로그인 | 클럽홈 | Koreadaily

혁신라이프코칭연수원 ICC

전체글보기 클럽방명록  공동체 영상 정보   ICC 안내자료   도시와 자연의 영상 
운영자 simonshin
비공개 개설 2016.07.20
인기도 599920
회원 79명
공동체 영상 정보 (82)
ICC 안내자료 (93)
ICP 안내자료 (74)
도시와 자연의 영상 (88)
신현근 박사 영상 강의 
정신분석의핵심개념 (11)
애도와 상실 (10)
Karen Horney의 정신분석 (74)
대인관계 정신분석 2 (35)
자아심리학 2 (34)
고전적 정신분석 (Freud) (168)
병리적 자기애와 공격성 (Kernberg) (60)
자기 심리학 (Kohut) (81)
임상 기법과 임상감독 (12)
인간성장이론 (9)
전이와 저항 (60)
클라인(Klein) 학파의 대상관계 이론과 그 역사 (41)
정신분열증 (1)
상호주관적 관계적 정신분석 (9)
강의안과 발제문 
현대정신분석의핵심개념 (5)
라이프코치양성 (23)
진단과평가 (17)
현대갈등이론 (13)
전인격적라이프코칭 (8)
회원자료 (5)
무의식적환상 (22)
현대정신분석의개입기법 (35)
정서적의사소통 (15)
정신분석기법과정신적 갈등 (23)
정신분석적사례이해 (26)
방어기제 (24)
정신분석의역사 (47)
고전적 정신분석 기법 (19)
신경증이론 (23)
대상관계이론의역사 (14)
자아심리학 (23)
현대정신분석 이론 (25)
페어베언의 성격 이론 (24)
성년기 발달 이론 (13)
위니코트의 대상관계 이론 (19)
ICC의 목표
ICC YouTube
ICC 웹사이트
ICP, Seoul Korea
ICC 대표 신현근 박사
ICC의 네이버 블로그
ICC의 Moment 블로그
혁신라이프코칭학회 ICS
ICC의 Facebook Page
ICS의 Facebook Page
HeyKorean ICC
한국일보 블로그
ICP YouTube
TODAY : 372명
TOTAL : 967265명
대인관계 정신분석 2
작성자  simonshin 작성일  2018.07.23 10:39 조회수 396 추천 0
 신현근 박사 강의안: 대인관계 정신분석의 역사  

과목대인관계 정신분석

주제대인관계 정신분석의 역사

내용신현근 박사 강의안


Stern, D. B. (2017) Introduction. Interpersonal Psychoanalysis: History and current state. In D. B. Stern L & I. Hirsh, (Eds.) (2017). Interpersonal perspective in psychoanalysis, 1960s-1990s: Rethinking transference and countertransference. London and New York; Routledge.

Ortmeyer, D. H. (1995). History of the founders of interpersonal psychoanalysis. In M. Lionells, J. Fiscalini, C. H. Mann, & D. B. Stern (Eds.) (1995). Handbook of Interpersonal psychoanalysis. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.


History of Interpersonal Psychoanalysis

1.      Cultural orientation or Interpersonal relations

1.1.    Interpersonal psychoanalysis was not actually called by that name until Maurice Green invented the term as the title of the book he edited of Clara Thompson’s (1964) selected articles. (Thompson, one of the founders of the White Institute, was its first director, from its inception in 1946 to her death in 1958.)

1.2.   Prior to 1964, the ideas that were eventually referred to as interpersonal psychoanalysis were known as “interpersonal relations” (Harry Stack Sullivan’s term) or the “cultural orientation” in psychoanalysis.

1.2.1. “Cultural psychoanalysis” was meant to be an alternative to drive-based psychoanalysis, the word “cultural” indicating the primacy of meanings borne of systems of human social living rather than predetermined biological processes.

1.2.2.  This kind of disagreement (i.e., between drive theorists and those others who emphasized the formative properties of culture or society) was familiar in early psychoanalysis.            We can see it to some degree in Jung’s and Rank’s disagreements with Freud, and very much in Adler’s and Ferenczi’s.            By the 1920s, according to Thompson (in press), there were three “outstanding rebels” in European psychoanalysis: Rank, Reich, and Ferenczi.


2.      Sullivan, Thomson, and Ferenczi

2.1.   At the same time, in the United States, Sullivan was independently developing ideas that were similar to Ferenczi’s.

2.1.1. Thompson met Sullivan in 1923 and says he was “a more influential factor in my psychiatric life than any other person.”

2.1.2. On Sullivan’s recommendation, Thompson traveled to Budapest to be in treatment with Ferenczi for several long periods between 1928 and 1933, the year of Ferenczi’s death.

2.2.   At the time, a close association between the ideas of Sullivan and Ferenczi, because of Ferenczi’s rejection by the Freudian mainstream and the tarring of his reputation with the absurd implication that he was psychotic (apparently invented by Ernest Jones (1957) in his hagiographic biography of Freud), meant to Thompson (and anyone else who knew about the correspondence of their views) only that “we [interpersonalists] were really controversial; that what we were thinking was anathema….”

2.3.   Today, given the ongoing rehabilitation of Ferenczi’s reputation as a highly original thinker and clinician (e.g., Harris & Kuchuck, 2015), the similarity of Ferenczi’s views and Sullivan’s has become, if anything, a badge of honor for both.

2.4.   But, of course, there were many years in-between. And they were not good years for the relationship between interpersonal psychoanalysis and mainstream psychoanalysis– which, in those days in the United States, meant classical ego psychology.


3.      Horney and the AIP

3.1.   In 1934, Horney, who had moved to Chicago from Berlin in 1930 to become the assistant director of the Chicago Institute, moved to New York, became a training analyst at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute, and in 1936 convinced Thompson to move from the Baltimore Washington Society to the society of the New York Psychoanalytic Institute (NYPI).

3.2.   Horney was very popular with the students there, who “flocked” to her classes and supervision, according to Thompson.

3.3.   This began to concern certain people at NYPI (again, according to Thompson), because of Horney’s emphasis on “cultural” factors.

3.4.   There was “a landslide of anger” when Horney’s first book appeared; and this led to the New York Psychoanalytic Institute “starting its system of getting people out of power.”

3.5.   Horney’s students, says Thompson, ceased graduating; they just didn’t pass the required tests; they were told that what they were doing was not psychoanalysis.

3.6.   The students became rebellious.

3.7.   Then, according to Thompson, Horney’s status as a training analyst was taken from her, and she was no longer allowed to supervise candidates’ clinical work.

3.8.   At this point, Thompson tells us, five senior analysts and fourteen of their students resigned from NYPI and, with William Silverberg and Erich Fromm, established the American Institute of Psychoanalysis, headed by Horney and devoted to the freedom to think, talk, and teach any psychoanalytic idea at all. (It may be hard to grasp today how precious and rare this freedom was.)

3.9.   A number of other analysts who Thompson knew from the Baltimore Washington Institute joined this group.

3.10.                 Having left the New York Psychoanalytic Institute, Horney, with Thompson, Fromm, Sullivan, Blitzsten, and others, formed what was to become the American Institute of Psychoanalysis (Ortmeyer, p. 23).

3.11.                 Karen Horney, while not considered an Interpersonalist, nevertheless shared much of the Interpersonal sensibility while going her own way in her thinking about character and culture (Ortmeyer, 1995, p. 11).

3.12.                 In January 2016 AIP was accepted into the American Psychoanalytic Association and the International Psychoanalytical Association.


4.      Mission Statement of The Institute for Psychoanalysis

(<a href="http://aipnyc.org/about-aip/our-history-and-mission/" target="_blank">http://aipnyc.org/about-aip/our-history-and-mission/</a>)

4.1.   The American Institute for Psychoanalysis was founded by Karen Horney in 1941. Horney, a preeminent analyst and psychoanalytic writer, devoted her life to teaching and practicing psychoanalysis. She was a founding member of the Berlin Psychoanalytic Society in 1911, the Berlin Poliklinik and the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute, the first psychoanalytic educational institute in the world in 1920.  She was invited by Franz Alexander to be part of the founding of the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis in 1932. Horney came to New York City in 1934 and joined New York Psychoanalytic Institute.  In 1941 she and other psychoanalysts who left New York Psychoanalytic established the AIP with the goal of advancing psychoanalysis in keeping with the courageous spirit its founder, Sigmund Freud.

4.2.   The founding Mission Statement of the AIP emphasized that the Institute will aim to avoid conceptual rigidities, and respond to ideas, whatever their source, in a spirit of scientific and academic democracy. The AIP has been a place for the open exchange of ideas, beginning with Freudian thought and now embracing a broad range of psychoanalytic perspectives. We believe that in psychoanalysis there are still boundless areas to be explored.

4.3.   Honoring this mission, the AIP became one of the first psychoanalytic institutes to change its charter to admit psychologists, social workers and psychiatric nurses into its student body, and to open up training at all levels of experience. In 1998 AIP became a fully participatory organization and adopted new By-Laws, which gave membership and voting privileges to all, whether students or candidates, junior faculty or senior analysts. The AIP has also expanded its charter as we were approved by New York State to have a licensure qualifying program in psychoanalysis thus offering people with advanced degrees in other fields outside of mental health the opportunity to pursue training in psychoanalysis.

4.4.   In January 2016 AIP was accepted into the American Psychoanalytic Association and the International Psychoanalytical Association. AIP has consistently maintained the highest educational standards.


5.      Splitting with Horney’s Institute

5.1.   According to Thompson, although Horney, Thompson, and Fromm were the three original training analysts in the new institute, new students were soon assigned only to those closely associated with Horney.

5.1.1. And then the same thing that had happened to Horney happened again: on the basis that his ideas were bad for the new institute, Thompson tells us that Fromm’s status as training analyst was taken from him.

5.1.2. At that point, Thompson and Fromm and their students, who comprised half of the American Institute’s members, left the new institute.

5.1.3. Thompson says she brought in Sullivan (from Washington) at that point, and in 1943 this group established the New York Division of the Washington School of Psychiatry. (The original Washington School, according to Ortmeyer [1995, p. 23], had been formed in 1936.)

5.2.   According to Ortmeyer, when Horney, two years later, championed a ruling that nonmedical analysts could not be part of the institute, Fromm, Thompson, the Riochs, and Sullivan resigned in protest (Ortmeyer, p. 23).

5.3.   William Silverberg, Charles Robbins, and Judd Marmor left Horney’s institute about the same time and set up a psychoanalytic training program at New York Medical College (Ortmeyer. P.23).

5.4.   Sullivan, Thompson, Fromm, and Fromm-Reichmann are generally viewed as the founders of the school of Interpersonal psychoanalysis (Ortmeyer, p.11).

5.5.   The 1940s were clearly tumultuous years for New York psychoanalysts, and they have been referred to as the years of the psychoanalytic wars (Ortmeyer, p.23).

5.5.1. To some extent, the issues among the groups arose from professional convictions; however, the complex and intimate relationships between some of the protagonists in this “war” also played a part in promoting shifts in the alliances among the various analysts.

5.5.2. The professional upheavals left New York City with three major cultural-interpersonal training institutes: the William Alanson White Institute, the American Institute of Psychoanalysis, and the New York Medical College Psychoanalytic Institute.


6.      William Alanson White Institute

6.1.   The date given for the establishment of the William Alanson White Institute is also usually 1943, because the Washington School in those days, says Thompson, is what metamorphosed into the White Institute over the coming years.

6.2.   The Washington School of Psychiatry continues to exist, but has not been connected to the White Institute since those early days

6.3.   Ortmeyer (1995, p. 15) tells us, in fact, that the New York Division of the Washington School of Psychiatry became independent in 1946 and at that time changed its name to the William Alanson White Institute of Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis, and Psychology.

6.4.   Most of these events took place in the middle of World War II, which meant that there were many fewer men than women in civilian life; and despite the relatively greater presence of women, because it was a different time, there were relatively few women in psychoanalysis to take over the teaching duties. Teachers were therefore at a premium. Partly for that reason, the Washington School could open its New York Division only by sharing the available teachers between the two institutions.

6.5.   But the Washington School of Psychiatry had been denied membership in the American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA), which meant that all those who belonged to the Washington School, if they wanted to be members of APsaA, also had to belong to the Baltimore Washington Institute, which was a member institute of APsaA despite the fact that it was well known at that time to be the most liberal institute in the country, according to Thompson, and dominated by Sullivan.

6.6.   And so those who taught at the New York Division of the Washington School (what would become the White Institute) were members of the Washington School when they taught there, and they were members of the Baltimore Washington Institute for the purposes of dealing with APsaA.

6.7.   Thompson opines that APsaA became alarmed that the Baltimore Washington Institute was really operating a “culturally oriented” school in New York; and for that reason (Thompson conjectures), in 1946, APsaA began for the first time to require that anyone who wanted to be a member of APsaA had to be individually approved.

6.8.   Prior to that time (and later on, when this controversy had ceased to be a thorn in APsaA’s side), anyone who graduated from an institute that belonged to APsaA was automatically granted membership in the national organization.

6.9.   Perhaps things would have worked out, says Thompson, except that the war ended, and the GI Bill (the legislation intended to ease the transition of servicemen and women into civilian life after the war by funding educational and other opportunities) then made it possible for many people to go into the field of psychiatry. Many of those people wanted to become psychoanalysts.

6.10.                 So instead of a small group of dissident analysts, APsaA was suddenly faced, in the Washington School of Psychiatry and its New York Division, with “a large and flourishing institution” operated by people with ideas about psychoanalysis that were not what the leaders of APsaA believed was properly psychoanalytic.

6.11.                 Only some of those analysts affiliated with the Washington School and its New York Division were also members of the Baltimore Washington Institute; those who were not members of the Baltimore Washington Institute were therefore not members of APsaA.


7.      Rejection of the White Institute by American Psychoanalytic Association

7.1.   And so the New York Division of the Washington School (again, the group that would become the White Institute) continued to apply for APsaA membership.

7.2.   The New York school received encouragement and assurance of sponsorship from the Baltimore Washington Institute; but the New York application materials to APsaA and supporting documentation were routinely misplaced or found to be inadequate.

7.3.   Eventually, says Thompson, these clerical problems turned out to be due to reasons other than mere inefficiency.

7.4.   Apparently, at least one member of the relevant APsaA committee told Thompson that the New York group’s (the White Institute’s) application to APsaA would never be accepted, because of widespread disapproval among APsaA members of the ideas being taught there.

7.5.   The deliberations dragged on for years (Richards, 2013).

7.5.1. Finally Merton M. Gill, who was a member of the BOPS [the Board on Professional Standards] committee, told the WAW [the William Alanson White Institute] members that it would never happen, and they withdrew their application.

7.5.2. Gill made it clear that the issue was more their ideology than the other old bone of contention, analytic frequency.

7.5.3. This decision had fateful consequences for the APsaA. It more or less closed the door on the possibility of amicable ideological differences, and doomed analysts who diverged from BOPS’s view of orthodoxy to the status of dissidents at best, and heretics at worst.) 

7.5.4. With this sequence of events the die was cast, and the relationship between the White Institute and APsaA, and – more important for the present purpose – between interpersonal psychoanalysis and mainstream North American psychoanalysis, was set in the mold it would take for the next sixty years.


8.      Acceptance of the White Institute by American Psychoanalytic Association

8.1.   Recently, however, this relationship has changed: The White Institute was invited several years ago to join APsaA, and after two years of internal debate, the White Institute accepted the invitation in 2014.

8.2.   But even given this new development, interpersonal psychoanalysis cannot be understood without contextualizing it in the intellectual, clinical, and political issues that came before (Stern, 2015a).


9.      Mission Statement of the White Institute

(<a href="http://www.wawhite.org/index.php?page=a3--our-mission" target="_blank">http://www.wawhite.org/index.php?page=a3--our-mission</a>)

9.1.   The William Alanson White Institute, founded in 1943, is committed to innovation in the theory and practice of Interpersonal Psychoanalysis.

9.2.   Our focus is on the person as a social being within the surrounding culture. We train professionals to apply these principles in a broad array of clinical settings with diverse populations.

9.3.   Central to our mission is serving the public with a range of affordable clinical services.

9.4.   We create vibrant programs for professionals and the community at large.

We believe that people, through the enhancement of their own capacities, may more fully cope with the problems of living and the challenges of being simply human.

이전글   다음글이 없습니다.
다음글   이전글이 없습니다.