03/04/2019
Thanks to Emily Breitkopf for finding this and sending it along. She writes:
This is an interview ofJeremy and Lew speaking in 2009 about the limits and possibilities of psychoanalysis, talking through a number of issues, including masculinity, elitism, and interdisciplinarity. Here is an especially poignant excerpt from the last page:
"Safran: I find myself wanting to explore this issue further, but I’m also aware of the time constraints, so I think we should begin winding down. We’ve covered a lot of territory in short period of time. But rather than bring up a new topic or explore some of the things you’ve said in greater depth, I’d like to give you an opportunity so close in a way that seems meaningful to you.
Aron: That feels like a tall order . . . but let me think for a minute (pause). Here’s what’s coming to mind. A few years back, The New York Times Book Review titled one article “Psychoanalysis: Is It Science or Is It Toast?” There is a great deal in the phrasing of that forced choice, science or toast, as if there are no other options that will allow us to survive. So, are we toast? I think not. With all of the criticisms and problems—managed care, psychopharmacology, supposed lack of empirical evidence, economic difficulties— with all of that, the bottom line is that patients want to and need to be listened to. They want a therapist who can listen to them in depth. And where is someone going to learn that other than at an analytic institute? That is what psychoanalysis is. That is what we offer: We listen to people in depth, over an extended period of time and with great intensity. We listen to what they say and to what they don’t say; to what they say in words and to what they say through their bodies and enactments. And we listen to them by listening to ourselves, to our minds, our reveries, and our own bodily reactions. We listen to their life stories and to the story that they live with us in the room; their past, their present, and future. We listen to what they already know or can see about themselves, and we listen to what they can’t see in themselves. We listen to ourselves listening. Psychoanalysis is a depth psychology, which means that we listen in depth and teach our students to listen. Whatever managed care says, and whatever drugs are prescribed, and whatever the research findings, people still want to be listened to in depth and always will. That’s why there will always be patients who want and need an analytic approach and why there will always be therapists who need to learn it.
Safran: That’s an eloquent ending, Lew. I think you’ve given our readers much food for thought with many of your rich and stimulating reflections. I find myself wanting to dig more deeply into many of the things you’ve said . . . but unfortunately . . . we need to stop for now. I’d like to express my deep appreciation to you for taking the time to share your thinking with us, and for kicking off this series of interviews about the future of psychoanalysis in such a thoughtful and intriguing way. Thanks, Lew."
