IPA Inter-Regional Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychoanalysis

Back to Table of Contents

White Institute, was formed in New York City where interpersonal psychoanalysis was practiced and developed into what ultimately became the Relational school. William Alanson White Institute also pioneered psychoanalytic training for psychologists from 1943, closely followed in this regard by Postgraduate Center for Mental Health in New York, in 1949, where Lachmann and Stolorow trained, whose original faculty under the leadership of Lewis Wolberg , formerly of the New York Psychoanalytic Institute, the citadel of Classical psychoanalysis’, but which also maintained a treatment site for deinstitutionalized outpatients and pioneered the group psychoanalytic training, with relative openness to the plurality of theoretical orientations (originally led by Asya Kadis , an émigré analyst from Hungary). Both institutes maintained child psychoanalytic departments with direct contacts with various training sites of the British Psychoanalytic Society. Another institute that notably contributed the diversification of perspectives was the New York University Post-doctoral Institute established in 1961, which offered Freudian, Relational and Interpersonal training tracks for psychologists. It follows that many contemporary luminaries of relational thinking were trained there. Since late 1980’s, the American Psychoanalytic Association institutes opened their doors to non-medical clinicians and number of IPA independent institutes and societies around the country with the inclusive medical and non- medical membership have come to existence and expanded. The clinical work with the wide range of patients of various ages and pathologies, as well as the arrival of psychologists and other non-medical clinical professionals on the scene of US psychoanalysis disturbed the status quo, signaling potential expansion of conceptual boundaries in many directions. The next challenges to metapsychology came from within the metapsychological point of view itself. Among the major contributors to this challenge were Merton Gill and George Klein (1976), who eventually delineated two psychoanalytic theories: (1) a clinical theory based on indisputable empirical observation; and, (2) a speculative abstract theory. Roy Schafer (1976) proposed an action language that attempted to explain psychological phenomena in dynamic formulations using verbs and adverbs and not nouns or adjectives. In addition, Schafer advocated for the use of language in a manner inclusive of motivational forces and their consequential actions, as action sequence s. This was another step in the direction of intersubjectiveness. Later anti-metapsychologists include Heinz Kohut (1977) and John Gedo (1979). New groups began to develop, adding further Interpersonal, Self- Psychology and Relational perspective practitioners (Gerson, 2004), whose clinical unit of attention was interpersonal (below). Another substantial revision of Freudian metapsychology during 1960’s – 1980’s comes from Hans Loewald , self-identified as Ego psychologist, whose influence as a transitional figure, connected to Winnicott and Jacobson, but also to Heidegger, was subsequently widely recognized as contributing to receptivity of US Classical analysis towards intersubjectivity in its many versions. Loewald stressed the essential role of object relations in both psychic formation as well as the change brought about through analysis. Stolorow would later express agreement with Loewald’s (1960/80) clinical conception of “the analyst as a transforming object who invites syntheses of new modes of experiencing object relationships” (Stolorow, 1978, 317). In his methodological revision of Ego psychology developmental

129

Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online