Psychoanalysis After Freud / Post-Freudian Traditions: Yavapai Consultation and Healing

Yavapai Consultation and Healing
www.YavapaiConsultation.org
Psychoanalysis after Freud / Post-Freudian Traditions

A Study Guide
Barnaby B. Barratt, PhD, DHS BBBarratt@Earthlink.net

Revised: Spring 2008
Please observe and honor the fact that this document is under legal copyright. It is
for private distribution only, and may not be shared, copied, circulated, or otherwise
disseminated without the explicit permission of its author. This applies not only to
the content in general, but also specifically to the clinical material at the end of the
document.
Introduction:
Rivaled only by the developments of behaviorism/cognitive-behaviorism,

psychoanalysis is unarguably the 20th century’s most influential psychological paradigm,
describing the human condition and purporting to heal many aspects of its prevalent
distress.
Yet what exactly is “psychoanalytic psychology”? From the very beginning, Alfred
Adler’s “individual psychology” and Carl Jung’s “analytical psychology,” caused their
followers to diverge from Sigmund Freud’s innovations, psychoanalysis has been a
fractured, fragmented and profoundly controversial discipline.
Often, its claims to “science” have been protected more by institutional affiliation than by
the progression of consensual discourse and new discovery. (Moreover, those who
have defended the scientific character of psychoanalysis—combating critics who have
claimed its doctrines are mere scientism or pseudoscience—have typically referred to
notions of “science” that prevailed in the 20th century but that are now, with the advent of
quantum realities, seeming outdated.)
Looking back on 20th century psychoanalysis, we see numerous theories—many of

them notably incompatible with each other—all vying for the possibly honorific title of
Psychoanalysis after Freud / Post-Freudian Traditions: A Study Guide.

Page 1 of 41.
© Barnaby B. Barratt, PhD, DHS, 2008
“psychoanalysis.” At the same time, we see a discipline, or community of disciplines,
assailed by external criticism over issues of scientific status and therapeutic claims.
Yet in so many ways, psychoanalysis has survived and thrived. It continues as a viable
clinical enterprise in Europe, even though its inroads into the academic discourse of
psychology have been patchy. It has undergone several waves of popularity in the
United States, and it has large numbers of adherents throughout Central and South
America.
Even if—for the time being—we omit consideration of the major contributions of C. G.
Jung’s analytical, archetypal and transpersonal psychology/psychotherapy, theories and
healing practices going under the label of psychoanalysis comprise a strangely diverse
and controversial grouping. The purpose of this “Study Guide” is to provide some
coordinates for anyone wishing to navigate through this territory (and it will only address
the leading theorists of major trends or schools that influenced the development of the
discipline during the 20th century).
Even if we look only within the confines of the International Psychoanalytic Association
(from which Adler broke in 1911, and Jung in 1913), by the end of the 20th century we
find psychoanalysis to be split into many divergent varieties. The dominant “schools”
include the Kleinian, Lacanian, structural-functional or ego psychological,
object-relational but nonKleinian or “independent”, Kohutian, and relational,
intersubjective or interpersonal. But even this list of major divisions fails to incorporate
some important variations—exemplified by the heirs to Wilhelm Reich, by the
“existential psychoanalysts,” by the post-structural feminists, and others.
These divergences are not trivial, they often have foundationally metatheoretical
implications, consequences for clinical practice, cultural ramifications and profound
ideological and spiritual significance.
It is unfortunate that, in the English language, we currently lack a really sophisticated

and non-partisan survey of this field and its history—one that would enable the lay
reader to understand the ideological, cultural and scientific forces that have rendered
psychoanalysis into such a variety of competing and conflicting “schools,” many of
which are almost entirely unable to communicate with each other, yet each of which
considers itself to be essentially “psychoanalytic.” We lack an accessible and readable,
critical guide to comparative psychoanalysis.
This Study Guide will not compensate for this lack. But will suggest some of the major
trends and variations in a way that will permit the interested student to undertake
explorations of his/her own.

Page 2 of 41.
General Study Questions of Psychoanalytic History and Development:
 How do psychoanalytic ideas originate and how are they transmitted? In what sense
do we consider the phenomena to which psychoanalysis refers (e.g., the unconscious,
reality, etc.) there to be discovered, or actually constructed discursively by the
participants in a “depth” inquiry?
 How might a history of psychoanalytic ideas and practices (one that is focused on
the chronology of authors/teachers, practitioners/adherents, schools/institutes) actually
obscure the more profoundly paradigmatic and discursive genealogy of psychoanalytic
ideas and practices (“genealogy” implying a “history” that is focused on issues of
logical-rhetorical structuring and transformation, modes of ideological transmission, and
sociocultural determinants)?
 What would it mean to claim that psychoanalysis proceeds “rationally”? What

defines “psychoanalysis” and how are its internal controversies to be understood or
arbitrated (i.e., what levels of philosophical, ideological, cultural, scientific and clinical
description can usefully be brought to bear on these divergences)? And what therefore
are the limits of inter-translatability between different “models”?
Metatheoretical Dimensions:
Comparison of fundamentally divergent theories of the human condition requires that

some sort of criteria of appraisal need to be brought to bear on the theories being
compared. The following are offered as five deeply-interconnected metatheoretical
dimensions—or criteria for appraisal or evaluation—that might possibly to useful:
 Self, Consciousness and the Unconscious. Does the theory posit, or assume, that
the human being once was, now is, or can become an internally harmonious and
integrated unit? Or is internal conflict, fragmentation or contradictoriness taken as an
inevitable and unavoidable feature of living a human life?
 The “Sexual Body.” Does the theory posit, or assume, that the human mind is
somehow separate and distinct from the body it inhabits—thereby, subscribing to the
epistemology and ontology of a Cartesian type of dualism? Or is the bodymind
appreciated more holistically, and its sensuality and sexuality—the “immediate presence
of the lived experience of embodiment”—understood to have a foundational
pre-conceptual, pre-narratological, and pre-subject/object role in all human
psychological functioning?
 Individual and Spirituality. Does the theory allow for ontological realms other than
those that characterize ordinary, consensual reality? And therefore what forces—

Page 3 of 41.
transpersonal or mechanical—are held as potentially impacting the life experiences or
subjectivity of the individual?
 Individual and Culture. What is the relationship between “individual and society”
posited by the theory? Or, more precisely, within what processes of cultural
contextualization and determination does the theory expound the nature of individual
psychological functioning?
 Awareness and Transformation: What assumptions does the theory make about
change processes? And what is the role of awareness, or reflective consciousness, in
change processes that affect what might be considered to be “non-epistemological”
aspects of the individual’s being-in-the-world—i.e., what is liberatory praxis?
Ten Specific Lines of Questioning for a Comparative Psychoanalysis:
(1) What categories or boundaries define “psychic reality” or the “field” of

psychoanalysis? What are the notions of subject, voice, structure, self or person that
characterize the discourse? In what sense are such categories comprehended as
necessary or contingent? And how does this bear on implied notions about “clinical
facts” as distinct from their discursive theorization?
(2) How is time and history held to govern meaningfulness?
In what way, and with what limitations, is the past held to influence the present, and how
is the repetitiousness of human functioning comprehended at the individual level? What
linear, epigenetic, nonlinear and dynamically interdependent, or ahistorical assumptions
are operative in the theory? And how is continuity, discontinuity, novelty and
recapitulation, and the notion of “return” discussed within the theory of individual
functioning?
Does the theory allow for the future to influence the present—and in what sense? What
theoretical notions encode assumptions about intentionality, future-oriented motivation,
and teleology? What significance is the anticipation of non-existence or “death” held to
have for the present functioning of the individual?
(3) How does the structuring of experiencing and understanding govern

meaningfulness?
How are different modalities of experiencing/understanding posited, defined and

distinguished? And with what theoretical and practical consequences? What is
therefore taken to compose “reality”?

Page 4 of 41.
What is assumed to the relation between the entity that produces meanings (or
thoughts, feelings, and actions), the entity that enunciates these meanings, and the
entity that may reflect upon them? That is, what assumptions are made about matters
of agency in psychic reality, and how doe these assumptions connected with whatever
is posited concerning the temporality of psychic reality?
(4) How does the sensuality or sexuality of the body govern meaningfulness?
What is assumed to be the relation between bodily events (or the “lived experience of
our embodiment”) and the contents of self-reflection? Between materiality and
awareness? What role is given, if any, to the (spiritual, erotic) energetics of being
human?
How is the significance of sex and gender differences to be understood? Is a distinction

made between the penis and the phallus and what, if any, is the usefulness of this
distinction for emancipative transformation from the strictures of patriarchal culture?
(5) What, if any, are the limits of order/disorder, organization/disorganization,

rationality/irrationality, etc., in relation to the events of psychic reality and the
psychoanalytic field? Is any consideration given to ontological realms other than the
ordinary and consensual? Is any consideration given to “otherwise” ways of knowing?
(6) What discursive practices distinguish psychoanalysis from other modes of

conversation and relationship—for example, from ordinary conversation, from rhetorical
exhortation, or from other psychotherapeutic dialogues?
And what notions of truth or truthfulness are thereby assumed to be inscribed in the
process?
(7) What conflicts or foundational anxieties are assumed to characterize the human
condition, and how are these hierarchized (one being considered derivative of another
that is more fundamental, etc)? What assumptions are made about whether they can
be overcome or not?
What is the role of notions of death or deathfulness, castration or castratedness, and

issues of “loss”?
What inherent conflicts are posited concerning gender, generation, and generativity?
And what assumptions are made about the “motivational” dispositions of the individual
toward the remedy of these lacks/deficiencies/conflicts?

Page 5 of 41.
(8) How is psychic change brought about by the psychoanalytic process? How is
this process described and what, if any, epistemological role, is given to the patient’s
conscious and reflective awareness?
What are the constative versus the performative aspects of psychoanalytic “cure” or
healing? What is the role played by interpretations, insights, procedures of symbolic
realization, rituals and enactments?
What assumptions are made about notions such as integration, coherence, adaptation?
And what moral, ideological and epistemological assumptions are made about “health”
and “cure”?
(9) What are the functions, and sources of authority, attributed to the psychoanalyst
in the psychoanalytic process, and how are they acquired or deployed?
(10) What cultural, ideological, rhetorical or politically commitments are encoded and
enacted in practices pertaining to the origination and transmission (establishment and
perpetuation) of psychoanalytic ideas, education, and institutional organization?
Forces and Factors of Theoretical Divergence:
Studying psychoanalysis after Freud raises questions about how disciplines develop,
and how what purports to be a clinical science—based on observation and intervention
with patients—can diverge and fragment in the manner that psychoanalysis has done
from its inception and throughout the 20th century.
This is a fascinating case concerning the sociology of knowledge, the vicissitudes of

cultural ideology, and the politics of organizations. We might consider five forces or
factors which could account for the fragmentation and factionalism that has
characterized psychoanalysis:
 Genuine “scientific” disagreements within a discipline, the “data” of which are

acquired in uniquely private circumstances. The occasional provision of “recordings of
therapeutic sessions” does little to allay this problem—simply put, the “science” of
psychoanalysis does not have accessible data in the manner that every other science
does.
 Personal power politics and issues of identification in the process of disciplinary

transmission. At least within the International Psychoanalytic Association, the
procedure for becoming a psychoanalyst requires personal analysis, usually of great
intensity and duration, with a training analyst. Consequently, the powerful processes of

Page 6 of 41.
identification and de-identification (“disidentification”) often affect the theoretical vision
and affiliation of practitioners.
 Organizational disruptions. Typically, when psychoanalysts disagree they break off

relations with each other and establish new institutes. This pattern began early—when
Freud established his “Inner Circle” of a ‘few good men’—and characterized the earliest
years of the International Psychoanalytic Association, which Freud and Jung founded in
1910. However, it has continued throughout the 20th century. In the USA, in France,
and in several South American countries, institute splitting has occurred frequently. The
British Psychoanalytic Institute—staying unified and being a home for three divergent
training “tracks”—is an exception within psychoanalysis’ organizational history. Also
contributing to organizational disruption has, of course, been the Diaspora, etc.
 Cultural influences. Psychoanalysis shows the marks of European culture—and

particularly its development in the context of two World Wars. Additionally, the impact
of secular humanist thinking in the Jewish tradition—as well as of Jewish mysticism—on
psychoanalytic ideas has been amply demonstrated. Psychoanalysis has taken
difference flavors as it emigrated (from Europe to the United States, and to Central and
South America) and as thinkers of different national origins and cultural traditions
became involved in its development.
 Progress and regress ideologically. There are ideas in early psychoanalysis that
were perhaps “before their time,” and as such were propounded and then largely
dropped. One example would be Freud’s radical notion of libidinality; another might be
the dynamic of repressive consciousness. This is discussed in Barratt’s
Psychoanalysis and the Postmodern Impulse (1993), and elsewhere.
Frameworks and Phases of Freud’s Thinking:
There are at least three frameworks in Freud’s thinking, as well as much debate as to
whether these are compatible, inseparable, etc.
Energetic: The theory of drives, especially libidinality. Note each drive has an aim,
an intensity, an object (or zone), and sometimes is partitioned according to
developmental phases (oral, anal, phallic, genital). Controversy over the
dualistic position in which aggression is primary along with libido, versus
the notion that aggression derives from the frustration of primary drive.
Note also the significance of the “pleasure principle.”
Topographic: Conscious/preconscious/unconscious. Note the importance of

suppression/repression, the “repression barrier,” and of the “return of the
repressed” in this formulation. Also note the methodological significance

Page 7 of 41.
of “free associative discourse” as the way to re-appropriate that which has
been repressed.
Structural-functional: The ego/id/superego. Sometimes called “ego psychology,” which

became more systematic (and less descriptive/phenomenological) in
Freud’s thinking by 1923.
Somewhat anomalous to these three frameworks is the formulation of the “death

instinct,” in Freud’s 1920 book Beyond the Pleasure Principle. This notion has become
very controversial, and divides the world of Freudian psychoanalysis. The notion is an
important effort to explain the repetition compulsion (why do we unconsciously repeat
events/scenarios that are not pleasurable, and even self-destructive?). Schematically
(and with some exaggeration), we might say that: in the United States, ego psychology
dismisses the death instinct as metaphysical speculation—however, the rest of the
Freudian world, embraces the notion but usually interprets it in a Kleinian manner
(namely as a statement about primordial destructive/aggressive impulses). There are
existential-spiritual and Lacanian interpretations of the death instinct which are yet again
quite distinctive.
Freud’s work can be divided into several theoretical phases, and it can also be argued
that the tone of his theorizing shifted after World War I. Some of the benchmark
publications, grouped according to their theoretical relevance and their place in the
sequence of Freud’s work, are as follows:
1895 Obsessions and Phobias

1895 Studies on Hysteria
1896 The Aetiology of Hysteria
1898 Sexuality in the Aetiology of the Neuroses
1898 The Psychical Mechanism of Forgetfulness
1899 Screen Memories
1900 The Interpretation of Dreams
1901 On Dreams
1901 The Psychopathology of Everyday Life
1905 Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious
1905 Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality

1906 My Views of the Part played by Sexuality in the Aetiology of the Neuroses
1907 Delusions and Dreams in Jensen’s Gradiva
1907 The Sexual Enlightenment of Children

1908 Hysterical Phantasies and their Relation to Bisexuality

Page 8 of 41.
1908 Character and Anal Erotism
1909 Analysis of a Phobia in a Five-year-old Boy

1909 Notes upon a Case of Obessional Neurosis
1910 Five Lectures on Psychoanalysis
1911 Formulations on the Two Principles of Mental Functioning
1911 Psychoanalytical Notes on an Autobiographical Account of a Case of Paranoia
1912 A Note on the Unconscious in Psychoanalysis
1912 Totem and Taboo
1914 On Narcissism
1914 Recollecting, Repeating and Working-Through
1915 Observations on Transference-Love
1915 Instincts and their Vicissitudes
1915 Repression
1915 The Unconscious
1917 Mourning and Melancholia
1918 From the History of an Infantile Neurosis
1919 A Child is Being Beaten

1919 The Uncanny
1920 Beyond the Pleasure Principle
1921 Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego
1923 The Ego and the Id
1924 The Economic Problem of Masochism

1925 A Note on the Mystic Writing Pad
1925 An Autobiographical Study
1925 Negation
1926 Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety
1926 The Question of Lay Analysis

1926 Dr. Reik and the Problem of Quackery

Page 9 of 41.
1927 The Future of an Illusion
1930 Civilization and its Discontents
1931 Libidinal Types

1931 Female Sexuality
1933 New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis
1936 Letter to Richard Sterba
1937 Analysis Terminable and Interminable

1937 Constructions in Analysis
1939 Moses and Monotheism
1940 An Outline of Psychoanalysis

[Posthumously published since Freud died September 23, 1939]

Page 10 of 41.
Notes on the Structural-Functional Model of “Ego Psychology”:
In many ways, this is a distinctively U.S. development of classical psychoanalysis,

drawing on the “ego psychological” perspective that partitions the mind, functionally,
according to ego, id and superego. It elaborates on Freud’s 1923 and 1925 books, and
owes much to Anna Freud’s 1936 work, The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense.
Major theorists were MD immigrants of the World War II Diaspora, who arrived in New
York in the late 1930s, and whose theoretical contributions begin in the 1940s and
continue thereafter, who were supported by Alexander Brill, the founder of the
conservative American Psychoanalytic Association.
The first generation of theorists included Heinz Hartmann (1894-1970), Ernst Kris, and
Rudolf Loewenstein (1898-1976). The next generation was dominated by Charles
Brenner and Jacob Arlow. The subsequent generation is active today, and has
stewardship of the journal Psychoanalytic Quarterly as well as a major influence on the
Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association. Although this model has
dominated psychoanalysis in the U.S.A., its adherent comprise a minority within the
International Psychoanalytic Association—the majority of whose members would more
plausibly be designated Kleinians, independent object-relationists, or Lacanians.
Note that, since the 1950s, this theory has become more sophisticated as the principle
of multiple functioning and the principle of adaptation have been developed. The former
“principle of multiple functioning” suggests that every psychological event can by found
to be the ego’s compromise formation between:
reality (as perceived/constructed by the ego)

id impulses (sexual and aggressive)
superego (and “ego-ideal”) constraints
This essentially means that reality/id/superego are very much like putative forces
impacting the ego’s functioning—the “putative” here denotes the difference between the
earlier versions of this theory, and the more recent versions which are sometimes
referred to as “neo-structuralism.”
Notice also that in this tradition, contrary to Freud’s early formulations, “the ego” is now
very much an organizational entity, rather than a phenomenological one (Ich or “I”).
This development has profound philosophical consequences which are somewhat
discussed in Bruno Bettelheim’s Freud and Man’s Soul (1982) and in Barnaby Barratt’s
Psychic Reality and Psychoanalytic Knowing (1984).
Central to the psychotherapeutic techniques based on this formulation is the notion of

signal anxiety – the idea that the ego experiences, usually not consciously, anxiety
pertaining to an imminent conflict with reality, id or superego, and then acts by using

Page 11 of 41.
one or more of a series of defense mechanisms (see Anna Freud’s 1936 book) to avert
the danger. This implies that the repetitious quality of mental phenomena is due to the
ego’s inherent need to gain mastery over the conflicts in which it is embroiled.
The “principle of adaptation” basically suggests that “the ego always achieves its
optimal compromise” between the three forces acting on it. However, in practice, most
ego-oriented psychoanalysts confuse this principle of intrapsychic adaptation with
environmental adaptation, as discussed in sociology or evolutionary biology – “science”
becomes conflated with ideology. Note also that this principle is effectively circular
because – given that reality, id, and superego have effects that are contingent on the
ego’s ability to be impacted by them – it can always be said post hoc that a
phenomenon is an “optimal compromise.”
A philosophical critique of structural-functional psychoanalysis is to be found in Barratt’s

1984 book, Psychic Reality and Psychoanalytic Knowing and also extensively
throughout the work of Jacques Lacan and his successors. There are other critiques
from a depth psychological perspective, pointing out that this formulation tends to
underestimate the power and the nature of unconscious forces.
Questioning the Klein-Bion Model:
 Why might one believe that destructiveness is foundational to the structuring of

human functioning? What difference does this belief make to clinical practice or to
conduct in everyday life? What are the shifts and nuances of the notion of human
destructiveness that occur within the various formulations of this model?
 What does this model imply about the boundaries and limitations of rationality (if this
can be defined)?
 How does paranoid-schizoid functioning appear in clinical practice or everyday life?
 What does this model imply about the conditions of change in psychoanalysis, and
elsewhere, as well as the limits of any potential for change?
 How are oedipal conflicts, and the development of male/female sexualities viewed
distinctively in this model?
Reading Melanie Klein:
Melanie Klein (1882-1960), born in Austria, had a teaching degree, first sought
psychoanalysis with Sandor Ferenczi in Budapest, and then was trained by Karl

Page 12 of 41.
Abraham in Berlin (where she moved in 1921), and spend the most productive years in
London, where she moved in 1926.
Unlike other authors, almost all of Melanie Klein’s writings were brought together in a
four-volume collection, The Writings of Melanie Klein (1921-1963). The Volumes are as
follows: 1. The Psychoanalysis of Children. 2. Love, Guilt and Reparation, and other
works 1921-1945. 3. Envy and Gratitude, and other works 1946-1963. 4. Narrative of a
Child Analysis.
Melanie Klein’s psychoanalytic theories emphasize not only Freud’s topographic model
but, even more significantly, the notion of the “death instinct,” which Klein reworks as a
primordial destructive rage innate to every individual.
According to Klein, innate destructive-aggressive impulses dominate our earliest or

most “primitive” functioning, which involves chaotic, fragmented, and disorganized
images or representations of everything there is…
This is the “stage” of the paranoid-schizoid position (or level of functioning), which
engages what Klein calls manic defenses (defenses that take action, including
projective identification, etc).
Gradually, the individual becomes more integrated but in so doing recognizes the
seriousness of his/her own destructive urges toward that which is loved … this
precipitates the individual into the “stage” of the depressive position (or level of
functioning), which engages a constellation of more modulated defenses.
Also important to note is Klein’s use of the notion of phantasy (spelled in this manner),
referring to the “objects” and “part-objects” that populate the individual’s psychic reality.
In this theory, Klein uses very concrete notions of symbolization – it is noteworthy that
Kleinian analysts will often speak as if the patient (or infant) literally deposits pieces of
his/her own inner world into the being of the analyst (or mother).
In Kleinian treatment, the analyst acts as a container for all the patient’s projections and
projective identifications. Interpretation is then used to compel the patient toward the
re-integration of his/her own psychic material, and this serves to move the patient from
paranoid-schizoid functioning into depressive functioning.
It is also noteworthy that Klein writes often about the individual’s sense of guilt, by which
she means that, when entering the depressive position, the individual is mortified by the
recognition of his/her own destructive urges and attempts to make reparation for the
damage s/he believes has been done to the “object.”
Finally, note that in her later theoretical formulations Klein came to write increasingly
about primordial envy. Envy (which is essentially very destructive, and dyadically

Page 13 of 41.
organized) is distinguished from jealousy (which is less intrinsically destructive, and
triadically organized). The notion of primordial envy implies that we all have deep,
underlying impulses to destroy anything good that ourselves do not feel we possess.
Here are the papers most recommended if the student is to grasp the distinctiveness of
Klein’s thinking:
1920 The Development of a Child

1921 The Psychoanalysis of Children
1922 Inhibitions and Difficulties in Puberty
1923 Early Analysis
1923 The Role of School in the Libidinal Development of the Child
1925 A Contribution to the Psychogenesis of Tics
1926 The Psychological Principles of Early Analysis
1927 Criminal Tendencies in Normal Children
1928 Early Stages of the Oedipal Conflict
1929 Infantile Anxiety Situations … the Creative Impulse
1929 Personification in the Play of Children
1930 The Importance of Symbol Formation in the Development of the Ego
1930 The Psychotherapy of Psychoses
1932 The Psychoanalysis of Children
1933 The Early Development of Conscience in the Child
1935 A Contribution to the Psychogenesis of Manic-Depressive States
1945 The Oedipus Complex in the Light of Early Anxieties
1946 Notes on Some Schizoid Mechanisms
1952 The Mutual Influences in the Development of Ego and Id
1952 Some Theoretical Conclusions regarding the Emotional Life of the Infant
1955 The Psychoanalytic Play Technique: Its History and Significance
1963 Narrative of a Child Analysis
Questioning Winnicott’s Model:
 Why might one believe that “transitional experience” is fundamentally important to

human development, and what difference does such a belief make to clinical practice or
to everyday life?
 What might be entailed by Winnicott’s emphasis on the necessary role—in

development and in healing—of play, and what implications does this emphasis have
for our understanding of the boundary between rationality and irrationality? In this
context, what is Winnicott’s understanding of the functions of a psychoanalyst, and how
does this differ from both the structural-functional and the Kleinian models?

Page 14 of 41.
 What is a “false self,” how would you know it if you had one, and what could you do
about it?

Page 15 of 41.
Reading Donald W. Winnicott:
Donald W. Winnicott (1896-1971), born in England, trained and practiced initially as a

pediatrician, and developed his theories in a very piecemeal fashion—often in a mostly
unreciprocated dialogue with Klein.
Winnicott is a highly influential figure in the formation of the so-called “middle group”
within the British Psychoanalytic Society, and is a pioneer of a grouping of
psychoanalytic theories loosely known as “independent object-relations”—that is,
theoretical positions that follow Melanie Klein in being, unlike some Freudians,
object-relational, yet are different from Kleinian formulations.
For many years—notably in the 1940s and early 1950s—British psychoanalysis

flourished theoretically under the tensions between the viewpoints of Klein and Anna
Freud (1895-1982). Within the British institute, there was a series of so-called
“controversial discussions” between followers of Melanie Klein, who had practiced in
London since 1926, and the followers of Anna Freud, who had arrived in London in the
late 1930s. These debates revolved around several matters, such as the primacy of
aggression, the dating and characteristic of the oedipal complex, etc. Early on there
was a “gentleman’s agreement” to divide training opportunities within the British institute
into two “tracks.” Later, a third “middle group,” for those students who wanted to sample
the perspectives of both Kleinian and (Anna) Freudian psychoanalysis. A variety of
psychoanalysts were affiliated with this “independent” group, within which Winnicott was
notable.
There were a number of other eminent theorists in this group. For example, Ronald
Fairbairn (1889-1964) produced a complex theory that is quite different from any other
psychoanalytic model. It concerns the way in which the personality fragments. He is
also responsible for a model of maturation from “dependence,” through
“pseudo-independence,” to “mature interdependence.” Michael Balint (1896-1970)
developed several specific theoretical ideas—for instance, about the regressive and
thrill-seeking tendencies of the ego’s functioning. He also elaborated the important
distinction between phallic and genital sexuality.
Subsequently influential “middle school” theorists include eminent contributors such as

Masud Khan (Alienation and Perversion), Juliet Mitchell (Psychoanalysis and
Feminism), and Christopher Bollas (In the Shadow of the Object).
A major contribution of Winnicott’s is the notion of transitional objects, which was later
elaborated into the theory of transitional phenomena.
The concept of “transitionality” emerged from observations of children, and specifically

the developmental use they would make of “security blankets,” teddy bears, other such

Page 16 of 41.
entities. Their transitional character refers not to a shift from one developmental phase
to another, although transitional objects do indeed facilitate such development, but more
to the fact that these objects both exist in external reality and yet are also imbued with
their essential quality from the fantasy realm of internal reality.
In this sense, transitional objects constitute an intermediate or liminal reality, halfway

between the inner and outer worlds – this is a transitional (psychic) space essential for
healthy psychological development, and even for adult functioning.
Another noteworthy contribution of Winnicott’s – which is concordant with his notion of

transitional space – is his emphasis on the therapeutic importance of play, and the
multiple modalities of self-expression (in this it is possible that he was indirectly
influenced by Jung). His “squiggle game” became well known as a method of working
with children.
Winnicott also developed several other notions such as that of the “false self,” which
emerged from his work with delinquent adolescents, the importance of the “holding
environment” in therapeutic interaction, and the significance of “good enough” qualities
in mothering.
Winnicott authored at least a dozen books, several of them for nonprofessional

readership, and several of them anthologies of his professional papers (some edited
posthumously). There are two monographs which describe the treatment of a child
(The Piggle), and an adult (Holding and Interpretation). To grasp Winnicott’s core
ideas, the reader has to roam through a large number of mostly scattered papers,
almost all—but not all—of which are to be found in one or other of his books. The major
books, anthologies, and pamphlets include:
1931 Clinical Notes on Disorders of Childhood

1945 Getting to Know your Baby
1949 The Ordinary Devoted Mother and her Baby
1957 The Child and the Family
1964 The Child, the Family, and the Outside World
1965 The Family and Individual Development
1965 Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environoment
1971 Playing and Reality
1977 The Piggle
1971 Therapeutic Consultations in Child Psychiatry
1985 Collected Papers: Through Pediatrics to Psychoanalysis
1984 Deprivation and Delinquency
1986 Home is Where We Start From
1986 Holding and Interpretation
1987 Babies and their Mothers

Page 17 of 41.
1987 The Spontaneous Gesture
1988 Human Nature
1989 Psychoanalytic Explorations
For a reader wishes to read only Winnicott’s most influential papers, the following are
significant, and are to be found in his Collected Papers, in Maturational Processes and
the Facilitating Environment, or in Psychoanalytic Explorations:
1931 Fidgetiness
1931 A Note on Normality and Anxiety
1935 The Manic Defence
1939 Aggression and its Roots
1941 On Influencing and Being Influenced
1945 Primitive Emotional Development
1947 Hate in the Countertransference
1950 Aggression in Relation to Emotional Development
1951 Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena
1954 The Depressive Position in Normal Emotional Development
1954 Metapsychological and Clinical Aspects of Regression…
1954 Withdrawal and Regression
1956 Clinical Varieties of Transference
1956 Primary Maternal Preoccupation
1956 The Antisocial Tendency
1958 Psychoanalysis and the Sense of Guilt
1958 The Capacity to be Alone
1960 The Theory of the Parent-Infant Relationship
1960 Countertransference
1960 String
1960 Ego Distortion in terms of the True and False Self
1961 Further Remarks on the Parent-Infant Relationship
1962 A Personal View of the Kleinian Contribution
1962 The Aims of Psychoanalytic Treatment
1963 The Development of the Capacity for Concern
1963 Fear of Breakdown
1963 Two Notes on the Use of Silence
1964 The Importance of Setting in meeting Regression
1964 The Squiggle Game (revised 1968)
1965 The Psychology of Madness
1966 The Split-Off Male and Female Elements
1967 The Concept of Clinical Regression
1967 The Location of Cultural Experience
1968 Interpretation in Psychoanalysis
1968 Playing…

Page 18 of 41.
1968 The Use of an Object

Page 19 of 41.
Major Writings of Michael Balint and Ronald Fairbairn:
Balint’s books and anthologies:

1952 Primary Love and Psychoanalytic Technique
1957 Problems of Human Pleasure and Behaviour
1957 The Doctor, his Patient and the Illness
1959 Thrills and Regressions
1968 The Basic Fault
Note also…
1956 Perversions
1961 Psychotherapeutic Techniques in Medicine
1966 A Study of Doctors
1970 Treatment of diagnosis: A Study of Repeat Prescriptions
1972 Focal Psychotherapy
Fairbairn’s book:
1952 Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality
Note also Harry Guntrip’s work:

1961 Personality Structure and Human Interaction
1968 Schizoid Phenomena, Object Relations and the Self
1971 Psychoanalytic Theory, therapy and the Self
1951-1975 Personal Relations Therapy: The Collected Papers of H.J.S. Guntrip.
Questioning Kohutian Self-Psychology
 Why might one believe that a cohesive self and its “selfobjects” is important to
human development, and what difference does such a belief make to clinical practice or
to everyday life?
 How might Kohut’s emphasis on idealizing, mirroring, and narcissistic transferences,

as well as his emphasis on narcissistic rage, bear on the issues of psychoanalytic
treatment—and offer an understanding of this process that is significantly different from
structural-functional or object-relational formulations?
 How does Kohut’s contributions refocus the debate over processes of

psychoanalytic cure and personal growth? What is at issue in all the controversies over
“empathy”?

Page 20 of 41.
Reading Heinz Kohut:
Heinz Kohut (1913-1981) was born in Austria, trained in neurology (and later
psychiatry), and fled to Chicago in 1939. There he came under the influence of Franz
Alexander, and was prominent in the Chicago Psychoanalytic Institute. Throughout his
career, he was a member of the American Psychoanalytic Association, but his
innovative writings were regarded with some suspicion by the dominant influences in
that organization.
Central to his formulation of “self-psychology,” which Kohut himself claimed to be a

psychoanalytic theory, is the notion that the “Self” acts to maintain its cohesiveness – its
sense of stability and coherence – at all times. This is a move away from the emphasis
on guilt that characterizes European psychoanalysis, and a break with the
structural-functional theory. Kohut places less emphasis on internal conflicts due to the
forces of drives, and more emphasis on the vicissitudes of relationships.
Kohut’s major theoretical formulation concerns the way in which the Self – which seems
to be defined in terms of the aggregate of self-referent representations – maintains its
cohesion by the use of selfobjects.
“Selfobjects” are “objects” in the sense of the various object-relational theories that
preceded Kohut’s formulations. That is, they are internal representations of external
entities – usually persons, aspects or parts of persons, or things.
The distinctive feature of selfobjects is that they are deployed by the Self to regulate its
own functioning – in this sense, they have been compared to Winnicott’s notion of
“transitional objects” that are both external and internal (“real” and “unreal”), situated in
a “halfway” or liminal “reality” of the subject’s partial creation.
The therapeutic power of Kohut’s formulation lies in his proposition that the experience
of being understood, rather than insight or understanding itself, is what effects
transformation in the clinical process. However, unlike other theories of the self (such
as the humanistic perspectives of Carl Rogers), which seek to support the self
affirmatively, Kohut’s emphasis is on the importance of clinical interventions which
interpret to the patient those moments when selfobjects fail.
Thus, schematically, in the course of a Kohutian treatment, the patient will come to use
the therapist as a selfobject, and invariably the therapist in his/her designated role as
selfobject will, sooner or later, perform unsatisfactorily (inadvertently not deliberately –
Kohut stresses this point). This failure tends to unlock feelings of rage on the part of the
patient. The interpretation of the reasons for this rage is, in Kohut’s view, crucial to the
patient’s ability to grow into a healthier level of Self – one which uses its selfobjects in a
more flexible and adaptive manner.

Page 21 of 41.
Another important clinical contribution made by Kohut—and one that is essential to the
way in which his theories of the self have gained influence—is his description of
different types of narcissistic or selfobject transference. Initially, mirroring and idealizing
transferences were described. Later, alter-ego or “twinship” transferences
transferences were also discussed.
Kohut’s writings are—conveniently—almost entirely published in three books, one of

which was edited posthumously, and a two-volume anthology of his papers:
1950-1978 The Search for the Self: Selected Writings of Heinz Kohut
1971 The Analysis of the Self
1977 The Restoration of the Self
1977 How Does Psychoanalysis Cure?
Questioning Lacanian psychoanalysis
 How are we to understand the tenet (discovery?) that all human experience occurs
in three “registers” of signification? Why does Lacan describe the unconsciojns as the
significatory locus of the—capitalized—Other. And what are the implications of this
depiction for classical notions about topography, the powerfulness/powerlessness of
reflective consciousness, and issues of primary/secondary repression?
 Why is Lacan so critical of the “American ego” and of the positivism/empiricism in

which he believes the structural-functional model is embedded? How is this criticism
reflected in the controversial aspects of his clinical techniques?
 What is the phallus, and why is it mistaken for the genitals? Are Lacanian ideas
useful for a feminist comprehension of psychoanalysis in particular, and of patriarchal
culture in general?
Reading Jacques Lacan
Although still little known (and disparaged as an incomprehensible maverick) in the

United States, the psychoanalytic work of Jacques Lacan (1901-1981) has probably had
a more profound worldwide impact on the development of psychoanalysis since Freud
than any other individual (with the possible exception of Jung).
At the beginning of his career, Lacan was clearly influenced by the surrealist movement,
and also came under the influence of Wilfrid Bion and some notable Kleinians (he later
repudiated the work of Klein). As he became more deeply involved in promoting his

Page 22 of 41.
avant-garde and celebrated “return to Freud” in the 1960s, the acknowledged influence
of structural linquistics and the less acknowledged of Heideggerian philosophy became
more evident.
The psychoanalytic “rereading” of Freud’s work by Jacques Lacan between the

mid-1950s and the early 1970s is extremely complex to grasp. This is partly due to the
inherent complexity of rereading Freud through the metatheoretical framework of
structural linguistics, and partly due to Lacan’s penchant for believing that he himself
spoke “in the language of the unconscious” (i.e., allusively and obscuringly, albeit with
allegedly impeccable mathematical logic).
What motivates Lacan’s ideas is the conviction that “American psychoanalysis” (which
he equated with ego psychology) has lost the power of the unconscious by means of its
obsession with an ideology of individualist adaptation and the theory of the ego.
Lacan’s central point is that the conscious subject is not the author of his/her own
speech (thoughts, actions), but rather “is spoken” by the structure of linguistic
possibilities. This makes Lacan’s thinking a transpersonal theory, although Lacan never
labeled it as such, and was quite adverse to the transpersonal perspectives of Jungian
and post-Jungian depth psychology.
The unconscious is structured as a language and it is, for Lacan, a mathematized

language – it is also patriarchally organized around the prerogatives of the phallus as
signifier of signifiers. It is, in his terminology, the capitalized “Other” (as distinct from the
“other” of interpersonal relations). Except in rare moments of psychoanalytic clarity, the
ego never knows whereof it speaks, but is spoken by the authorial power of the Other.
Lacan divides human experience into three types or “registers.” The Symbolic is the
experience of discourse, of representational thinking and speaking. The Imaginary is
the specular – and specious – knowledge of recognition as when, allegedly, a child sees
him/herself in a mirror and recognizes him/herself as a unit or whole. Experiences in
the Symbolic and Imaginary registers are always inextricably inmixed.
The register of the Real – which has nothing to do with “reality” in the conventional
sense – is experienced essentially in moments of trauma, or intense clarity. These are
moments in which the subject realizes itself to be insubstantial and authored from
“elsewhere” – moments in which, so to speak, the subject clearly faces its own
annihilation. The “Real” thus has much to do with death, or the “death-bound” nature of
human subjectivity.
Lacan’s imagistic, allusive and deliberately obscurantic use of language has frustrated
many translators. Even read in French, he is one of the most complex thinkers to
grasp, and his ideas often seem to elude precise formulation. Transcriptions of almost

Page 23 of 41.
all of his annual Seminars are now available in French and many are in translation.
Other than these, the two major works available are:
1966 Écrits.
1973 The four fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis.
The three major figures involved in post-Lacanian (and post-structuralist) feminism are
Julia Kristeva, Hélène Cixous, and Luce Irigaray. Also of interest is the development of
deconstructive (feminist, critical) psychoanalysis—see, for example, Barratt’s
Psychoanalysis and the Postmodern Impulse: Knowing and Being since Freud’s
Psychology (1993).
In relation to the postmodern and post-structuralist approach to psychoanalysis, it may

be noted that, contrary to many popular misunderstandings, postmodern ways of
knowing and being illuminate both the manner in which the subject never merely means
what s/he intends to mean – that consciousness is not author of its own discourse – and
the way in which timespace is not unitary, equable and linear in the manner assumed
throughout the modern era.
The modern worldview or episteme emerged from medievalism, and was founded on
the cultural structures of: (1) patriarchal domination; (2) the Judeo-Christian-Islamic
ethos; (3) the metaphysics of presence (from Greek classical philosophy). The
“masterdiscourse” of the modern era is analytico-referential (think of Copernicus,
Galileo, Kepler, Newton, as well as Bacon, Descartes, Hobbes, and others), and its
major motifs are those of Domination (and subjugation), Conquest, and Possession.
In science and in psychotherapy, this means that knowledge is viewed, not as a

capacity for awareness, but as …
→the ability to predict/control (dominate) the investigated phenomena,
→the conquest and diminution of the unknown (“progress”),
→the cumulative acquisition/possession of information (as “knowledge”).
This has profound implications for the way in which we think about the processes of
being human, and of healing the human spirit. The modern episteme is currently in the
process of collapse, and postmodern ways of knowing and being are emerging.
Questioning somatic psychology (and “bodymind psychotherapy”)
 What happened to the “lived experience of embodiment” in 20th century

psychoanalysis and in cognitive-behavioral psychology … and why?
 Is the distinction between holistic theory qua theory and methods of intervention
important to maintain … and why?

Page 24 of 41.
 In what ways might bodily-oriented interventions be a “resistance” to the “making
sense” processes of the “talking cure” … and vice versa?
Reading Wilhelm Reich and “Somatic Psychology”
Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957) is often credited with being the “father” of somatic
psychology or “body-based psychotherapy.” This is understandable since he was one
of the few psychoanalysts who developed Freud’s early work on libidinality as the
foundation of all relational, affective and cognitive (as well as spiritual) development.
However, somatic psychology has developed in the past twenty years largely as a
reaction against the way in which psychology since Freud became—so to speak—
theoretically disembodied.
Somatic psychology develops in the late 20th Century largely as a syncretic reaction
against the “in the head” quality of the dominant modes of cognitive-behaviorist and
psychoanalytic thinking. Influenced by the work of Wilhelm Reich and other radical
psychoanalysts, as well as by the humanistic psychotherapeutic tradition, bodymind
psychotherapy now includes a wide variety of approaches and “brand name” therapies.
Bodymind psychotherapies principally on:

→the radical psychoanalytic tradition of Wilhelm Reich and others (bioenergetics),
→subsequent psychodynamic therapies, e.g., gestalt therapy,
→spiritual and energy-oriented Asian disciplines, e.g., Reiki, meditation, yoga,
→western methods of bodywork/somatics, e.g., dance, massage, Rolfing, etc.
→philosophical advances in phenomenology, e.g., “phenomenology of the body,”
→contemporary findings in the neurosciences, including affect regulation,
→ancient traditions of indigenous healing practices, including tantra and shamanism.
Significant aspects of its major theoretical perspectives include:
→ Nonduality or holism of the bodymind … the body is a mode of consciousness, and

needs to be listened to rather than controlled.
→ Repressed meanings – the “memory” of the dynamic unconscious – are stored in the
connective tissues of the body, and even at a cellular level.
→ Traumatic Experiences throughout our socialization, including the multiple traumatic

experiences of our early years, induce a culturally-endorsed mode of alienation, in
which we live “in our heads” – which means that we live in our mental representations of
past/future, rather than in the presence of our “lived experience.”

Page 25 of 41.
There is no single textbook by which to survey the theories and methods of somatic
psychotherapy. The following is a brief annotated bibliography covering some major
works in the field:
Aposhyan, S., Bodymind Psychotherapy. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2004. This
is now fast becoming the leading text on its topic (superseding works by Ron Kurtz and
Don Hanlon Johnson). However, its focus is entirely clinical, and it does not address
somatic psychology per se as the disciplinary basis on which it is grounded.
Caldwell, C., Getting our Bodies Back. Shambhala Publications, 1996. This is a work
of classic importance in the field and was, at one time, a minor “best seller.” However,
its emphasis is on advocating Caldwell’s particular clinical methodology, which she calls
the “moving cycle.”
Johnson, D. H. (ed.), The Body in Psychotherapy. North Atlantic Books, 1998. This is
a great anthology, covering many topics in somatic psychology. However, it is not an
introductory work, and its coverage is – to say the least – uneven, and always clinically
focused.
Rothschild, B., The Body Remembers. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2000. This is
another important book, but almost entirely focused on the author’s own clinical
experiences and material.
Siegel, D. J., The Developing Mind. Guilford Press, 1999. This book has been
extensively assigned in classrooms. However, its focus is on how relationships shape
the neurobiology of the brain. This is an important text for somatic psychology, but
arguably it addresses only one particular issue in the area covered by this specialty.
Note also that some bodymind psychotherapies depend on the experience of subtle
energies, and require the patient/client’s openness to such experience. See, for
example, Richard Gerber’s Vibrational Medicine; James Oschman and Candace Pert’s
Energy Medicine; or Richard Gordon, Eleanor Barrow, and Carrie Toder’s Quantum
Touch.
In psychotherapy, Wilhelm Reich’s work mobilized orgone energy (his term for
libidinality) in therapeutic practice, and the influx of other energy systems into the West
– such as Usui’s Reiki healing, pranayama (yogic breathwork), and Chinese medicine –
has elaborated this trend.
Indigenous shamanic methods of healing typically use both visualization or imaginal

methods, and energy healing in their therapeutic procedures. Tantric practices use
various vibrational methods involving: (1) Breath, (2) Movement, (3) Sound, (4)
Visualization, and (5) Touch, tactile sensation or sexual activity. See: Barratt’s What is

Page 26 of 41.
Tantric Practice? (Xlibris, 2006)—or, for an even more passionate exposition, see his
The Way of the BodyPrayerPath (2004). These practices are held to facilitate
transformation on somatic, emotional, relational, sexual and spiritual levels.

Page 27 of 41.
Questioning existential psychoanalysis/psychotherapy
 What is the tension between mechanistic-reductive and humanistic-existential

approaches to depth psychology … and is it resolvable?
 In what sense is Freud’s description of the human condition one that gives a central
place to the image of humans as “meaning-makers” … or in what sense is an emphasis
on meaning inherently critical of Freud’s thinking?
 What can be said about the role of hope and hopelessness in human functioning …
and how is this connected to the issue of living in the present (as contrasted with “living
in the past/future)?
Reading existential psychoanalysis/psychotherapy
Existential philosophy, which is traced to the writings of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche (and
sometimes, rather misleadingly, to certain aspects of the writings of Martin Heidegger),
flourishes in the French philosophies of Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and
Merleau-Ponty, as well as the novels of such writers as Dostoevsky and Franz Kafka
and Fyodor Dostoevsky. In its application to healing, there are three major figures in
European existential psychoanalysis and psychotherapy.
Ludwig Binswanger (1881-1966), was a Swiss psychiatrist who studied with Jung,
Bleuler, and Freud (with whom he was in psychoanalysis, and with who he remained
friends for the remainder of Freud’s life). Binswanger cane under the influence of
Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology and Martin Heidegger’s ontological philosophy. His
major work, published in 1943 was Grundformen und Erkenntnis menschlichen
Daseins. However, the English translations of his papers are more accessible. Also
published in English is his account of his psychoanalytic treatment with Freud, as well
as their correspondence.
Karl Jaspers (1883-1969) was a German psychiatrist, theologian and philosopher, who
has had much influence on the latter disciplines. Working as a psychiatrist at
Kraepelin’s hospital in Heidelberg, he became critical of this approach to mental illness.
His subsequent philosophical writings, which were greatly influenced by Nietzsche and
Kierkegaard, addressed issues of freedom, existence and transcendence. Note that
Paul Ricoeur and Hans-Georg Gadamer were both students of Jaspers, and both have
had much influence on contemporary hermeneutic approaches to psychological
phenomena.

Page 28 of 41.
Viktor Frankl (1905-1997), an Austrian neurologist and psychiatrist, was notably a
holocaust survivor. He founded “logotherapy” and “existential analysis.” In 1945, he
wrote his most influential work, Man’s Search for Meaning.
As existential philosophy crossed the Atlantic, it became a notably less pessimistic
approach to understanding the human condition. The work of Rollo May (1909-1994) is
perhaps an exception to this. A close friend of Paul Tillich, May was influenced also by
Kierkegaard and by his collaborations with Ernest Angel and Henri Ellenberger. His
most influential book, published in 1969, is Love and Will.
As it became integrated into the American “third force” movement in psychology,

existential ideas became inmixed with general humanistic and (loosely designated)
phenomenological approaches to psychology—for example, the work of Carl Rogers or
Abraham Maslow, and the gestalt work of Fritz Perls and Paul Goodman. In many
ways, these were the antecedents of what is now called “positive psychology.” Note
also the influence that Otto Rank had on many of these developments.
The following may be noted:
○ Humanistic (Rogerian) approaches: With a certain amount of hubris, Carl Rogers

dubbed his approach person-centered psychotherapy – implying that the prevailing
psychoanalytic and behaviorist approaches of his era had largely lost sight of the
patient/client as a whole person…
Rogers’ principle notion of psychological suffering concerns the discrepancy between

the self (which is usually conceptualized as the summation of self-referent concepts)
and the ideal self. Health is defined in a future-oriented manner as the condition of
self- self congruence – a process Rogers’ referred to as self-actualizing. Rogers’
assumes an inherent tendency toward self-actualization (cf., Maslow’s work), with
almost no acknowledgement of the significance of intrapsychic conflict.
Developed in a counseling context, this approach emphasizes the creation of a

permissive, non-interventive setting, in which acceptance and clarification (warmth and
non-directiveness) are the major characteristics of the therapist’s activity. Later in
Rogers’ work, the importance of the therapist’s capacity for empathy and genuineness
(the therapist’s congruence) were emphasized.
Rogerian therapy had significant influence on the relational and interpersonalist schools
that emerged within American psychoanalysis. It also generated several other
“experiential therapies” including “focusing-oriented psychotherapy” (Eugene Gendlin)
and “process-experiential psychotherapy” (Leslie Greenberg and others).
○ Humanistic (Gestalt) approaches: Gestalt therapy developed independently from the

Rogerian approach – sharing much with it philosophically but diverging radically in

Page 29 of 41.
terms of the methods of practice. Although developing out of psychoanalysis, Fritz
Perls’ approach involves a systemic field theory that emphasizes contact, awareness
and growth.
Holding the patient/client responsible for his/her feelings and actions is emphasized,
and the therapy has a variety of techniques to facilitate this. These often involve
imaginary dialogues with others – as, for example, in the well known “empty chair”
technique. The therapeutic focus is always on the here-and-now.
○ Humanistic (Existential/Constructivist) approaches: This version of existential

humanism specifically emphasizes:
(1) Freedom – as opposed to the deterministic trend in much psychology/philosophy.
(2) Experiential reflection – which emphasizes the becoming process of being human.
(3) Responsibility – in “owning” what one is and what one is becoming.
The philosophical roots of this approach are complex – and well worth exploring – but in
psychotherapy this approach develops as a rebellion against cognitive-behaviorism and
(deterministic) psychoanalysis. It emphasizes the subjectivity and meaningfulness of
experience, and thus draws on phenomenological inquiry.
Constructivist theories are also many and varied – deriving from psychoanalytic
approaches, phenomenological approaches, the maverick psychological work of
George Kelly, contemporary cognitivist researches, and existential viewpoints. Contrary
to much popular misunderstanding, constructivism stands on a modern philosophical
platform and not a “postmodern” one.
○ Humanistic (Visualization/Imaginal) approaches: Although the use of visualization

was downplayed in mainstream psychoanalysis (which favored the processes of
free- associative discourse and reflective inquiry), the therapeutic significance of
imagination and other modes of spontaneous self- expression were always central to
indigenous shamanic modes of healing (including Buddhist and Taoist practices), were
emphasized by Jung, and elaborated by many of the humanistic approaches such as
the gestalt work of Fritz Perls and Paul Goodman.
Imaginal practices – including methods such as “voice dialogue” and “body dialogue” –
serve to bring disavowed aspects of personality into articulate dialogue and thus
function to promote reintegration. There are many variants of these practices including
such ancient methods as soul retrieval.
○ “Spiritual” – Mindfulness Meditation approaches: With the popularization of Buddhism

in the West, mindfulness meditation and related shamatha or vipassana techniques
have been adapted to psychotherapeutic purposes. In these approaches, the
patient/client is invited to observe the process of his/her thoughts and feelings, reducing

Page 30 of 41.
his/her attachment to them. This procedure is sometimes said to develop the
Compassionate Witness (Sufism), which has similarities and dissimilarities with the
conventional psychoanalytic concept of the self-observing ego. A critical issue in
understanding these methods concerns the value or lack of value placed on
judgmentalism.
Some of the “skills” involved in mindfulness meditation when applied in the
psychotherapeutic setting are: paying attention, affect tolerance, practiced acceptance,
empathy and compassion, equanimity, seeing clearly, exposure of the therapist’s
narcissistic needs, overcoming infatuation with theory, and the cultivation of happiness.
* * *
To suggest changes, corrections or additions to the above material, please contact

Barnaby B. Barratt at BBBarratt@Earthlink.net or telephone: 928.925.8775 (6 am to 6
pm Arizona Time).
The clinical vignettes on the following pages are under legal copyright.
They are offered here solely for the purposes of in-class education
and are to be treated with proper professional conduct and ethics.
These materials are not to be shared, copied, distributed

or otherwise disseminated without the explicit permission of Dr. Barratt.
Their content is not for discussion with individuals
(other than those who are currently enrolled in this class).

Page 31 of 41.
A first clinical vignette perhaps to be considered in class:
The patient (48 year male, in first year of x3 weekly treatment) comes into a Friday session,
looking a little troubled.
There is a long period of silence.
Then he says, “There is something that is bothering me, but I don’t want to talk with you about
it.”
Question: What might the therapist say next? And how would theory inform the therapist’s
choice between the available possibilities?
* * *
A second clinical vignette perhaps to be considered in class:
The patient (34 year female, in third year of x4 weekly treatment) hurries into her Thursday
morning session, nods “Hello” to therapist (who responds “Hi”) and then gets onto the couch.
“I am so rushed this morning,” she says. “I didn’t even have time to eat breakfast.” Then there
is a very long silence.
“And now,” she eventually says, in a dramatic voice, “I’ve fallen silent.”
Therapist: “Perhaps you’re waiting to see if I’ll offer you something to eat.”
She giggles as if at a really good joke. “Oh that’s funny,” she laughs, “because as soon as you
said that, just as you finished saying it, I remembered that I had a very vivid dream last night.
And in my dream there’s an inflatable Chinese doll, and it must be that I have a penis in the
dream because I’m fucking it roughly.”
The patient proceeds to associate to the dream’s elements: … It’s strange the doll is Chinese,
because she doesn’t know any Chinese … the therapist is foreign but that’s not Chinese … an
inflatable doll that gets treated so roughly would probably burst and be destroyed … years ago
her husband had coerced her to have sex in front of their three-year-old as ‘education’ for him
… months ago, in therapy, disturbing memories of seeing her mother and father having sex had
started to focus … last session, she dimly recalls the therapist saying something about how she
gave away her power, or underestimated herself, something like that, it had bothered her and
she cannot remember it precisely.
Question: How do you understand this material? What is the significance of its ‘flow’? Why do
you think the dream gets ‘re-remembered’ when it does? And what interpretation might you
make at the end of the patient’s lengthy associations to her dream?

Page 32 of 41.
Page 33 of 41.
A third clinical vignette perhaps to be considered in class:
[Therapist is male.] Patient (16 year male, in fourth month of x1 weekly treatment) comes on
time and walks ahead of the therapist to the consultation room with a particularly exaggerated
amount of swagger.
The Patient makes a punching gesture toward the wall, then flips the “in session” sign on the
door of the office next to the consultation room (the office of an attractive female therapist, about
whom the patient has talked previously).
Once in the consulting room, the Therapist asks: “What was that all about?”
He says: “I’m just fucking pissed off … I wanna fuckin’ punch somebody … shits just got me
pissed off.” I say: “What shit?”
He says: “I’m broken up with my fuckin’ girlfriend right now and she calls me on the phone and
says [in a mocking voice] ‘I’m seeing this guy and he’s got a car and shit.’ And I’m like ‘Big
fuckin’ deal, do what you want, I don’t give a fuck.’ So I call her back [he smiles at me] and say
I’m seeing some chick, she’s half Hispanic. And she [meaning the ex-girlfriend] gets all pissed
off. I just did that shit to piss her off; I’m not seeing anybody.”
Therapist: “Why did you do that?” He responds: “Do what?” Therapist:: “Call her and tell her
that.”
He says: “’Cos she’s just trying to make me jealous – telling me shit like that. So I thought I’d
make her jealous just to be funny and shit.”
Therapist: “You don’t think she’s seeing someone?” He responds: “I really don’t care what she
does. I really don’t.” Therapist: “Why do you think you called her back?”
He says: “What do you mean?” Therapist: “You say that you don’t care what she does but you
called her to tell her that you were seeing someone.”
He says: “No. She called me. I was driving here and she called me. I was looking at a car so I
didn’t hear it ring. I got back, saw that she called me, and I called her back.”
Question: Clearly this is a sequence in which the therapist could be said to have made several
‘mistakes,’ but what exactly are they and why might they have occurred?

Page 34 of 41.
A fourth clinical vignette perhaps to be considered in class:
[Therapist is female.] Patient (62 year male, in fifth year of x1 weekly treatment, recently
increased to x2) begins the session by saying:
“Well, I was looking at some of the ‘divorce books’ – the ones that help you get through the
stages of divorce. Like there’s denial, then anger, then acceptance, etc. And I was thinking that
in my marriage I expressed my feelings to Sarah but she wouldn’t listen. Then I tried to express
myself to Martha, and it didn’t do any good. So those relationships ended painfully. Now I’m
afraid to be with someone else because I’m afraid of getting hurt. So I’m holding in my feelings
again. I don’t want to let anyone else know if I am interested in them.”
Therapist: “That’s a rather intellectual description of some of what you felt. It ties things up in a
neat package. But I think things have been more complicated. You remember that even before
Sue you were having difficulties expressing and acting on your feelings for girls and women.
With Sarah, and at times with Martha, you kept all your feelings inside and got depressed.
Sometimes you didn’t know what you were feeling.”
Patient: “I guess that’s true.” Therapist: “Do you have any thoughts why you simplify things
and tie them in a package like this?” Patient: “I’m not sure, I guess that’s what I do, I think I try
and make sense of things.”
Therapist: “Yes, you’re very good at that. In this case, I think you’ve left out a great deal of your
emotional experience. I think maybe when we look more closely at your feelings, you become
anxious and uncomfortable in some way.”
Patient: “You’re right…there was a point last session when I felt at sea, like when I’m scuba
diving, and I can’t quite understand what I’m feeling.”
Therapist: “Let’s stay with this. When you are in that ‘at sea’ state, what do you think you are
feeling? What are you uncomfortable about?”
Patient: “I guess feelings of love, affection, sex. I’m not sure why.” Therapist: “I think you are
afraid of what will happen if you feel these, perhaps you feel that feeling and acting are the
same or almost the same thing.”
Question: Clearly this therapist does not have a conspicuously “somatic” orientation, so how
might this patient’s opening remarks be handled differently, and why do we imagine that our
approach might be more beneficial?
Additional question: What is the proper emotional engagement that a therapist should have
with a client/patient … and what is “empathy”?

Page 35 of 41.
A fifth clinical vignette perhaps to be considered in class:
Patient (22 year male, in fifth month of x1 or x2 weekly treatment) walks slowly into the office,
sits on the couch, and after a long pause says: “I stopped taking my medication.”
Therapist: “You did?”
Patient: “The doctor didn’t get back to me. I called on Wednesday and he didn’t get back until
today. So I called my old psychiatrist and made an appointment with him. It will be good to see
a new psychiatrist.”
Therapist: “We can talk about that. But I think we should learn more about your stopping your
medication. It is very dangerous to stop taking prescribed medication without the guidance of a
physician. Why do you think that you stopped without talking with me or the psychiatrist first?”
Patient: “I didn’t think it was any big deal.” Therapist: “Why not?” Patient: “I don’t know.”
Therapist: “Everything is important to talk about in here – especially something as serious as
this.”
Patient: “I was so tired all the time.” [Long pause]. “I was sick of feeling that way. Maybe the
new psychiatrist will put me on the medication I was on before.”
Therapist: “This isn’t a new psychiatrist for you. You have seen him many times before. But it
sounds like you want something new to come out of seeing him.”
Patient: “Yeah. It makes me mad. I wish they could put me on something that would make me
feel better. Every time they say that this should help and then it doesn’t. I’m thinking that there
isn’t anything to help me.”
Therapist: “It must be troubling to think that there isn’t help for you.”
Question: What can be learned about transference, countertransference, and empathy that
might be useful in reconsidering this sequence of interactions?
* * *

Page 36 of 41.
For Students at Pacifica Graduate Institute
Winter/Spring 2008
The following are the details of the course syllabus and arrangements:
A. Course Description
This course will offer an overview of the major traditions of psychoanalytic and
psychodynamic theory and treatment that were initiated by Freud’s work or that
– in some specific sense – have their roots in Freudian methods of psychological
inquiry and healing.
A major emphasis of class discussion will be on the significance of different
traditions firstly as contributing to the mission of healing the soul, and secondly
as contributing to our understanding of the interrelations between psyche and
culture. In a sense, this will be a window on one fundamental dimension of the
intellectual history of the Twentieth Century.
B. Course Objectives

1. Students will be able to define and discuss the major factors contributing to
the seminal significance of Freud’s thought in terms of the multiple traditions
that have developed from his work.
2. Students will be able to describe, evaluate, and demonstrate their ability to
compare and contrast the following theoretical approaches:
2(i) ObjectRelations (Melanie Klein)
2(ii) ‘Independent’ ObjectRelations (D. W. Winnicott)
2(iii) SelfPsychology (Heinz Kohut)
2(iv) Ego Psychology/‘StructuralFunctional’ (Hartman, Arlow, Brenner)
2(v) French Structuralist (Jacques Lacan)
2(vi) PostStructuralist (i.e., Deconstruction and ‘French Feminism’)
2(vii) Somatic/’Body Psychotherapy’ (Wilhelm Reich and thereafter)
2(viii) Existentialspiritual perspectives

Page 37 of 41.
3. Students will be able to identify key factors involved in generating informed
decisions as to whatever sort of future study and training they might wish to
pursue within any of these traditions.
C. Course Schedule/Activities
The above objectives will be achieved by means of lecture and class discussion,
as well as a selfdirected program of intensive reading.
D. Course Assignments
(1) Prior to class, please review the required reading and arrive in class ready
with notes and questions. If you have to miss class, you are advised to withdraw
from the course and take in another year. In addition to the readings listed
below there will be class handouts and some material filed electronically.
(2) Participation in class discussions and other activities is required.
Participation will be assessed in terms of consistent and alert attendance, quality
of contributions to class discussion, and similar evidence of having mastered the
required reading material.

(3) Submission of a 10 to 12page paper, written in APAstyle, indicating your
professional engagement with at least one of the theoretical approaches covered
in this class. Further details of this assignment, including the due date/deadline, will
be given in class. You are encouraged to discuss you plans for selfdirected
study and paperwriting with the Instructor as frequently as you feel will be
helpful. Please do not exceed 12 pages without the Instructor’s “okay.”
E. Required Reading
Session I:
Mitchell, S., & Black, M. (1995). Freud and beyond, A history of modern
psychoanalytic thought. Basic Books. Please read pages 1-169.
ISBN-10: 0465014054 ISBN-13: 978-0465014057

Page 38 of 41.
Session II:
Hughes, J. (1989). Reshaping the psychoanalytic domain.
University of California Press. [Chapters 1, 2, 3, 5].
ISBN-10: 0520071883 ISBN-13: 978-0520071889
Session III:
For this third session, you are at choice as to what reading you do from the
recommended reading list. You are required to inform the Instructor as to
what you actually read, and to give evidence in class of whatever you have
gained from your reading.
F. Recommended Reading
Bankart, C. P. (1996). Talking Cures: A History of Western and Eastern
Psychotherapies. Wadsworth.
ISBN10: 053434383X ISBN13: 9780534343835
Buirski, P. (Ed., 1994). Comparing schools of analytic therapy. Jason Aronson.
[Chapters 1, 2, and 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 – This book is only obtainable as a used
copy…try Amazon.com for a cheap copy].
Cushman, P. (1996). Constructing the Self, Constructing America: A Cultural
History of Psychotherapy. AddisonWesley.
ISBN10: 0201441926 ISBN13: 9780201441925
Ehrenwald, J. (1991). The History of Psychotherapy. Jason Aronson.
ISBN10: 0876682808 ISBN13: 9780876682807
Elliott, A. (1999). Social theory since Freud: Self and Society after Freud.
Routledge. ISBN10: 0415271630 ISBN13: 9780415271639
Fromm, E. (1941/1994). Escape from freedom. Owl Books.
ISBN-10: 0805031499 ISBN-13: 978-0805031492
Klein, M. (1964). Love, hate, and reparation. New York, NY: Norton.
ISBN-10: 0393002608 ISBN-13: 978-0393002607
Reich, W. (1949/1980). Character analysis (3rd enlarged edition). Farrar Straus.

Page 39 of 41.
ISBN-10: 0374509808 ISBN-13: 978-0374509804
Rieff, P. (2006). The Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith after Freud.
Intercollegiate Studies Institute.
ISBN10: 1932236805 ISBN13: 9781932236804
Rothstein, A. (Ed., 1985). Models of the mind: Their relationships to clinical work.
International Universities Press.
ISBN-10: 0823634108 ISBN-13: 978-0823634101
Tallis, F. (1999). Changing Minds: The History of Psychotherapy as

an Answer to
Human Suffering. Sage Publications.
ISBN-10: 030470363X ISBN-13: 978-0304703630
G. Assessment
Class participation: 18% — 5% for attendance on each of the three class sessions
plus a discretionary 1% for quality of contributions to class discussion.
Final paper: 82% — following customary grading rubric in accredited
institutions, this consists of 57% for the focus, development and organization of
the paper (19% each respectively), and 25% for style and conventions (consistent
use of APA format, spelling and grammar, etc.).
Following customary procedures: 94100 = A, 9093 = A, 8789 = B+,
8486 = B, 8083 = B, 7079 = C.
Final paper or Request for Incomplete Form is due postmarked on or before:
J Track: April 9, 2008
K Track: April 23, 2008
Papers must be sent hardcopy, in impeccable APA style and format, by USPS to:
Barnaby B. Barratt, PhD, DHS, PO Box 10937, Prescott, Arizona 863040937.
Please be sure to include the course number and group on both the title page and the
envelope. It is recommended that you put sufficient postage on the envelope.


Page 40 of 41.
Incompletes
Students are allowed four incompletes per academic year. Students must submit a
request for an incomplete on or before the assignment due date. Incomplete work for this
class is due postmarked on or before:
J Track: June 23, 2008
K Track: June 30, 2008
When you complete the paper send it directly to Dr. Barratt and be sure to send a copy of the
Grade Change Form along with your paper.
Plagiarism
Pacifica expects all students to complete assignments in accordance with the Honesty
Policy published in the Student Handbook. Plagiarism from any source (i.e., book,
internet, fellow student, newspaper, etc.) is a serious breach of academic honesty,
subject to dismissal from Pacifica Graduate Institute. It is assumed that students will
do separate written work for each course. If you wish to use similar material for
different courses, you must first obtain explicit permission from your instructors.
_________________________________________

Page 41 of 41.

Psychoanalysis After Freud / Post-Freudian Traditions: Yavapai Consultation and Healing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychoanalysis After Freud / Post-Freudian Traditions: Yavapai Consultation and Healing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Yavapai Consultation and Healing

Psychoanalysis after Freud / Post-Freudian Traditions

Barnaby B. Barratt, PhD, DHS BBBarratt@Earthlink.net

Rivaled only by the developments of behaviorism/cognitive-behaviorism,

Looking back on 20th century psychoanalysis, we see numerous theories—many of

Psychoanalysis after Freud / Post-Freudian Traditions: A Study Guide.

It is unfortunate that, in the English language, we currently lack a really sophisticated

Psychoanalysis after Freud / Post-Freudian Traditions: A Study Guide.

 What would it mean to claim that psychoanalysis proceeds “rationally”? What

Comparison of fundamentally divergent theories of the human condition requires that

Psychoanalysis after Freud / Post-Freudian Traditions: A Study Guide.

Ten Specific Lines of Questioning for a Comparative Psychoanalysis:

(1) What categories or boundaries define “psychic reality” or the “field” of

(2) How is time and history held to govern meaningfulness?

(3) How does the structuring of experiencing and understanding govern

How are different modalities of experiencing/understanding posited, defined and

Psychoanalysis after Freud / Post-Freudian Traditions: A Study Guide.

How is the significance of sex and gender differences to be understood? Is a distinction

(5) What, if any, are the limits of order/disorder, organization/disorganization,

(6) What discursive practices distinguish psychoanalysis from other modes of

What is the role of notions of death or deathfulness, castration or castratedness, and

Psychoanalysis after Freud / Post-Freudian Traditions: A Study Guide.

Forces and Factors of Theoretical Divergence:

This is a fascinating case concerning the sociology of knowledge, the vicissitudes of

 Genuine “scientific” disagreements within a discipline, the “data” of which are

 Personal power politics and issues of identification in the process of disciplinary

Psychoanalysis after Freud / Post-Freudian Traditions: A Study Guide.

 Organizational disruptions. Typically, when psychoanalysts disagree they break off

 Cultural influences. Psychoanalysis shows the marks of European culture—and

Frameworks and Phases of Freud’s Thinking:

Topographic: Conscious/preconscious/unconscious. Note the importance of

Psychoanalysis after Freud / Post-Freudian Traditions: A Study Guide.

Structural-functional: The ego/id/superego. Sometimes called “ego psychology,” which

Somewhat anomalous to these three frameworks is the formulation of the “death

1895 Obsessions and Phobias

1905 Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality

1907 Delusions and Dreams in Jensen’s Gradiva

1907 The Sexual Enlightenment of Children

Psychoanalysis after Freud / Post-Freudian Traditions: A Study Guide.

1909 Analysis of a Phobia in a Five-year-old Boy

1910 Five Lectures on Psychoanalysis

1911 Formulations on the Two Principles of Mental Functioning

1911 Psychoanalytical Notes on an Autobiographical Account of a Case of Paranoia

1912 A Note on the Unconscious in Psychoanalysis

1912 Totem and Taboo

1919 A Child is Being Beaten

1920 Beyond the Pleasure Principle

1921 Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego

1923 The Ego and the Id

1924 The Economic Problem of Masochism

1926 Inhibitions, Symptoms and Anxiety

1926 The Question of Lay Analysis

Psychoanalysis after Freud / Post-Freudian Traditions: A Study Guide.

1930 Civilization and its Discontents

1931 Libidinal Types

1933 New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis

1936 Letter to Richard Sterba

1937 Analysis Terminable and Interminable

1939 Moses and Monotheism

1940 An Outline of Psychoanalysis

Psychoanalysis after Freud / Post-Freudian Traditions: A Study Guide.

In many ways, this is a distinctively U.S. development of classical psychoanalysis,