What is Neuropsychoanalysis?

Introduction

Neuropsychoanalysis integrates both neuroscience and psychoanalysis, to create a balanced and equal study of the human mind.

This overarching approach began as advances in neuroscience lead to breakthroughs which held pertinent information for the field of psychoanalysis. Despite advantages for these fields to interconnect, there is some concern that too much emphasis on neurobiological physiology of the brain will undermine the importance of dialogue and exploration that is foundational to the field of psychoanalysis. Critics will also point to the qualitative and subjective nature of the field of psychoanalysis, claiming it cannot be fully reconciled with the quantitative and objective nature of neuroscientific research.

However, despite this critique, proponents of the field of neuropsychoanalysis remind critics that the father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud himself, began his career as a neuroanatomist, further arguing that research in this category proves that the psychodynamic effects of the mind are inextricably linked to neural activity in the brain. Indeed, neuroscientific progress has created a shared study of many of the same cognitive phenomenon, and proponents for a distinct field under the heading of neuropsychoanalysis point to the ability for observation of both the subjective mind and empirical evidence in neurobiology to provide greater understanding and greater curative methods.

Therefore, neurospsychoanalysis aims to bring a field, often viewed as belonging more to the humanities than the sciences, into the scientific realm and under the umbrella of neuroscience, distinct from psychoanalysis, and yet adding to the plethora of insight garnered from it.

Brief History

Neuropsychoanalysis as a discipline can be traced as far back as Sigmund Freud’s manuscript, “Project for a Scientific Psychology”. Written in 1895, but only published posthumously, Freud developed his theories of the neurobiological function of the storage of memory in this work. His statement, based on his theory that memory is biologically stored in the brain by, “a permanent alteration following an event”, had a prophetic insight into the empirical discoveries that would corroborate these theories close to 100 years later. Freud speculated that psychodynamics and neurobiology would eventually reunite as one field of study. While time would eventually prove him correct to some degree, the latter half of the 20th century only saw a very gradual movement in this direction with only a few individuals championing this line of thought.

Significant advances in neuroscience throughout the 20th century created a clearer understanding of the functionality of the brain, which have vastly enhanced the way we view the mind. This began in the 1930s with the invention of electroencephalography, which enabled imaging of the brain as never seen before. A decade later the use of dynamic localisation, or the lesion method, further shed light onto the interaction of systems in the brain. Computerised tomography (CT) lead to even greater understanding of the interaction within the brain, and finally the invention of multiple scan technologies in the 1990s, the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and the single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) gave researchers empirical evidence of neurobiological processes.

It was in 1999, just before the turn of the century, that the term “neuropsychoanalysis” was used in a new journal entitled with the same name. This term once was hyphenated to indicate that the conjoining of the two fields of study did not suggest that they had been fully integrated, but rather that this new line of scientific inquiry was interdisciplinary. With repeated use, the hyphen was lost, and the name appears as we see it today.

Theoretical Base

Dual-Aspect Monism

Neuropsychoanalysis is best described as a marriage between neuroscience and psychoanalysis. However, its relationship to the broader field of neuropsychology – which relates the biological brain to psychological functions and behaviour – cannot be denied. Indeed, neuropsychoanalysis further seeks to remedy classical neurology’s exclusion of the subjective mind.

The subjective mind, that is, sensations, thoughts, feelings and consciousness, can seem antithetical to the cellular matter that makes up the neurobiology of the brain. Indeed, while Freud is most often credited with being the seminal creator of the study of the mind in modern terms, it was Descartes who concluded that mind and brain were two entirely different kinds of stuff. Accordingly, he invented the “dualism” of the mind, the mind-body dichotomy. Body is one kind of thing, and mind (or spirit or soul) is another. But since this second kind of stuff does not lend itself to scientific inquiry, many of today’s psychologists and neuroscientists have seemingly rejected Cartesian dualism.

Neuropsychoanalysis meets this challenge via dual-aspect monism, sometimes referred to as perspectivism. That is, we are monistic. Our brains, including mind, are made of one kind of stuff, cells, but we perceive this stuff in two different ways.

Psychoanalysis as a Foundation

Perhaps because Freud himself began his career as a neurologist, psychoanalysis has given the field of neuroscience the platform upon which many of its scientific hypotheses were founded. With the field of psychoanalysis suffering from what many see as a decline in innovation and popularity, a call for new approaches and a more scientific methodology is long overdue. The history of neuropsychoanalysis therefore, goes some way in explaining why some consider it the logical conclusion, and representative of an evolution that psychoanalysis was in need of. Since the mind itself is viewed as purely ontological, our appreciation of reality is dependent on neurobiological functions of the brain, which we can use to observe “subjectively,” from inside, how we feel and what we think. Freud refined this kind of observation into free association. He claimed and that this is the best technique that we have for perceiving complex mental functions that simple introspection will not reveal. Through psychoanalysis, we can discover mind’s unconscious functioning.

Neuroscience as a Foundation

Due to the very nature of neuropsychoanalysis, those working in this burgeoning field have been able to draw useful insights from a number of distinguished neuroscientists, indeed many of these now serve on the editorial board of the journal Neuropsychoanalysis. Some of these more notable names foundational to the development of neuropsychoanalysis include:

  • Antonio Damasio.
  • Eric Kandel.
  • Joseph LeDoux.
  • Helen Mayberg.
  • Jaak Panksepp.
  • VS Ramachandran.
  • Oliver Sacks.
  • Mark Solms.

Neuroscientists, often studying the same cognitive functions of the brain as psychoanalysts, do so in quantitative methods such as dissection post mortem, small lesions administered to create certain curative effects, or with the visual and objective aid of brain imaging, all of which enable researchers to trace neurochemical pathways and build a more accurate understanding of the physical functioning of the brain. Another branch of neuroscience also observes the “mind” from outside, that is, by means of neurological examination. This is often done in the form of physical tests, such as questionnaires, the Boston Naming test or Wisconsin Sorting, creating bisecting lines, acting out how one performs daily tasks such as a screwdriver, just to name a few. Neurologists can compare the changes in psychological function that the neurological examination shows with the associated changes in the brain, either post mortem or by means of modern imaging technology. Much of neuroscience aims to break down and tease out the cognitive and biological functions behind both conscious and unconscious actions within the brain. In this way it is no different than psychoanalysis, which has had similar goals since its inception. Therefore, to ignore the additional insight neuroscience can offer psychoanalysis would be to limit a huge source of knowledge that can only enhance psychoanalysis as a whole.

Models of Pathologies

Depression

Heinz Böker and Rainer Krähenman proposed a model depression as dysregulation of the relationship between the self and the other. This psychodynamic model, is related to the neurobiological model of the default mode network, DMN, and the executive network, EN, of the brain, noting experimentally the DMN seemed to be more active in depressed patients. The psychological construct of rumination is conceptualised which is experimentally more common in depressed patients, is viewed as equivalent to the cognitive processing of the self, and therefore the activation of the DMN. Similarly, experimentally measurable constructs of attribution bias are viewed as being related to this “cognitive processing of self”. It has been shown that forms of psychodynamic therapy for depression have effects on the activation of several areas of the brain.

Research Directions

Neuropsychoanalytic relate unconscious (and sometimes conscious) functioning discovered through the techniques of psychoanalysis or experimental psychology to underlying brain processes. Among the ideas explored in recent research are the following:

  • “Consciousness” is limited (5-9 bits of information) compared to emotional and unconscious thinking based in the limbic system.
    • Note: Solm’s book showed as reference in the footnote does not provide such an information.
    • It may be confused with the capacity of short-term memory.
  • Secondary-process, reality-oriented thinking can be understood as frontal lobe executive control systems.
  • Dreams, confabulations, and other expressions of primary-process thinking are meaningful, wish-fulfilling manifestations of the loss of frontal executive control of mesocortical and mesolimbic “seeking” systems.
  • Freud’s “libido” corresponds to a dopaminergic seeking system.
  • Drives can be understood as a series of basic emotions (prompts to action) anchored in pontine regions, specifically the periaqueductal gray, and projecting to cortex: play; seeking; caring; fear; anger; sadness. Seeking is constantly active; the others seek appropriate consummations (corresponding to Freud’s “dynamic” unconscious).
  • Seemingly rational and conscious decisions are driven from the limbic system by emotions which are unconscious.
  • Infantile amnesia (the absence of memory for the first years of life) occurs because the verbal left hemisphere becomes activated later, in the second or third year of life, after the non-verbal right hemisphere.
    • But infants can and do have procedural and emotional memories.
  • Infants’ first-year experiences of attachment and second-year (approximately) experiences of disapproval lay down pathways that regulate emotions and profoundly affect adult personality.
  • Oedipal behaviors (observable in primates) can be understood as the effort to integrate lust systems (testosterone-driven), romantic love (dopamine-driven), and attachment (oxytocin-driven) in relation to key persons in the environment.
  • Differences between the sexes are more biologically-based and less environmentally-driven than Freud believed.

What is Relational Psychoanalysis?

Introduction

Relational psychoanalysis is a school of psychoanalysis in the United States that emphasizes the role of real and imagined relationships with others in mental disorder and psychotherapy. ‘Relational psychoanalysis is a relatively new and evolving school of psychoanalytic thought considered by its founders to represent a “paradigm shift” in psychoanalysis’.

Relational psychoanalysis began in the 1980s as an attempt to integrate interpersonal psychoanalysis’s emphasis on the detailed exploration of interpersonal interactions with British object relations theory’s ideas about the psychological importance of internalised relationships with other people. Relationalists argue that personality emerges from the matrix of early formative relationships with parents and other figures. Philosophically, relational psychoanalysis is closely allied with social constructionism.

Drives versus Relationships

An important difference between relational theory and traditional psychoanalytic thought is in its theory of motivation, which would ‘assign primary importance to real interpersonal relations, rather than to instinctual drives’. Freudian theory, with a few exceptions, proposes that human beings are motivated by sexual and aggressive drives. These drives are biologically rooted and innate. They are ultimately not shaped by experience.

Relationalists, on the other hand, argue that the primary motivation of the psyche is to be in relationships with others. As a consequence early relationships, usually with primary caregivers, shape one’s expectations about the way in which one’s needs are met. Therefore, desires and urges cannot be separated from the relational contexts in which they arise; motivation is then seen as being determined by the systemic interaction of a person and his or her relational world. Individuals attempt to re-create these early learned relationships in ongoing relationships that may have little or nothing to do with those early relationships. This re-creation of relational patterns serves to satisfy the individuals’ needs in a way that conforms with what they learned as infants. This re-creation is called an enactment.

Techniques

When treating patients, relational psychoanalysts stress a mixture of waiting and authentic spontaneity. Some relationally oriented psychoanalysts eschew the traditional Freudian emphasis on interpretation and free association, instead emphasising the importance of creating a lively, genuine relationship with the patient. However, many others place a great deal of importance on the Winnicottian concept of “holding” and are far more restrained in their approach, generally giving weight to well formulated interpretations made at what seems to be the proper time. Overall, relational analysts feel that psychotherapy works best when the therapist focuses on establishing a healing relationship with the patient, in addition to focusing on facilitating insight. They believe that in doing so, therapists break patients out of the repetitive patterns of relating to others that they believe maintain psychopathology. Noteworthy too is ‘the emphasis relational psychoanalysis places on the mutual construction of meaning in the analytic relationship’.

Authors

Stephen A. Mitchell has been described as the “most influential relational psychoanalyst”. His 1983 book, co-written with Jay Greenberg and called Object Relations in Psychoanalytic Theory is considered to be the first major work of relational psychoanalysis. Prior work especially by Sabina Spielrein in the 1910s to 1930s is often cited, particularly by Adrienne Harris and others who connect feminism with the field, but as part of the prior Freud/Jung/Spielrein tradition.

Other important relational authors include Neil Altman, Lewis Aron, Hugo Bleichmar, Philip Bromberg, Nancy Chodorow, Susan Coates, Jody Davies, Emmanuel Ghent, Adrienne Harris, Irwin Hirsch, Irwin Z. Hoffman, Karen Maroda, Stuart Pizer, Owen Renik, Ramón Riera, Daniel Schechter, Joyce Slochower, Martha Stark, Ruth Stein, Donnel Stern, Robert Stolorow, Jeremy D. Safran and Jessica Benjamin – the latter pursuing the ‘goal of creating a genuinely feminist and philosophically informed relational psychoanalysis’. A significant historian and philosophical contributor is Philip Cushman.

Criticisms

Psychoanalyst and philosopher Jon Mills has offered a number of substantial criticisms of the relational movement. Mills evidently thinks this “paradigm shift” to relational psychoanalysis is not exclusively due to theoretical differences with classical psychoanalysis but also arises from a certain group mentality and set of interests: “Relational psychoanalysis is an American phenomenon, with a politically powerful and advantageous group of members advocating for conceptual and technical reform” from a professional psychologist group perspective: “most identified relational analysts are psychologists, as are the founding professionals associated with initiating the relational movement”.

From a theoretical perspective, Mills appears to doubt that relational psychoanalysis is as radically new as it is touted to be. In its emphasis on the developmental importance of other people, according to Mills, “relational theory is merely stating the obvious” – picking up on “a point that Freud made explicit throughout his theoretical corpus, which becomes further emphasized more significantly by early object relations therapists through to contemporary self psychologists.” Mills also criticizes the diminishing or even the loss of the significance of the unconscious in relational psychoanalysis, a point he brings up in various parts of his book Conundrums.

Psychoanalyst and historian Henry Zvi Lothane has also criticised some of the central ideas of relational psychoanalysis, from both historical and psychoanalytic perspectives. Historically, Lothane believes relational theorists overstate the non-relational aspects of Freud as ignore its relational aspects. Lothane maintains that, though Freud’s theory of disorder is “monadic,” i.e. focused more or less exclusively on the individual, Freud’s psychoanalytic method and theory of clinical practice is consistently dyadic or relational. From a theoretical perspective, Lothane has criticised the term “relational” in favour of Harry Stack Sullivan’s term “interpersonal”. Lothane developed his concepts of “reciprocal free association” as well as “dramatology” as ways of understanding the interpersonal or relational dimension of psychoanalysis.

Psychoanalyst and philosopher Aner Govrin examines the heavy price psychoanalysis paid for adopting postmodernism as their preferred epistemology. He posits that only analysts who thought they “know the truth,” created classical, interpersonal, self-psychology, ego psychology, Kleinian, Bionian, Fairbairnian, Winiccottian and other schools of thought. While the relational tradition had made extraordinary and positive contributions to psychoanalysis, and its postmodern epistemology is indeed moderate, as a political movement the American relational tradition had unwanted psychological and sociological effects on psychoanalysis. This led to a severe decline in the positive image of knowledge that is crucial for the building of new theories. Led by the relational movement, but influenced by a much broader movement in western philosophy and culture, this impact has greatly influenced international psychoanalysis. It has led not only to the disparagement of the school era but also to the devaluation of any attempt to know the truth.

Adopting a more sympathetic line of criticism, Robin S. Brown suggests that while relational thinking has done much to challenge psychoanalytic dogmatism, excessively emphasizing the formative role of social relations can culminate in its own form of authoritarianism. Brown contends that the relational shift has insufficiently addressed the role of first principles, and that this tendency might be challenged by engaging analytical psychology.

What is the American Psychoanalytic Association?

Introduction

The American Psychoanalytic Association (APsaA) is an association of psychoanalysts in the United States. APsaA serves as a scientific and professional organisation with a focus on education, research, and membership development.

Brief History

The American Psychoanalytic Association was founded in 1911 by Welsh neurologist and psychoanalyst Ernest Jones, with the support of Sigmund Freud. Other founders of the organisation are Adolf Meyer (psychiatrist), James Jackson Putnam, G. Lane Taneyhill, John T. MacCurdy, Trigant Burrow, and G. Alexander Young.

The APsaA is the second oldest American psychoanalytic organisation, after the New York Psychoanalytic Society which was founded a few months before by Abraham Arden Brill.

In 1991 the APsaA issued a statement allowing training of gay psychoanalysts. In 1992 the APsaA prohibited discrimination against gay people when selecting teaching faculty. In 2019 the APsaA apologised for having treated homosexuality as a mental illness.

Membership

APsaA has over 3,000 members, including 33 accredited training institutes and 38 affiliate societies. At the association’s biannual meetings held in February and June, members convene to exchange ideas, present research, and discuss training and membership issues.

What is the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry?

Introduction

The American Academy of Psychodynamic Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis (AAPDPP)is a scholarly society including psychiatrists interested in all aspects of psychodynamic psychiatry.

Origins

The American Academy of Psychoanalysis was founded in 1956. At that time, the American Psychoanalytic Association, which was the dominant psychoanalytic organisation in North America, set standards for training psychoanalytic candidates at psychoanalytic institutes and certified individual psychoanalysts and institutes as well. The seventy-six Charter members who founded the Academy were concerned that focus on certification associated with a rigid Freudian framework inhibited free and open discourse about basic psychoanalytic concepts. They wanted to establish a forum for open discussion and debate but not an organisation that would certify psychoanalysts or psychoanalytic institutes. The guiding philosophy of this new organisation was expressed by its first President, Janet Rioch:

“The process of communication by forum is of value to encourage honest exchange of scientific opinion and observations; to build upon and expand those basic premises which survive critical scrutiny; to have the courage to discard that which cannot be regarded as scientifically valid in light of our present knowledge.”

Psychoanalysis and Psychiatry

Since the inception of the Academy, great changes have taken place in the practice of psychoanalysis and in the application of depth psychology (from the German term Tiefenpsychologie and commonly termed “psychoanalytic psychology”) to psychiatric symptoms, syndromes and disorders. The Academy changed its name to The American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry and became an Affiliate organisation of the American Psychiatric Association in 1998. From originally being an organisation of medical psychoanalysts, the Academy became an organisation of psychiatrists interested in all aspects of psychodynamic psychiatry. Psychoanalysis as a treatment technique remains one of its many interests. The membership of The Academy consists of psychiatrists, psychiatric residents, and medical students. Researchers and scholars who are not psychiatrists are welcomed as Scientific Associates.

Psychodynamic Psychiatry

Psychodynamic psychiatry is a new discipline that has emerged from a fusion of psychoanalytic and extra-psychoanalytic psychology, neuroscience and academic psychiatry.

Psychodynamic treatments are based on assessment that is carried out from a developmental perspective. Particular attention is paid to the person’s present and past psychiatric illnesses, experiences of trauma, and family history. The patient’s behaviour is reported both descriptively using established psychiatric diagnostic criteria from the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). The patient’s behaviour is in addition understood in terms of subjectively constructed narratives.

Psychodynamic psychiatry accepts concepts that are clinically useful and/or scientifically important but discards those that have not stood the test of time. Although it enthusiastically endorses research, it also recognises that much knowledge about normal and abnormal behaviour (however these terms are defined) is based on clinical experience. Thus, for example, the official journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry is entitled Psychodynamic Psychiatry and publishes clinical case discussions as well as scholarly reviews and research investigations. As time goes on, psychodynamic psychiatry as a body of knowledge will change as more is learned about the relationships between neuroscience, psychopathology, and individual feelings and behaviour.

All psychodynamic treatments are organised around a therapeutic alliance forged by both participants. They include psychoanalysis, briefer therapies and combinations of therapies including, for example, individual and group psychotherapy, family therapy and/or pharmacotherapy. Psychodynamically oriented treatments may be of any duration from a single meeting to weeks to years. They may take place anywhere the practitioner meets with a patient – not only in the outpatient setting but in inpatient psychiatric services, the emergency ward, and general hospital medical and surgical settings where consultation-liaison psychiatrists use developmental principles and alliance with the patient to render care. In other words, wherever the psychodynamically trained psychiatrist interacts with a patient, the practitioner uses a developmental approach to understand that person and help him or her get better.

Activities

All activities of the Academy foster communication and discussion of psychodynamic concepts as expressed in clinical treatment, research, psychological development and diverse other ways as well. A major priority of The Academy is to teach the principles of psychodynamic psychiatry to medical students, psychiatric residents and other mental health professionals and students. The specific activities include:

  • Annual Meeting Of The Academy The meetings take place immediately prior to the annual meeting of The American Psychiatric Association (APA) and are usually organised around a central theme for example, the meeting in 2013 was focused on the suicidal patient.
    • The meeting in 2016 was focused on play.
  • Symposia and workshops at the American Psychiatric Association and the Institute on Psychiatric Services (IPS)
  • Annual meeting in Italy co-sponsored with OPIFER (Organizzazione Psicoanalisti Italiania Federazione e Registro).
  • Past meetings in Washington DC co-sponsored with the Consortium for Psychoanalytic Research.

Publications and Out-Reach Activities

Psychodynamic Psychiatry (The Journal)

Psychodynamic Psychiatry, the official journal of The American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry, published by Guilford Press, was created in response to the need for the continued study and teaching of psychodynamic concepts in organised psychiatry. Psychodynamic Psychiatry is the only English-language psychiatric journal exclusively devoted to the study and discussion of these issues.

The central tenet of the journal is that psychodynamic principles are necessary for adequately understanding and treating people with psychiatric symptoms, syndromes and disorders. Its guiding framework is developmental and bio-psycho-social.

The journal publishes review articles, clinical discussions and research. Psychodynamic Psychiatry is edited by Richard C. Friedman MD. The Deputy Editors are Jennifer Downey, MD and Cesar Alfonso, MD.

From 1958 to 1972 the Academy published its proceedings in monograph form under the rubric “Science and Psychoanalysis” edited by Jules Masserman. In 1973 Silvano Arieti became the first editor of the Journal which was entitled Journal of The American Academy of Psychoanalysis. Subsequent Editors- in Chief included Morton Cantor, Jules Bemporad and Douglas Ingram. When Richard C. Friedman became Editor in Chief in 2012, the journal’s name was changed to Psychodynamic Psychiatry.

The Academy Forum

The Academy Forum is a magazine that is published twice yearly and focuses on psychoanalytic and psychodynamically oriented articles about art and culture.

The Academy Newsletter

The Academy Newsletter is published electronically 4 times a year and gives information about the organisation and its members.

Teichner Scholars Programme

The late Victor J Teichner was a former President of the AAPDPP. A grateful patient established a fund making it possible to impart the spirit of Teichner’s creative therapeutic perspective to psychiatric clinicians in training. The Victor J. Teichner Award is made annually to one psychiatric residency programme on the basis of an application to the Award Committee, composed of representatives of the AAPDPP and the AADPRT (American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training). Its focus is to promote the teaching of psychodynamic principles to psychiatrists-in-training. The Programme Awardee receives a one- to three-day visit from a Visiting Scholar chosen from a list maintained by the AAPDP. The choice of the Visiting Scholar and structure of the visit are made by the Programme. The visit must take place during the academic year beginning 01 July, after the announcement of the Awardee.

On This Day … 03 May

People (Births)

  • 1877 – Karl Abraham, German psychoanalyst and author (d. 1925).

Karl Abraham

Karl Abraham (03 May 1877 to 25 December 1925) was an influential German psychoanalyst, and a collaborator of Sigmund Freud, who called him his ‘best pupil’.

Life

Abraham was born in Bremen, Germany. His parents were Nathan Abraham, a Jewish religion teacher (1842-1915) and his wife (and cousin) Ida (1847-1929). His studies in medicine enabled him to take a position at the Burghölzli Swiss Mental Hospital, where Eugen Bleuler practiced. The setting of this hospital initially introduced him to the psychoanalysis of Carl Gustav Jung.

Collaborations

In 1907, he had his first contact with Sigmund Freud, with whom he developed a lifetime relationship. Returning to Germany, he founded the Berliner Society of Psychoanalysis in 1910. He was the president of the International Psychoanalytical Association from 1914 to 1918 and again in 1925.

Karl Abraham collaborated with Freud on the understanding of manic-depressive illness, leading to Freud’s paper on ‘Mourning and Melancholia’ in 1917. He was the analyst of Melanie Klein during 1924-1925, and of a number of other British psychoanalysts, including Edward Glover, James Glover, and Alix Strachey. He was a mentor for an influential group of German analysts, including Karen Horney, Helene Deutsch, and Franz Alexander.

Karl Abraham studied the role of infant sexuality in character development and mental illness and, like Freud, suggested that if psychosexual development is fixated at some point, mental disorders will likely emerge. He described the personality traits and psychopathology that result from the oral and anal stages of development (1921). Abraham observed his only daughter Hilda Abraham reporting on her reaction to enemas and infantile masturbation by her brother. He asked that secrets be shared with him but he was careful to respect her privacy and some reports were not published until after Hilda’s death. Hilda was later to become a psychoanalyst.

In the oral stage of development, the first relationships children have with objects (caretakers) determine their subsequent relationship to reality. Oral satisfaction can result in self-assurance and optimism, whereas oral fixation can lead to pessimism and depression. Moreover, a person with an oral fixation will present a disinclination to take care of him/herself and will require others to look after him/her. This may be expressed through extreme passivity (corresponding to the oral benign suckling substage) or through a highly active oral-sadistic behaviour (corresponding to the later sadistic biting substage).

In the anal stage, when the training in cleanliness starts too early, conflicts may result between a conscious attitude of obedience and an unconscious desire for resistance. This can lead to traits such as frugality, orderliness and obstinacy, as well as to obsessional neurosis as a result of anal fixation (Abraham, 1921). In addition, Abraham based his understanding of manic-depressive illness on the study of the painter Segantini: an actual event of loss is not itself sufficient to bring the psychological disturbance involved in melancholic depression. This disturbance is linked with disappointing incidents of early childhood; in the case of men always with the mother (Abraham, 1911). This concept of the prooedipal “bad” mother was a new development in contrast to Freud’s oedipal mother and paved the way for the theories of Melanie Klein (May-Tolzmann, 1997).

Another important contribution is his work “A short study of the Development of the Libido”, where he elaborated on Freud’s “Mourning and Melancholia” (1917) and demonstrated the vicissitudes of normal and pathological object relations and reactions to object loss.

Moreover, Abraham investigated child sexual trauma and, like Freud, proposed that sexual abuse was common among psychotic and neurotic patients. Furthermore, he argued (1907) that dementia praecox is associated with child sexual trauma, based on the relationship between hysteria and child sexual trauma demonstrated by Freud.

Abraham (1920) also showed interest in cultural issues. He analysed various myths suggesting their relation to dreams (1909) and wrote an interpretation of the spiritual activities of the Egyptian monotheistic Pharaoh Amenhotep IV (1912).

What is the World Association of Psychoanalysis?

Introduction

The World Association of Psychoanalysis (WAP) was launched at the initiative of Jacques-Alain Miller in Buenos Aires on 03 January 1992.

It was declared in Paris, four days later, on 07 January.

Background

Its statutes are modelled on Jacques Lacan’s “Founding Act” and adopt the principles outlined in his “Proposition” on the Pass.

Refer to Lacanianism.

Components

The World Association of Psychoanalysis groups include:

  • The École de la Cause freudienne (France);
  • The Escuela de la Orientación Lacaniana (Argentina);
  • The Escuela Lacaniana de Psicoanálisis del Campo Freudiano (Spain);
  • The Scuola lacaniana di psicoanalisi (Italy);
  • The European Federation of the Schools of the WAP;
  • The Escola Brasileira de Psicanálise (Brazil);
  • The Nueva Escuela Lacaniana (Latin America); and
  • The New Lacanian School.

Lacanian

With over 1,500 members worldwide, the WAP stands as the largest institutional structure dedicated to the training of psychoanalysts in the Lacanian orientation.

What is Lacanianism?

Introduction

Lacanianism is the study of, and development of, the ideas and theories of the dissident French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. Beginning as a commentary on the writings of Freud, Lacanianism developed into a new psychoanalytic theory of humankind, and spawned a worldwide movement of its own.

Fredric Jameson argued that “Lacan’s work must be read as presupposing the entire content of classical Freudianism, otherwise it would simply be another philosophy or intellectual system”.

Lacanianism began as a philosophical/linguistic re-interpretation of Freud’s original teachings. How far it subsequently became an independent body of thought has been, and remains, a matter of debate. Lacan himself famously informed his followers “It is up to you to be Lacanians if you wish. I am a Freudian”.

The wide extent of Lacan’s evolving intellectual stances, and his inability to find a settled institutional framework for his work, has meant that over time the Lacanian movement has been subject to numerous schisms and continuing divisions.

Development of Lacan’s Thought

Lacan considered the human psyche to be framed within the three orders of The Imaginary, The Symbolic and The Real (RSI). The three divisions in their varying emphases also correspond roughly to the development of Lacan’s thought. As he himself put it in Seminar XXII, “I began with the Imaginary, I then had to chew on the story of the Symbolic…and I finished by putting out for you this famous Real”.

Early Lacan

Lacan’s early psychoanalytic period spans the 1930s and 1940s. His contributions from this period centred on the questions of image, identification and unconscious fantasy. Developing Henri Wallon’s concept of infant mirroring, he used the idea of the mirror stage to demonstrate the imaginary nature of the ego, in opposition to the views of ego psychology.

Structuralist Lacan

In the fifties, the focus of Lacan’s interest shifted to the symbolic order of kinship, culture, social structure and roles – all mediated by the acquisition of language – into which each one of us is born and with which we all have to come to terms.

The focus of therapy became that of dealing with disruptions on the part of the Imaginary of the structuring role played by the signifier/Other/Symbolic Order.

Lacan’s approach to psychoanalysis created a dialectic between Freud’s thinking and that of both Structuralist thinkers such as Ferdinand de Saussure, as well as with Heidegger, Hegel and other continental philosophers.

The Real: Poststructuralism

The sixties saw Lacan’s attention increasingly focused on what he termed the Real – not external consensual reality, but rather that unconscious element in the personality, linked to trauma, dream and the drive, which resists signification.

The Real was what was lacking or absent from every totalising structural theory; and in the form of jouissance, and the persistence of the symptom or synthome, marked Lacan’s shifting of psychoanalysis from modernity to postmodernity.

Then Real, together with the Imaginary and the Symbolic came to form a triad of “elementary registers.” Lacan believed these three concepts were inseparably intertwined, and by the 1970s they were an integral part of his thought.

Lacanianisms

Lacan’s thinking was intimately geared not only to the work of Freud but to that of the most prominent of his psychoanalytic successors – Heinz Hartmann, Melanie Klein, Michael Balint, D.W. Winnicott and more. With Lacan’s break with official psychoanalysis in 1963-1964, however, a tendency developed to look for a pure, self-contained Lacanianism, without psychoanalytic trappings. Jacques-Alain Miller’s index to Ecrits had already written of “the Lacanian epistemology…the analytic experience (in its Lacanian definition…)”; and where the old guard of first-generation disciples like Serge Leclaire continued to stress the importance of the re-reading of Freud, the new recruits of the sixties and seventies favoured instead an ahistorical Lacan, systematised after the event into a rigorous if over-simplified theoretical whole.

Three main phases may be identified in Lacan’s mature work: his Fifties exploration of the Imaginary and the Symbolic; his concern with the Real and the lost object of desire, the objet petit a, during the Sixties; and a final phase highlighting jouissance and the mathematical formulation of psychoanalytic teaching.

As the fifties Lacan developed a distinctive style of teaching based on a linguistic reading of Freud, so too he built up a substantial following within the Société Française de Psychanalyse [SFP], with Serge Leclaire only the first of many French “Lacanians”. It was this phase of his teaching that was memorialised in Écrits, and which first found its way into the English-speaking world, where more Lacanians were thus to be found in English or Philosophy Departments than in clinical practice.

However the very extent of Lacan’s following raised serious criticisms: he was accused both of abusing the positive transference to tie his analysands to himself, and of magnifying their numbers by the use of shortened analytic sessions. The questionable nature of his following was one of the reasons for his failure to gain recognition for his teaching from the International Psychoanalytical Association recognition for the French form of Freudianism that was “Lacanianism” – a failure that led to his founding the École Freudienne de Paris (EFP) in 1964. Many of his closest and most creative followers, such as Jean Laplanche, chose the IPA over Lacan at this point, in the first of many subsequent Lacanian schisms.

Outside France

Lacan’s 1973 Letter to the Italians, nominated Muriel Drazien, Giacomo Contri and Armando Verdiglione to carry his teaching in Italy.

As a body of thought, Lacanianism began to make its way into the English-speaking world from the sixties onwards, influencing film theory, feminist thought, queer theory, and psychoanalytic criticism, as well as politics and social sciences, primarily through the concepts of the Imaginary and the Symbolic. As the role of the real and of jouissance in opposing structure became more widely recognised, however, so too Lacanianism developed as a tool for the exploration of the divided subject of postmodernity.

Since Lacan’s death, however, much of the public attention focused on his work began to decline. Lacan had always been criticised for an obscurantist writing style; and many of his disciples simply replicated the mystificatory elements in his work (in a sort of transferential identification) without his freshness.

Where interest in Lacanianism did revive in the 21st century, it was in large part the work of figures like Slavoj Žižek who have been able to use Lacan’s thought for their own intellectual ends, without the sometimes stifling orthodoxy of many of the formal Lacanian traditions. The continued influence of Lacanianism is thus paradoxically strongest in those who seem to have embraced Malcolm Bowie’s recommendation: “learn to unlearn the Lacanian idiom in the way Lacan unlearns the Freudian idiom”.

Lacanian Movement

During Lacan’s Lifetime

Élisabeth Roudinesco has suggested that, after the founding of the EFP “the history of psychoanalysis in France became subordinate to that of Lacanianism…the Lacanian movement occupied thereafter the motor position in relation to which the other movements were obliged to determine their course'”. There was certainly a large expansion in the numbers of the school, if arguably at the expense of quantity over quality, as a flood of psychologists submerged the analysts who had come with him from the SFP. Protests against the new regime reached a head with the introduction of the self-certifying ‘passe’ to analytic status, and old comrades such as François Perrier broke away in the bitter schism of 1968 to found the Quatrieme Groupe.

However, major divisions remained within the EDF underwent another painful split over the question of analytic qualifications. There remained within the movement a broad division between the old guard of first generation Lacanians’, focused on the symbolic – on the study of Freud through the structural linguistic tools of the fifties – and the younger group of mathematicians and philosophers centred on Jacques-Alain Miller, who favoured a self-contained Lacanianism, formalised and free of its Freudian roots.

As the seventies Lacan spoke of the mathematicisation of psychoanalysis and coined the term ‘matheme’ to describe its formulaic abstraction, so Leclaire brusquely dismissed the new formulas as “graffiti” Nevertheless, despite these and other tensions, the EDF held together under the charisma of their Master, until (despairing of his followers) Lacan himself dissolved the school in 1980 the year before his death.

Criticism

Frederick Crews writes that when Deleuze and Guattari “indicted Lacanian psychoanalysis as a capitalist disorder” and “pilloried analysts as the most sinister priest-manipulators of a psychotic society” in Anti-Oedipus, their “demonstration was widely regarded as unanswerable” and “devastated the already shrinking Lacanian camp in Paris.”

Post-Lacan

The start of the eighties saw the Lacanian movement dissolve into a plethora of new organisations, of which the Millerite Ecole de la Cause freudienne (ECF, 273 members) and the Centre de formation et de recherches psychoanalytiques (CFRP, 390 members) are perhaps the most important. By 1993 another fourteen associations had grown out of the former EDF; nor did the process stop there. Early resignations and splits from the ECF were followed in the late 1990s by a massive exodus of analysts worldwide from Miller’s organisation under allegations of misuse of authority.

Attempts were made to re-unite the various factions, Leclaire arguing that Lacanianism was “becoming ossifed, stiffening into a kind of war of religion, into theoretical debates that no longer contribute anything new”. But with French Lacanianism (in particular) haunted by a past of betrayals and conflict – by faction after faction claiming their segment of Lacanian thought as the only genuine one – reunification of any kind has proven very problematic; and Roudinesco was perhaps correct to conclude that “‘Lacanianism, born of subversion and a wish to transgress, is essentially doomed to fragility and dispersal”.

Topology

Three main divisions can be made in contemporary Lacanianism.

  • In one form, the academic reading of a de-clinicalised Lacan has become a pursuit in itself.
  • The (self-styled) legitimatism of the ECF, developed into an international movement with strong Spanish support as well as Latin American roots, set itself up as a rival challenge to the IPA.
  • The third form is a plural Lacanianism, best epitomised in the moderate CFRP, with its abandonment of the passe and openness to traditional psychoanalysis, and (after the 1995 dissolution) in its two successors.

Attempts to rejoin the IPA remain problematic, however, not least due to the persistence of the ‘short session’ and of Lacan’s rejection of countertransference as a therapeutic tool.

What is the International Psychoanalytical Association?

Introduction

The International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA) is an association including 12,000 psychoanalysts as members and works with 70 constituent organisations.

It was founded in 1910 by Sigmund Freud, from an idea proposed by Sándor Ferenczi.

Brief History

In 1902, Sigmund Freud started to meet every week with colleagues to discuss his work, thus establishing the Psychological Wednesday Society. By 1908 there were 14 regular members and some guests including Max Eitingon, Carl Jung, Karl Abraham, and Ernest Jones, all future Presidents of the IPA. The Society became the Vienna Psychoanalytical Society.

In 1907 Jones suggested to Jung that an international meeting should be arranged. Freud welcomed the proposal. The meeting took place in Salzburg on April 27, 1908. Jung named it the “First Congress for Freudian Psychology”. It is later reckoned to be the first International Psychoanalytical Congress. Even so, the IPA had not yet been founded.

The IPA was established at the next Congress held at Nuremberg in March 1910. Its first President was Carl Jung, and its first Secretary was Otto Rank. Sigmund Freud considered an international organisation to be essential to advance his ideas. In 1914 Freud published a paper entitled The History of the Psychoanalytic Movement.

The IPA is the international accrediting and regulatory body for member organisations. The IPA’s aims include creating new psychoanalytic groups, conducting research, developing training policies and establishing links with other bodies. It organises a biennial Congress.

Regional Organisations

There is a Regional Organisation for each of the IPA’s 3 regions:

  • Europe:
    • European Psychoanalytical Federation (or EPF), which also includes Australia, India, Israel, Lebanon, South Africa and Turkey.
    • The IPA is incorporated in England, where it is a company limited by guarantee and also a registered charity.
    • Its administrative offices are at The Lexicon in Central London.
  • Latin America:
    • Federation of Psychoanalytic Societies of Latin America (or FEPAL).
  • North America:
    • North American Psychoanalytic Confederation (or NAPSAC), which also includes Japan and Korea.

Each of these three bodies consists of Constituent Organisations and Study Groups that are part of that IPA region. The IPA has a close working relationship with each of these independent organisations, but they are not officially or legally part of the IPA.

Constituent Organisations

The IPA’s members qualify for membership by being a member of a “constituent organisation” (or the sole regional association).

  • Argentine Psychoanalytic Association.
  • Argentine Psychoanalytic Society.
  • Australian Psychoanalytical Society.
  • Belgian Psychoanalytical Society.
  • Belgrade Psychoanalytical Society.
  • Brasília Psychoanalytic Society.
  • Brazilian Psychoanalytic Society of Rio de Janeiro.
  • Brazilian Psychoanalytic Society of São Paulo.
  • Brazilian Psychoanalytical Society of Porto Alegre.
  • Brazilian Psychoanalytical Society of Ribeirão Preto.
  • British Psychoanalytic Association.
  • British Psychoanalytical Society.
  • Buenos Aires Psychoanalytic Association.
  • Canadian Psychoanalytic Society.
  • Caracas Psychoanalytic Society.
  • Chilean Psychoanalytic Association.
  • Colombian Psychoanalytic Association.
  • Colombian Psychoanalytic Society.
  • Contemporary Freudian Society.
  • Cordoba Psychoanalytic Society.
  • Croatian Psychoanalytic Society.
  • Czech Psychoanalytical Society.
  • Danish Psychoanalytical Society.
  • Dutch Psychoanalytical Association.
  • Dutch Psychoanalytical Group.
  • Dutch Psychoanalytical Society.
  • Finnish Psychoanalytical Society.
  • French Psychoanalytical Association.
  • Freudian Psychoanalytical Society of Colombia.
  • German Psychoanalytical Association.
  • German Psychoanalytical Society.
  • Hellenic Psycho-Analytical Society.
  • Hungarian Psychoanalytical Society.
  • Indian Psychoanalytical Society.
  • Institute for Psychoanalytic Training and Research.
  • Israel Psychoanalytic Society.
  • Italian Psychoanalytical Association.
  • Italian Psychoanalytical Society.
  • Japan Psychoanalytic Society.
  • Los Angeles Institute and Society for Psychoanalytic Studies.
  • Madrid Psychoanalytical Association.
  • Mato Grosso do Sul Psychoanalytical Society.
  • Mendoza Psychoanalytic Society.
  • Mexican Assn for Psychoanalytic Practice, Training & Research.
  • Mexican Psychoanalytic Association.
  • Monterrey Psychoanalytic Association.
  • Northwestern Psychoanalytic Society.
  • Norwegian Psychoanalytic Society.
  • Paris Psychoanalytical Society.
  • Pelotas Psychoanalytic Society.
  • Peru Psychoanalytic Society.
  • Polish Psychoanalytical Society.
  • Porto Alegre Psychoanalytical Society.
  • Portuguese Psychoanalytical Society.
  • Psychoanalytic Centre of California.
  • Psychoanalytic Institute of Northern California.
  • Psychoanalytic Society of Mexico.
  • Psychoanalytical Association of The State of Rio de Janeiro.
  • Recife Psychoanalytic Society.
  • Rio de Janeiro Psychoanalytic Society.
  • Romanian Psychoanalytic Society.
  • Rosario Psychoanalytic Association.
  • Spanish Psychoanalytical Society.
  • Swedish Psychoanalytical Association.
  • Swiss Psychoanalytical Society.
  • Uruguayan Psychoanalytical Association.
  • Venezuelan Psychoanalytic Association.
  • Vienna Psychoanalytic Society.

Provisional Societies

  • Guadalajara Psychoanalytic Association (Provisional Society).
  • Moscow Psychoanalytic Society (Provisional Society).
  • Psychoanalytic Society for Research and Training (Provisional Society).
  • Vienna Psychoanalytic Association.

Regional Associations

  • American Psychoanalytic Association (“APsaA”):
    • This is a body which has in membership societies which cover around 75% of psychoanalysts in the United States of America.
    • The remainder are members of “independent” societies which are in direct relationship with the IPA.

IPA Study Groups

“Study Groups” are bodies of analysts which have not yet developed sufficiently to be a freestanding society, but that is their aim.

  • Campinas Psychoanalytical Study Group.
  • Centre for Psychoanalytic Education and Research.
  • Croatian Psychoanalytic Study Group.
  • Fortaleza Psychoanalytic Group.
  • Goiania Psychoanalytic Nucleus.
  • Korean Psychoanalytic Study Group.
  • Latvia and Estonia Psychoanalytic Study Group.
  • Lebanese Association for the Development of Psychoanalysis.
  • Minas Gerais Psychoanalytical Study Group.
  • Portuguese Nucleus of Psychoanalysis.
  • Psychoanalytical Association of Asuncion SG.
  • South African Psychoanalytic Association.
  • Study Group of Turkey: Psike Istanbul.
  • Turkish Psychoanalytical Group.
  • Vermont Psychoanalytic Study Group.
  • Vilnius Society of Psychoanalysts.

Allied Centres

“Allied Centres” are groups of people with an interest in psychoanalysis, in places where there are not already societies or study groups.

  • Korean Psychoanalytic Allied Centre.
  • Psychoanalysis Studying Centre in China.
  • Taiwan Centre for The Development of Psychoanalysis.
  • The Centre for Psychoanalytic Studies of Panama.

International Congresses

The first 23 Congresses of IPA did not have a specific theme.

  • 1965: Psychoanalytic Treatment of the Obsessional Neurosis.
  • 1967: On Acting Out and its Role in the Psychoanalytic Process.
  • 1969: New Developments in Psychoanalysis.
  • 1971: The Psychoanalytical Concept of Aggression.
  • 1973: Transference and Hysteria Today.
  • 1975: Changes in Psychoanalytic Practice and Experience.
  • 1977: Affects and the Psychoanalytic Situation.
  • 1979: Clinical Issues in Psychoanalysis.
  • 1981: Early Psychic Development as Reflected in the Psychoanalytic Process.
  • 1983: The Psychoanalyst at Work.
  • 1985: Identification and its Vicissitudes.
  • 1987: Analysis Terminable and Interminable – 50 Years Later.
  • 1989: Common Ground in Psychoanalysis.
  • 1991: Psychic Change.
  • 1993: The Psychoanalyst’s Mind – From Listening to Interpretation.
  • 1995: Psychic Reality – Its Impact on the Analyst and Patient Today.
  • 1997: Psychoanalysis and Sexuality.
  • 1999: Affect in Theory and Practice.
  • 2001: Psychoanalysis – Method and Application.
  • 2003: Working at the Frontiers.
  • 2005: Trauma: New Developments in Psychoanalysis.
  • 2007: Remembering, Repeating and Working Through in Psychoanalysis & Culture Today.
  • 2009: Psychoanalytic Practice – Convergences and Divergences.
  • 2011: Exploring Core Concepts: Sexuality, Dreams and the Unconscious.
  • 2013: Facing the Pain: Clinical Experience and the Development of Psychoanalytic Knowledge.
  • 2015: Changing World: the shape and use of psychoanalytic tools today.
  • 2017: Intimacy.
  • 2019: The Feminine.
  • 2021: The Infantile: Its Multiple Dimensions.

Criticism

In 1975, Erich Fromm questioned this organization and found that the psychoanalytic association was “organized according to standards rather dictatorial”.

In 1999, Elisabeth Roudinesco noted that the IPA’s attempts to professionalize psychoanalysis had become “a machine to manufacture significance”. She also said that in France, “Lacanian colleagues looked upon the IPA as bureaucrats who had betrayed psychoanalysis in favour of an adaptive psychology in the service of triumphant capitalism”. She wrote of the “IPA[‘s] Legitimist Freudianism, as mistakenly called “orthodox” “. Among Roudinesco’s other criticisms, was her reference to “homophobia” in the IPA, considered a “disgrace of psychoanalysis.

On the other hand, most criticisms laid against the IPA tend to come from a 1950s Lacanian point of view, unaware of recent developments, and of the variety of schools and training models within the association in recent decades. One of the three training models in the IPA (the French Model), is mostly due to Lacan’s ideas and their perspectives regarding the training.

What is Family Therapy?

Introduction

Family therapy, also referred to as couple and family therapy, marriage and family therapy, family systems therapy, and family counselling, is a branch of psychotherapy that works with families and couples in intimate relationships to nurture change and development. It tends to view change in terms of the systems of interaction between family members.

The different schools of family therapy have in common a belief that, regardless of the origin of the problem, and regardless of whether the clients consider it an “individual” or “family” issue, involving families in solutions often benefits clients. This involvement of families is commonly accomplished by their direct participation in the therapy session. The skills of the family therapist thus include the ability to influence conversations in a way that catalyses the strengths, wisdom, and support of the wider system.

In the field’s early years, many clinicians defined the family in a narrow, traditional manner usually including parents and children. As the field has evolved, the concept of the family is more commonly defined in terms of strongly supportive, long-term roles and relationships between people who may or may not be related by blood or marriage.

The conceptual frameworks developed by family therapists, especially those of family systems theorists, have been applied to a wide range of human behaviour, including organisational dynamics and the study of greatness.

Brief History and Theoretical Frameworks

Formal interventions with families to help individuals and families experiencing various kinds of problems have been a part of many cultures, probably throughout history. These interventions have sometimes involved formal procedures or rituals, and often included the extended family as well as non-kin members of the community (see for example Ho’oponopono). Following the emergence of specialisation in various societies, these interventions were often conducted by particular members of a community – for example, a chief, priest, physician, and so on – usually as an ancillary function.

Family therapy as a distinct professional practice within Western cultures can be argued to have had its origins in the social work movements of the 19th century in the United Kingdom and the United States. As a branch of psychotherapy, its roots can be traced somewhat later to the early 20th century with the emergence of the child guidance movement and marriage counselling. The formal development of family therapy dates from the 1940s and early 1950s with the founding in 1942 of the American Association of Marriage Counsellors (the precursor of the AAMFT), and through the work of various independent clinicians and groups – in the United Kingdom (John Bowlby at the Tavistock Clinic), the United States (Donald deAvila Jackson, John Elderkin Bell, Nathan Ackerman, Christian Midelfort, Theodore Lidz, Lyman Wynne, Murray Bowen, Carl Whitaker, Virginia Satir, Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy), and in Hungary, D.L.P. Liebermann – who began seeing family members together for observation or therapy sessions. There was initially a strong influence from psychoanalysis (most of the early founders of the field had psychoanalytic backgrounds) and social psychiatry, and later from learning theory and behaviour therapy – and significantly, these clinicians began to articulate various theories about the nature and functioning of the family as an entity that was more than a mere aggregation of individuals.

The movement received an important boost starting in the early 1950s through the work of anthropologist Gregory Bateson and colleagues – Jay Haley, Donald D. Jackson, John Weakland, William Fry, and later, Virginia Satir, Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy, Paul Watzlawick and others – at Palo Alto in the United States, who introduced ideas from cybernetics and general systems theory into social psychology and psychotherapy, focusing in particular on the role of communication (refer to Bateson Project). This approach eschewed the traditional focus on individual psychology and historical factors – that involve so-called linear causation and content – and emphasized instead feedback and homeostatic mechanisms and “rules” in here-and-now interactions – so-called circular causation and process – that were thought to maintain or exacerbate problems, whatever the original cause(s). This group was also influenced significantly by the work of US psychiatrist, hypnotherapist, and brief therapist, Milton H. Erickson – especially his innovative use of strategies for change, such as paradoxical directives. The members of the Bateson Project (like the founders of a number of other schools of family therapy, including Carl Whitaker, Murray Bowen, and Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy) had a particular interest in the possible psychosocial causes and treatment of schizophrenia, especially in terms of the putative “meaning” and “function” of signs and symptoms within the family system. The research of psychiatrists and psychoanalysts Lyman Wynne and Theodore Lidz on communication deviance and roles (e.g. pseudo-mutuality, pseudo-hostility, schism and skew) in families of people with schizophrenia also became influential with systems-communications-oriented theorists and therapists. A related theme, applying to dysfunction and psychopathology more generally, was that of the “identified patient” or “presenting problem” as a manifestation of or surrogate for the family’s, or even society’s, problems (refer to Double Bind).

By the mid-1960s, a number of distinct schools of family therapy had emerged. From those groups that were most strongly influenced by cybernetics and systems theory, there came MRI Brief Therapy, and slightly later, strategic therapy, Salvador Minuchin’s Structural Family Therapy and the Milan systems model. Partly in reaction to some aspects of these systemic models, came the experiential approaches of Virginia Satir and Carl Whitaker, which downplayed theoretical constructs, and emphasized subjective experience and unexpressed feelings (including the subconscious), authentic communication, spontaneity, creativity, total therapist engagement, and often included the extended family. Concurrently and somewhat independently, there emerged the various intergenerational therapies of Murray Bowen, Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy, James Framo, and Norman Paul, which present different theories about the intergenerational transmission of health and dysfunction, but which all deal usually with at least three generations of a family (in person or conceptually), either directly in therapy sessions, or via “homework”, “journeys home”, etc. Psychodynamic family therapy – which, more than any other school of family therapy, deals directly with individual psychology and the unconscious in the context of current relationships – continued to develop through a number of groups that were influenced by the ideas and methods of Nathan Ackerman, and also by the British School of Object Relations and John Bowlby’s work on attachment. Multiple-family group therapy, a precursor of psychoeducational family intervention, emerged, in part, as a pragmatic alternative form of intervention – especially as an adjunct to the treatment of serious mental disorders with a significant biological basis, such as schizophrenia – and represented something of a conceptual challenge to some of the “systemic” (and thus potentially “family-blaming”) paradigms of pathogenesis that were implicit in many of the dominant models of family therapy. The late-1960s and early-1970s saw the development of network therapy (which bears some resemblance to traditional practices such as Ho’oponopono) by Ross Speck and Carolyn Attneave, and the emergence of behavioural marital therapy (renamed behavioural couples therapy in the 1990s; see also relationship counselling) and behavioural family therapy as models in their own right.

By the late-1970s, the weight of clinical experience – especially in relation to the treatment of serious mental disorders – had led to some revision of a number of the original models and a moderation of some of the earlier stridency and theoretical purism. There were the beginnings of a general softening of the strict demarcations between schools, with moves toward rapprochement, integration, and eclecticism – although there was, nevertheless, some hardening of positions within some schools. These trends were reflected in and influenced by lively debates within the field and critiques from various sources, including feminism and post-modernism, that reflected in part the cultural and political tenor of the times, and which foreshadowed the emergence (in the 1980s and 1990s) of the various “post-systems” constructivist and social constructionist approaches. While there was still debate within the field about whether, or to what degree, the systemic-constructivist and medical-biological paradigms were necessarily antithetical to each other (refer to Anti-psychiatry; Biopsychosocial model), there was a growing willingness and tendency on the part of family therapists to work in multi-modal clinical partnerships with other members of the helping and medical professions.

From the mid-1980s to the present, the field has been marked by a diversity of approaches that partly reflect the original schools, but which also draw on other theories and methods from individual psychotherapy and elsewhere – these approaches and sources include: brief therapy, structural therapy, constructivist approaches (e.g. Milan systems, post-Milan/collaborative/conversational, reflective), Bring forthism approach (e.g. Dr. Karl Tomm’s IPscope model and Interventive interviewing), solution-focused therapy, narrative therapy, a range of cognitive and behavioural approaches, psychodynamic and object relations approaches, attachment and emotionally focused therapy, intergenerational approaches, network therapy, and multi-systemic therapy (MST). Multicultural, intercultural, and integrative approaches are being developed, with Vincenzo Di Nicola weaving a synthesis of family therapy and transcultural psychiatry in his model of cultural family therapy, A Stranger in the Family: Culture, Families, and Therapy. Many practitioners claim to be “eclectic”, using techniques from several areas, depending upon their own inclinations and/or the needs of the client(s), and there is a growing movement toward a single “generic” family therapy that seeks to incorporate the best of the accumulated knowledge in the field and which can be adapted to many different contexts; however, there are still a significant number of therapists who adhere more or less strictly to a particular, or limited number of, approach(es).

The Liberation Based Healing framework for family therapy offers a complete paradigm shift for working with families while addressing the intersections of race, class, gender identity, sexual orientation and other socio-political identity markers. This theoretical approach and praxis is informed by Critical Pedagogy, Feminism, Critical Race Theory, and Decolonising Theory. This framework necessitates an understanding of the ways Colonisation, Cis-Heteronormativity, Patriarchy, White Supremacy and other systems of domination impact individuals, families and communities and centres the need to disrupt the status quo in how power operates. Traditional Western models of family therapy have historically ignored these dimensions and when white, male privilege has been critiqued, largely by feminist theory practitioners, it has often been to the benefit of middle class, white women’s experiences. While an understanding of intersectionality is of particular significance in working with families with violence, a liberatory framework examines how power, privilege and oppression operate within and across all relationships. Liberatory practices are based on the principles of Critical-Consciousness, Accountability and Empowerment. These principles guide not only the content of the therapeutic work with clients but also the supervisory and training process of therapists. Dr. Rhea Almeida, developed the Cultural Context Model as a way to operationalize these concepts into practice through the integration of culture circles, sponsors, and a socio-educational process within the therapeutic work.

Ideas and methods from family therapy have been influential in psychotherapy generally: a survey of over 2,500 US therapists in 2006 revealed that of the 10 most influential therapists of the previous quarter-century, three were prominent family therapists and that the marital and family systems model was the second most utilised model after cognitive behavioural therapy.

Techniques

Family therapy uses a range of counselling and other techniques including:

  • Structural therapy – identifies and re-orders the organisation of the family system.
  • Strategic therapy – looks at patterns of interactions between family members.
  • Systemic/Milan therapy – focuses on belief systems.
  • Narrative therapy – restoring of dominant problem-saturated narrative, emphasis on context, separation of the problem from the person.
  • Transgenerational therapy – transgenerational transmission of unhelpful patterns of belief and behaviour.
  • IPscope model and Interventive Interviewing.
  • Communication theory.
  • Psychoeducation.
  • Psychotherapy.
  • Relationship counselling.
  • Relationship education.
  • Systemic coaching.
  • Systems theory.
  • Reality therapy.
  • The genogram.

The number of sessions depends on the situation, but the average is 5-20 sessions. A family therapist usually meets several members of the family at the same time. This has the advantage of making differences between the ways family members perceive mutual relations as well as interaction patterns in the session apparent both for the therapist and the family. These patterns frequently mirror habitual interaction patterns at home, even though the therapist is now incorporated into the family system. Therapy interventions usually focus on relationship patterns rather than on analysing impulses of the unconscious mind or early childhood trauma of individuals as a Freudian therapist would do – although some schools of family therapy, for example psychodynamic and intergenerational, do consider such individual and historical factors (thus embracing both linear and circular causation) and they may use instruments such as the genogram to help to elucidate the patterns of relationship across generations.

The distinctive feature of family therapy is its perspective and analytical framework rather than the number of people present at a therapy session. Specifically, family therapists are relational therapists: They are generally more interested in what goes on between individuals rather than within one or more individuals, although some family therapists – in particular those who identify as psychodynamic, object relations, intergenerational, or experiential family therapists (EFTs) – tend to be as interested in individuals as in the systems those individuals and their relationships constitute. Depending on the conflicts at issue and the progress of therapy to date, a therapist may focus on analysing specific previous instances of conflict, as by reviewing a past incident and suggesting alternative ways family members might have responded to one another during it, or instead proceed directly to addressing the sources of conflict at a more abstract level, as by pointing out patterns of interaction that the family might have not noticed.

Family therapists tend to be more interested in the maintenance and/or solving of problems rather than in trying to identify a single cause. Some families may perceive cause-effect analyses as attempts to allocate blame to one or more individuals, with the effect that for many families a focus on causation is of little or no clinical utility. It is important to note that a circular way of problem evaluation is used as opposed to a linear route. Using this method, families can be helped by finding patterns of behaviour, what the causes are, and what can be done to better their situation.

Summary of Theories and Techniques

Theoretical ModelTheoristsSummaryTechniques
Adlerian family therapyAlfred AdlerAlso known as “individual psychology”. Sees the person as a whole. Ideas include compensation for feelings of inferiority leading to striving for significance toward a fictional final goal with a private logic. Birth order and mistaken goals are explored to examine mistaken motivations of children and adults in the family constellation.Psychoanalysis, typical day, reorienting, re-educating
Attachment theoryJohn Bowlby, Mary Ainsworth, Douglas HaldaneIndividuals are shaped by their experiences with caregivers in the first three years of life. Used as a foundation for Object Relations Theory. The Strange Situation experiment with infants involves a systematic process of leaving a child alone in a room in order to assess the quality of their parental bond.Psychoanalysis, play therapy
Bowenian family systems therapyMurray Bowen, Betty Carter, Philip Guerin, Michael Kerr, Thomas Fogarty, Monica McGoldrick, Edwin Friedman, Daniel PaperoAlso known as “intergenerational family therapy” (although there are also other schools of intergenerational family therapy). Family members are driven to achieve a balance of internal and external differentiation, causing anxiety, triangulation, and emotional cutoff. Families are affected by nuclear family emotional processes, sibling positions and multigenerational transmission patterns resulting in an undifferentiated family ego mass.Detriangulation, non-anxious presence, genograms, coaching
Cognitive behavioural family therapyJohn Gottman, Albert Ellis, Albert BanduraProblems are the result of operant conditioning that reinforces negative behaviours within the family’s interpersonal social exchanges that extinguish desired behaviour and promote incentives toward unwanted behaviours. This can lead to irrational beliefs and a faulty family schema.Therapeutic contracts, modelling, systematic desensitisation, shaping, charting, examining irrational beliefs
Collaborative language systems therapyHarry Goolishian, Harlene Anderson, Tom Andersen, Lynn Hoffman, Peggy PennIndividuals form meanings about their experiences within the context of social relationship on a personal and organisational level. Collaborative therapists help families reorganise and dis-solve their perceived problems through a transparent dialogue about inner thoughts with a “not-knowing” stance intended to illicit new meaning through conversation. Collaborative therapy is an approach that avoids a particular theoretical perspective in favour of a client-centred philosophical process.Dialogical conversation, not knowing, curiosity, being public, reflecting teams
Communications approachesVirginia Satir, John Banmen, Jane Gerber, Maria GomoriAll people are born into a primary survival triad between themselves and their parents where they adopt survival stances to protect their self-worth from threats communicated by words and behaviours of their family members. Experiential therapists are interested in altering the overt and covert messages between family members that affect their body, mind and feelings in order to promote congruence and to validate each person’s inherent self-worth.Equality, modelling communication, family life chronology, family sculpting, metaphors, family reconstruction
Contextual therapyIvan Boszormenyi-NagyFamilies are built upon an unconscious network of implicit loyalties between parents and children that can be damaged when these “relational ethics” of fairness, trust, entitlement, mutuality and merit are breached.Rebalancing, family negotiations, validation, filial debt repayment
Cultural family therapyVincenzo Di Nicola
Key influences: Celia Falicov, Antonio Ferreira, James Framo, Edwin Friedman, Mara Selvini Palazzoli, Carlos Sluzki, Victor Turner, Michael White
A synthesis of systemic family therapy with cultural psychiatry to create cultural family therapy (CFT). CFT is an interweaving of stories (family predicaments expressed in narratives of family life) and tools (clinical methods for working with and making sense of these stories in cultural context). Integrates and synthesizes systemic therapy and cultural and medical anthropology with narrative therapy.Conceptual tools for working across cultures – spirals, masks, roles, codes, cultural strategies, bridges, stories, multiple codes (metaphor and somatics), therapy as “story repair”
Emotion-focused therapySue Johnson, Les GreenbergCouples and families can develop rigid patterns of interaction based on powerful emotional experiences that hinder emotional engagement and trust. Treatment aims to enhance empathic capabilities of family members by exploring deep-seated habits and modifying emotional cues.Reflecting, validation, heightening, reframing, restructuring
Experiential family therapyCarl Whitaker, David Keith, Laura Roberto, Walter Kempler, John Warkentin, Thomas Malone, August NapierStemming from Gestalt foundations, change and growth occurs through an existential encounter with a therapist who is intentionally “real” and authentic with clients without pretence, often in a playful and sometimes absurd way as a means to foster flexibility in the family and promote individuation.Battling, constructive anxiety, redefining symptoms, affective confrontation, co-therapy, humour
Family mode deactivation therapy (FMDT)Jack A. ApscheTarget population adolescents with conduct and behavioural problems. Based on schema theory. Integrate mindfulness to focus family on the present. Validate core beliefs based on past experiences. Offer viable alternative responses. Treatment is based on case conceptualisation process; validate and clarify core beliefs, fears, triggers, and behaviours. Redirect behaviour by anticipating triggers and realigning beliefs and fears.Cognitive behavioural therapy, mindfulness, acceptance and commitment therapy, dialectical behaviour therapy, defusion, validate-clarify-redirect
Family-of-origin therapyJames FramoHe developed an object relations approach to intergenerational and family-of-origin therapy.Working with several generations of the family, family-of-origin approach with families in therapy and with trainees
Feminist family therapySandra Bem Marianne WaltersComplications from social and political disparity between genders are identified as underlying causes of conflict within a family system. Therapists are encouraged to be aware of these influences in order to avoid perpetuating hidden oppression, biases and cultural stereotypes and to model an egalitarian perspective of healthy family relationships.Demystifying, modelling, equality, personal accountability
Milan systemic family therapyLuigi Boscolo, Gianfranco Cecchin, Mara Selvini Palazzoli, Giuliana PrataA practical attempt by the “Milan Group” to establish therapeutic techniques based on Gregory Bateson’s cybernetics that disrupts unseen systemic patterns of control and games between family members by challenging erroneous family beliefs and reworking the family’s linguistic assumptions.Hypothesizing, circular questioning, neutrality, counter-paradox
MRI brief therapyGregory Bateson, Milton Erickson, Heinz von FoersterEstablished by the Mental Research Institute (MRI) as a synthesis of ideas from multiple theorists in order to interrupt misguided attempts by families to create first and second order change by persisting with “more of the same”, mixed signals from unclear metacommunication and paradoxical double-bind messages.Reframing, prescribing the symptom, relabelling, restraining (going slow), Bellac Ploy
Narrative therapyMichael White, David EpstonPeople use stories to make sense of their experience and to establish their identity as a social and political constructs based on local knowledge. Narrative therapists avoid marginalising their clients by positioning themselves as a co-editor of their reality with the idea that “the person is not the problem, but the problem is the problem.”Deconstruction, externalising problems, mapping, asking permission
Object relations therapyHazan & Shaver, David Scharff & Jill Scharff, James FramoIndividuals choose relationships that attempt to heal insecure attachments from childhood. Negative patterns established by their parents (object) are projected onto their partners.Detriangulation, co-therapy, psychoanalysis, holding environment
Psychoanalytic family therapyNathan AckermanBy applying the strategies of Freudian psychoanalysis to the family system therapists can gain insight into the interlocking psychopathologies of the family members and seek to improve complementarity.Psychoanalysis, authenticity, joining, confrontation
Solution focused therapyKim Insoo Berg, Steve de Shazer, William O’Hanlon, Michelle Weiner-Davis, Paul WatzlawickThe inevitable onset of constant change leads to negative interpretations of the past and language that shapes the meaning of an individual’s situation, diminishing their hope and causing them to overlook their own strengths and resources.Future focus, beginner’s mind, miracle question, goal setting, scaling
Strategic therapyJay Haley, Cloe MadanesSymptoms of dysfunction are purposeful in maintaining homeostasis in the family hierarchy as it transitions through various stages in the family life cycle.Directives, paradoxical injunctions, positioning, metaphoric tasks, restraining (going slow)
Structural family therapySalvador Minuchin, Harry Aponte, Charles Fishman, Braulio MontalvoFamily problems arise from maladaptive boundaries and subsystems that are created within the overall family system of rules and rituals that governs their interactions.Joining, family mapping, hypothesizing, re-enactments, reframing, unbalancing

Evidence Base

Family therapy has an evolving evidence base. A summary of current evidence is available via the UK’s Association of Family Therapy. Evaluation and outcome studies can also be found on the Family Therapy and Systemic Research Centre website. The website also includes quantitative and qualitative research studies of many aspects of family therapy.

According to a 2004 French government study conducted by French Institute of Health and Medical Research, family and couples therapy was the second most effective therapy after Cognitive behavioural therapy. The study used meta-analysis of over a hundred secondary studies to find some level of effectiveness that was either “proven” or “presumed” to exist. Of the treatments studied, family therapy was presumed or proven effective at treating schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, anorexia and alcohol dependency.

Concerns and Criticism

In a 1999 address to the Coalition of Marriage, Family and Couples Education conference in Washington, D.C., University of Minnesota Professor William Doherty said:

“I take no joy in being a whistle blower, but it’s time. I am a committed marriage and family therapist, having practiced this form of therapy since 1977. I train marriage and family therapists. I believe that marriage therapy can be very helpful in the hands of therapists who are committed to the profession and the practice. But there are a lot of problems out there with the practice of therapy – a lot of problems.”

Doherty suggested questions prospective clients should ask a therapist before beginning treatment:

  1. “Can you describe your background and training in marital therapy?”
  2. “What is your attitude toward salvaging a troubled marriage versus helping couples break up?”
  3. “What is your approach when one partner is seriously considering ending the marriage and the other wants to save it?”
  4. “What percentage of your practice is marital therapy?”
  5. “Of the couples you treat, what percentage would you say work out enough of their problems to stay married with a reasonable amount of satisfaction with the relationship.” “What percentage break up while they are seeing you?” “What percentage do not improve?” “What do you think makes the differences in these results?”

Licensing and Degrees

Family therapy practitioners come from a range of professional backgrounds, and some are specifically qualified or licensed/registered in family therapy (licensing is not required in some jurisdictions and requirements vary from place to place). In the United Kingdom, family therapists will have a prior relevant professional training in one of the helping professions usually psychologists, psychotherapists, or counsellors who have done further training in family therapy, either a diploma or an M.Sc. In the United States there is a specific degree and license as a marriage and family therapist; however, psychologists, nurses, psychotherapists, social workers, or counsellors, and other licensed mental health professionals may practice family therapy. In the UK, family therapists who have completed a four-year qualifying programme of study (MSc) are eligible to register with the professional body the Association of Family Therapy (AFT), and with the UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP).

A master’s degree is required to work as a Marriage and Family Therapist (MFT) in some American states. Most commonly, MFTs will first earn a M.S. or M.A. degree in marriage and family therapy, counselling, psychology, family studies, or social work. After graduation, prospective MFTs work as interns under the supervision of a licensed professional and are referred to as an MFTi.

Prior to 1999 in California, counsellors who specialised in this area were called Marriage, Family and Child Counsellors. Today, they are known as Marriage and Family Therapists (MFT), and work variously in private practice, in clinical settings such as hospitals, institutions, or counselling organisations.

Marriage and family therapists in the United States and Canada often seek degrees from accredited Masters or Doctoral programmes recognised by the Commission on Accreditation for Marriage and Family Therapy Education (COAMFTE), a division of the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy.

Requirements vary, but in most states about 3,000 hours of supervised work as an intern are needed to sit for a licensing exam. MFTs must be licensed by the state to practice. Only after completing their education and internship and passing the state licensing exam can a person call themselves a Marital and Family Therapist and work unsupervised.

License restrictions can vary considerably from state to state. Contact information about licensing boards in the United States are provided by the Association of Marital and Family Regulatory Boards.

There have been concerns raised within the profession about the fact that specialist training in couples therapy – as distinct from family therapy in general – is not required to gain a license as an MFT or membership of the main professional body, the AAMFT.

Values and Ethics

Since issues of interpersonal conflict, power, control, values, and ethics are often more pronounced in relationship therapy than in individual therapy, there has been debate within the profession about the different values that are implicit in the various theoretical models of therapy and the role of the therapist’s own values in the therapeutic process, and how prospective clients should best go about finding a therapist whose values and objectives are most consistent with their own. An early paper on ethics in family therapy written by Vincenzo Di Nicola in consultation with a bioethicist asked basic questions about whether strategic interventions “mean what they say” and if it is ethical to invent opinions offered to families about the treatment process, such as statements saying that half of the treatment team believes one thing and half believes another. Specific issues that have emerged have included an increasing questioning of the longstanding notion of therapeutic neutrality, a concern with questions of justice and self-determination, connectedness and independence, “functioning” versus “authenticity”, and questions about the degree of the therapist’s “pro-marriage/family” versus “pro-individual” commitment.

The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy requires members to adhere to a “Code of Ethics”, including a commitment to “continue therapeutic relationships only so long as it is reasonably clear that clients are benefiting from the relationship.”

Founders and Key Influences

Some key developers of family therapy are:

  • Alfred Adler (individual psychology).
  • Nathan Ackerman (psychoanalytic).
  • Tom Andersen (reflecting practices and dialogues about dialogues).
  • Harlene Anderson (postmodern collaborative therapy and Collaborative Language Systems).
  • Maurizio Andolfi (interactional, integrative, multigenerational, and relational family therapy).
  • Harry J Aponte (Person-of-the-Therapist).
  • Jack A. Apsche (family mode deactivation therapy, FMDT).
  • Gregory Bateson (1904–1980) (cybernetics, systems theory).
  • Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy (contextual therapy, intergenerational, relational ethics).
  • Murray Bowen (systems theory, intergenerational).
  • Steve de Shazer (solution focused therapy).
  • Vincenzo Di Nicola (cultural family therapy).
  • Milton H. Erickson (hypnotherapy, strategic therapy, brief therapy).
  • Richard Fisch (brief therapy, strategic therapy).
  • James Framo (object relations theory, intergenerational, family-of-origin therapy).
  • Edwin Friedman (family process in religious congregations).
  • Harry Goolishian (postmodern collaborative therapy and collaborative language systems).
  • John Gottman (marriage).
  • Robert-Jay Green (LGBT, cross-cultural issues).
  • Douglas Haldane (Attachment-based couple therapist).
  • Jay Haley (strategic therapy, communications).
  • Lynn Hoffman (strategic, post-systems, collaborative).
  • Don D. Jackson (systems theory).
  • Sue Johnson (emotionally focused therapy, attachment theory).
  • Walter Kempler (Gestalt psychology).
  • Cloe Madanes (strategic therapy).
  • Salvador Minuchin (structural family therapy).
  • Braulio Montalvo (structural family therapy).
  • Virginia Satir (communications, experiential, conjoint and co-therapy).
  • Mara Selvini Palazzoli (Milan family systems therapy).
  • Karl Tomm (IPscope model and interventive interviewing, Bringforthism).
  • Robin Skynner (group analysis).
  • Paul Watzlawick (brief therapy, systems theory).
  • John Weakland (brief therapy, strategic therapy, systems theory).
  • Carl Whitaker (family systems, experiential, co-therapy).
  • Michael White (narrative therapy).
  • Lyman Wynne (schizophrenia, pseudomutuality).

On This Day … 01 April

People (Births)

  • 1908 – Abraham Maslow, American psychologist and academic (d. 1970).

People (Deaths)

  • 1922 – Hermann Rorschach, Swiss psychologist and author (b. 1884).

Abraham Maslow

Abraham Harold Maslow (01 April 1908 to 08 June 1970) was an American psychologist who was best known for creating Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, a theory of psychological health predicated on fulfilling innate human needs in priority, culminating in self-actualisation.

Maslow was a psychology professor at Brandeis University, Brooklyn College, New School for Social Research, and Columbia University.

He stressed the importance of focusing on the positive qualities in people, as opposed to treating them as a “bag of symptoms”.

A Review of General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked Maslow as the tenth most cited psychologist of the 20th century.

Hermann Rorschach

Hermann Rorschach (08 November 1884 to 02 April 1922) was a Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst.

His education in art helped to spur the development of a set of inkblots that were used experimentally to measure various unconscious parts of the subject’s personality. His method has come to be referred to as the Rorschach test, iterations of which have continued to be used over the years to help identify personality, psychotic, and neurological disorders.

Rorschach continued to refine the test until his premature death at age 37.