Friday night Anton “Tony” Kris came to town to talk about psychoanalysis. Dr. Kris is an interesting person for a number of reasons, not least of which is that his mother was Marilyn Monroe’s second analyst – who referred her to Ralph Greenson, her final, controversial analyst who became overly involved in Marilyn's life – and death. But Tony was here to talk about something else – the learning and unlearning that is necessarily a part of becoming a psychoanalyst.
There is much to unlearn in becoming a psychoanalyst. The analytic interaction is a weird
one. You, as a helping person, sit
behind a couch and relatively silently listen as someone talks about what comes
to mind. You generally try to help
them explore the depths of their feelings – despair, fear, pain – without
trying to talk them out of them, or to tell them that things will be better –
perfectly natural human responses that we have overlearned, especially if we
are helping professionals. Instead
of reassuring our patients, we try to help them understand the roots of these
dark, difficult feeling states, offering hypotheses about what has lead to them
as a means of helping them becoming freer – less bound by the past, and also by
the fear of having these states jump up unbidden when they talk or think about
or run into something that threatens to expose them.
So, to become analysts, we have to unlearn responses that
are so powerfully learned that they seem reflexive. And, while Dr. Kris wanted us to appreciate this, he really
wanted us to appreciate that we also have to unlearn what we have come to know
– to inherit – from our psychoanalytic fathers and mothers. We have to discard the foundations of
our psychoanalytic knowledge because they are, in a word, wrong. He gave seven examples of foundational
assertions that Freud and his followers made that we have learned that we must
discard. These included: Specifics
about the early growth and development of the human psyche and how that is tied
to erogenous zones – the oral, anal and phallic; the idea that it is sex and/or
food that we want, not attachment; ideas about women’s psychological
functioning; etc. (Another thing that we may have to give up is the idea of gender being binary and immutable).
He maintained that this unlearning is very difficult for a
number of reasons, not the least of which is that we have learned them from
people we revere in the context of intense relationships. Psychoanalytic training includes three
parts: Classroom work reading
texts with teachers; clinical supervision with analysts; and a personal
analysis of the analyst by a senior analyst that lasts for years. Each of these sources get stamped on us
– on our analytic identity – in ways that we understand and in ways that we
don’t. Each of these people – our
teachers, supervisors and analysts – was formed, in turn, by their own
teachers, supervisors, and analysts.
And they were wrong. They
were also right in some very important ways. They helped us tremendously. Our teachers helped us understand difficult texts and master
concepts that guide the work we do; our supervisors helped us understand our
patients and how to helpfully , if counterintuitively , intervene; and our
analysts helped us not only with sorting out our own lives, but by modeling how
to do an analysis – both well and poorly.
Dr. Kris gave an example from his own experience of having
visited upon one of his analysands a poor interpretation that came directly
from his own first analyst. With
the help of a sensitive and careful supervisor, he was able not only to see that
this had happened, but to discover a fruitful way of intervening. And he proposed that this is the
general model for unlearning – to observe, together with another person, the
ways in which what we have done has not been useful. Indeed, this is the model for analysis itself.
The upshot of all this was that we should be altering our
curricula. We should not be
teaching what Freud wrote, and then teaching our current theory as edits upon
that (which is what we do) because it is not true. We believe that the mind, the psychoanalytic process; indeed
being human, are fundamentally different than what Freud believed them to
be. So we should teach what we
know now – all the while knowing that it will be superseded – knowing that it
is wrong – knowing that it will have to be unlearned by those we are
teaching. And yet we teach this
foundation – this new place on which we stand – as the starting point. We also need to teach what Freud said –
and what he believed. We need to
help our students learn to decode, to decipher, to unearth the roots of what we
believe and to understand how earlier folks have gotten us to the point where
we currently stand.
Tony made an interesting comment – that we don’t know enough
about unlearning. I think that, in
his model, our learning is intimately tied to relationships. Cognitive psychologists have long
distinguished between episodic learning – what happened today – from semantic
learning – the learning of facts and figures. They believe that there are two separate systems for these
two types of learning. Perhaps
because of the method of learning – psychoanalysts are home-schooled if you
will – these types of learning overlap in ways that are powerful – we learn to
function as our analytic parents did, something that helps us overcome the
powerful identifications with our birth parents – but this has its own costs as
well – we can become complacent in our execution and understanding of
psychoanalysis. We can quit trying
to learn from other fields or from new voices within our own field. (A few years after I wrote this, Mark Solms pointed out that the semantic learning - the learning of doing - is very hard to learn (think of dribbling or shooting a basketball) but also very hard to unlearn).
The work of an analyst, just like the work of a teacher, a
parent or a change agent of any sort, is difficult because we have to confront
the status quo – to acknowledge it and its benefits, but to propose an
alternative that, we believe, will work better. This requires that we have our feet firmly planted in the place that
we want to help people to move to – even in a process as open ended and unsure
of a destination as analysis itself.
We need to be open to ambiguity, to paradox, and to our own shortcomings
and blind spots, while advocating for a method of exploration and some
fundamental building blocks of that method. We are, in the words of the philosophers, forever in a state
of becoming.
The tool that we use to move the process forward is to offer
a new alliance, a new relationship, that can serve as a way station towards
achieving a new foundation, a new mode of operating, that will serve our
clients better. This involves a
continuous chain of attachment to new figures at the cost of giving up some of
the deeply held, but on some levels false attachments to older figures. We are forever connecting in new
relationships and mourning the loss of old connections if we are continuing to
grown and change. We are also preserving aspects of those old relationships, necessarily. They are the bedrock on which the foundation is built. Tony expressed concern that, when that bedrock is flawed by trauma - by unprocessable aspects of the relationship - he feared that we may not be able to give up that initial, flawed identification - that we may not be able to separate from original connections that were too damaged themselves.
To access a narrative description of other posts on this site, link here. For a subject based index of this blog, link here.
To access a narrative description of other posts on this site, link here. For a subject based index of this blog, link here.
To subscribe to posts (which occur 2-3 times per month), if you are on a computer, hit the X button on the upper right of this screen and, on the subsequent screen, hover your cursor over the black line in the upper right area and choose the pop out box that says subscribe and then enter the information. I'm sorry but I don't currently know how you can subscribe from a mobile device - hopefully you have a computer as well...
Kris will be visiting Seattle in May and this post has definitely motivated me to register for his talk. Great post about great ideas.
ReplyDeleteI wish if majority of people knows about the importance of unlearning the waste and harmful things. The life would be much more better then !
ReplyDeleteI agree that "cleaning the attic" of ideas that are no longer useful is a great idea! We should be doing that regularly! The Reluctant P.
ReplyDeleteis there a way to contact you directly by email or whatever with a question...not a therapeutic one...but relating to psychoanalysis and families and children of psychoanalysts.
ReplyDeleteDear Mitchell,
ReplyDeleteSorry to take so long to reply to your post. I have been away. Off course there is a way for us to be in direct contact. If you are comfortable putting your email in a reply here, then I can respond and I can remove it from the chain if you would like me to do that. Let me know if that does or does not work.