between the two disciplines, producing a situation of acculturation with multiple impacts, if we identify them with two cultures coming into contact: what is at stake here is Totem and Taboo in which Freud carries through the first major psychoanalytical approach of the interpretation of ethnographic facts, that leads him to transplant the universality of the Oedipus complex to the very root of the first social institutions and to pinpoint the presence of unconscious processes in their genesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Psychoanalysis as a theory of human mental functioning and a derived therapeutic for disturbed functioning would have its natural home in the university, and Freud gave evidence of harboring such an ambition. But the sociopolitical structure of the early 20th century Austro-Hungarian Empire precluded this, and analysis developed, by default, its part-time, private practice-based educational structure. Psychoanalytic penetration of academic psychiatry in the United States after World War II made possible a counter-educational structure, the department of psychiatry-affiliated psychoanalytic institute within the country's medical schools. This paper outlines, beyond these, other more ambitious vistas (David Shakow, Anna Freud, The Menninger Foundation, Emory University [US], APdeBA [Argentina]), conceptions even closer to the ideal (idealized) goal of full-time placement within the university with strong links to medicine, to the behavioral sciences, and to the humanities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Information about several papers discussed at a congress sponsored by the International Psycho-Analytical Association on the Kleinian theory of clinical narcissism is presented. Topics include the notion of narcissism and the existence of Kleinian thought and Kleinian groups in the United States The symposium featured several panelists including Robert Hinshelwood, Joseph Aguayo, and Elizabeth Barros.