Back to Table of Contents
in the United States. Because of his publications in both English and Spanish, his influence is felt not only in parts of North America and Europe, but notably in Latin America (below). In his numerous writings, which present further evolution of Paul Gray’s ‘microstructural’ approach to structural conflict, via close attention paid to the transference-resistances surfacing in the analytic process, he documents how the clinical technique consistent with Freud’s structural theory permits a more naturalistic and specific approach to analyzing unconscious conflict, thus (paradoxically) facilitating ‘id analysis’ . Here, minimizing the influence of suggestion, the patient is enlisted to actively participate in observing their own micro- interferences in the associative links of their thoughts, emotions and sensations, and become active partners in the exploration of their own drive derivatives. III. Cd. Ego Psychology in Israel The vicissitudes of Ego Psychology in Israel are in many ways characteristic of the fate and transformation of ego psychology in Europe in general. The Israel Psychoanalytic Society during the period from World War II through the 1960s and 1970s was mostly composed of European immigrants, and therefore mirrored the situation in many European societies. Viewed from this perspective, the emergent picture is quite variable. Those who had some or most of their training in the United States were clearly identified as Ego Psychologists, while those who came from a Latin American background were heavily influenced by Kleinian psychoanalysis. These different orientations were reflected in varying and contrasting foci: on one hand, a definite orientation towards diagnosis, psychic structure, character formation and defensive constellations, while on the other hand, a preference for a focus on object relations and drive, as well as associated defences, concentrating mainly on envy, aggression, projection and projective identification. Subsequent developments in the Israel Psychoanalytic Society, beginning in the 1980s, were marked by a ‘rebellion’ against and a turning away from Ego Psychology, marked by the contention that it was remote, too cerebral, not experience-near, and ‘not-caring’ enough. What followed and gained ascendance were successively shifting emphases on Object Relations, Self-Psychology, Winnicottian psychoanalysis, Relational and Inter-Subjective orientations, and more recently the re-emergence of Kleinian and Bionian psychoanalysis. Currently, all these orientations exist simultaneously in a proliferation and polyphony of voices and are represented and supported by a variety of organized groups of adherents. What they all have in common, however, is eschewing Ego Psychology. Allowing what may be an oversimplification, this state of affairs appears to correspond to and reflect the generally prevailing European state of affairs (not leaving out Lacanian psychoanalysis). While the above description reflects the current state, albeit with the admission of some generalization, there are additional relevant several points to be mentioned to complete this picture. In a sense, these additions may represent the ‘return of the repressed’ – namely the re- emergence of Ego Psychology or its influence, albeit under quite different guises . Three contributions and their vicissitudes illustrate this contention: the influence of Ego Psychology
289
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online