Psychoanalysis and Psychotheraphy

Abstract

A confusion in the minds of the public concerning a particular scientific discipline is almost invariably the expression of a certain hesitation or lack of clarity within that science itself. As far as psychoanalysis is concerned, it is at present enjoying a widespread vogue at the level of a rather sensational popularization; it has become something of a craze, arousing the fascination of the public without, however, having overcome the reserve, not to say rejection, which it encountered during its heroic age. In scientific circles, while maintaining the most realistic contacts with psychiatry, psychoanalysis has not yet cast off the esotericism rendered inevitable in the beginning by the shock effect which it produced in the public and the incomprehension with which it was greeted at all levels of the population, scientific or lay. As Moscovici ² has shown, an exchange takes place between the élite and the masses which transforms opinions and theories, not merely “in their function, from judgements to prejudices, but also in their content”. There follows a paradoxical situation which combines mystery with slipshod work, a rigidity of technique with uncertainty in its application. This gives rise to difficulties in passing on the teaching which in turn opens the door to disagreements and conflicts.

This article was already written when Paul Senft’s lecture on “The Antinomies of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis” was announced. Hence it can only be mentioned here for reference.