More
About Modern Psychoanalysis
Since Dr.
Spotnitz described modern psychoanalysis as “… Freud’s method of therapy,
reformulated on the basis of subsequent psychoanalytic investigation” (1985, p. 25); the question is now asked - what are the
important differences between modern psychoanalysis and classical
psychoanalysis?
I think it is
most useful to look at this question in terms of the theoretical and clinical
practice distinctions between the classical and modern schools.
Theoretical Foundations
A starting place for divergence between the two schools has to do with the
inquiry mentioned in some of our previous articles; i.e., Who may be helped by
psychoanalysis?
Dr. Freud’s
opinion (1933, ch. 6) was that:
“The field in
which analytical therapy can be applied is that of the transference-neuroses,
phobias, hysterias, obsessional neuroses, and besides these such abnormalities
of character as have been developed instead of these diseases. Everything other
than these, such as narcissistic or psychotic conditions, is more or less
unsuitable.”
This conception
unfortunately resulted in huge numbers of people being deemed “unsuitable” or
“unanalyzable” by the classical school of thought; while the modern theory of
treatment considers most emotional, mental and personal achievement problems to
be reversible through its treatment techniques.
According to
Spotnitz, (1985, p.23):
“Freud and his
contemporaries did not recognize the presence of narcissistic transference as
such, and they did not know how to utilize it for therapeutic purposes. Since
their day it has been repeatedly demonstrated that the narcissistic
transference is therapeutically useful.”
But, Freud (1914)
did anticipate the possibility of such future developments in psychoanalysis (previously
quoted on this website); when he stated the importance of:
“… the facts of transference and resistance. Any line of
investigation which recognizes these two facts and takes them as the starting
point of its work may call itself psychoanalysis, though it arrives at results
other than my own.”
Clinical Techniques
Modern psychoanalysts are able to take advantage of a wide range of clinical
techniques and interventions for ego reinforcement, emotional communication and
resistance resolution. Spotnitz says:
The essential
difference is that classical analysis believes in interpretation and nothing
else, no other intervention. Modern psychoanalysis is open to all
interventions, all verbal interventions… Any communication that helps a patient
resolve resistance to saying everything is part of modern psychoanalysis.”
Meadow, 1999, p.
6.
Some have argued
that classical psychoanalysis, with its emphasis on interpretation as the sole
method of “making the unconscious conscious” can also be viewed as anti-therapeutic
for vulnerable patients; the same patients that are frequently seen by modern
analysts.
Are modern
analysts opposed to interpretation? Not at all. For
modern psychoanalysts,
“…silent interpretation… is an essential
ingredient of a successful analysis… Resistance is analyzed – silently and
unobtrusively – but instead of trying to promote recognition, perception, or
conviction, the therapist intervenes to facilitate verbalization as a
connective integrative process. The patient is helped to discover for himself
the genetic antecedents of his resistant behavior, explore it in terms of the
analytic relationship, and articulate his own understanding.”
Spotnitz, 1985,
p. 167, emphasis original.
Essentially, the
vulnerable patient is protected from the likely ego-damaging effects of
interpretation when used as a blunt force instrument. Clinically, modern psychoanalysis is:
“…applied to take
advantage of the initial unresponsiveness of the preverbal personality to
interpretive procedures and to the patient’s oscillating transference states…
Safeguards against chaotic regression figure prominently in the clinical
approach of the modern psychoanalyst; the therapeutic alliance is permitted to
evolve at a pace the patient is able to tolerate.”
Spotnitz, 1985,
p. 37.
The vast armory of clinical techniques at the disposal of the modern analyst
are not indiscriminately used:
“From patient to
patient… regardless of the nature of the disorder, the types of interventions employed are empirically determined by
individual responsiveness.”
Spotnitz, 1985,
p. 38, emphasis original.
Modern
psychoanalysts anticipate that a successful analysis will bring an individual
to a state of maturity where the patient will be able to tolerate verbal
interpretations; but the final goals of modern psychoanalysis go further:
“… modern psychoanalysis is dedicated to achieving far more
than transforming a miserable human being into one suffering from common
unhappiness – the therapeutic expectation stated by Freud… The patient who has
successfully undergone modern psychoanalysis emerges in a state of emotional
maturity. With the full symphony of human emotions at his disposal, and
abundantly equipped with psychic energy, he experiences the pleasure of
performing at his full potential.”
Spotnitz, (1985,
pp. 288-89).
References
Freud, S. 1914. The
History of the Psychoanalytic Movement; (fr. Freud, S. (1938). Basic Writings
of Sigmund Freud, (Modern Library Edition, 1995; trans. Dr. A.A. Brill), NY, The Modern Library).
Freud, S. (1933). New Introductory Lectures on
Psychoanalysis. (trans. W.
J. H. Sprott).
Meadow, P.
(1999). The Clinical
Practice of Modern Psychoanalysis: An Interview with Hyman Spotnitz. (Meadow/Spotnitz,
CMPS/Modern Psychoanalysis, Vol. 24, No. 1)
Spotnitz, H. (1985).
Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient: Theory of the Technique,
Second Edition, NY, Human Sciences Press.
© 2007, James G.
Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org
Psychoanalysis