2010 Reprint of 1927 First American Edition. Lay analysis is psychoanalytic treatment carried out by someone who is not a physician. The term was first used by Freud in The Question of Lay Analysis, where he vigorously asserted that in the practice of psychoanalytic treatment, what mattered was good training, independent of diplomas obtained beforehand. The issue of lay analysis was raised early in the history of the psychoanalytic movement. Freud took the position that training, not diplomas, was the key issue. On the level of theoretical justifications, two conceptions of psychoanalysis were opposed here. For some, psychoanalysis is a therapy that seeks to care for, and if possible cure, mental problems, even minor ones. Thus it can only be legitimately practiced by a doctor, preferably a psychiatrist, who has the necessary training to give a diagnosis and referral for analysis, and then to treat the patient with the broad-mindedness and accountability that doctors have. For others, however, analytic treatment is above all a personal experience, a liberation from the conflicts that restrict the ego and burden the mind, emotional life, and relations with others. Freedom and personal enrichment are the major aims, and any shortsighted preoccupation with a "cure" risks becoming an obstacle to good psychoanalysis. One could even argue that psychiatric training, which predisposes the physician toward diagnosis and treatment, is a handicap for the psychoanalyst. In psychoanalysis, the crucial references are cultural, even philosophical.
The Problem of Lay analyses and An Autobiographical Study
Lay Analysis: Life Inside the Controversy chronicles the history of nonmedical analysis in absorbing detail. It begins with the events of 1910 in Europe and America that initiated their divergent attitudes and policies regarding lay analysis, proceeds to the unfolding struggles over this issue on both sides of the Atlantic, and reviews the halting efforts of the APsaA, beginning in the 1950s, to reassess its opposition to lay analysis and make some provision for the training of nonmedical practitioners. Wallerstein's illuminating treatment of the response of American nonphysician therapists to the APsaA's policy - the manner in which they managed to obtain clinical psychoanalytic training despite the APsaA's prohibition - forms a fascinating story within his grand narrative. The book culminates in a comprehensive review of the lawsuit of March 1985 in which four clinical psychologists, representing a stated class of several thousand colleagues and fully supported by the American Psychological Association, brought suit against the APsaA and IPA, hoping in this way to force a change in the APsaA's policies regarding the training of lay practitioners. Wallerstein, drawing on the voluminous documentation to which he had full access - memoranda, correspondence, depositions, legal briefs, and phone conversations - reviews the three-and-a-half-year history of the lawsuit. He concludes his narrative with a measured and thoughtful assessment of the impact of the settlement on psychoanalysis today: the changes it has brought about within organized psychoanalysis and the meaning of those changes for psychoanalysis as a discipline. Given Wallerstein's comprehensive scholarship, his admirable even-handedness, and his unique participatory role in the lay analysis controversy over the course of his career, it is unsurprising that Lay Analysis: Life Inside the Controversy should achieve distinction as a major contribution to the institutional history of psychoanalysis.
This book provides the reader with rich evidence of the very contemporaneity of Karl Abraham, reminding the reader of his unique clinical contributions to such diverse areas of concentration as the psychoses, depression, and the pre-oedipal.
The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud