Uotli patients reported these serisatioris as happening y-imarily in the hypnapgic state, when they were falling asleep, aiic both of their descriptions of tlicsc occurrences closely parallel the phenomenology detailed in Isakower’s (1938) original article. Specificall ,both patients reported large, rouncl objects movin toward tliem and’pressing into or against their mouths, hands, anc skin, and then receding in size as they moved away from them. \Vliile regressive ego states are always of interest, what is especially noteworthy in these two cases is that both of the patients had mentioned having these Isakoiver phenomena to their parents, and had been surprised to be informed that each of their fathers had ex erienced similar occurrences. T h e psychoanal itic literature on this suGject does not mention any instances of stic 1 altered ego states occurring in families; hence tlie reason for this report. \\'bile these two cases cannot be anything more than suggestive of the presence be helpful of a heredit;iry factor in the genesis of t i m e states, it ~vo~ilcl for analysts who work with such patients to be on tile lookout for other instances.
P
i
REFERENCE ISI\KOWEK, 0. (1‘338).A contribution to the patlio-psychologyof phenornciia associated with f’alling asleep. l i i f . J. I’syhontinf., 19233 1-345. \\’aye A . i\ljers, M.D. 180 Enst 79th Streel hrew York, hrY 10021
Uridatctl
Wliy Did Frciid Drol, the Tliem of Groiip Ps~cholog)l? In his history of grou psychotlicrapy, Anthony (1971) puzzled about why Sigmund Freud ailed to pursue his interest in group sychology after his single, uniquely important contribution on t ie subject (Freud, 1921). To quote Anthony: “\Vhy did he [Freud] stop at these critical points? \\%o can tell? I t is ossible that his intense interest in individual intrapsychic confiicts- iis own-supcrsetied everything else” (p. 9). I suggest that another, very specific reason accounts for Freud’s (and for Anna Freud’s) abrupt abandonment of the theme of group psychology. I t centers on Tripint Burrow, an erstwhile president of the American Psychoanalytic Association who liad arranged to come to Vienna for a psychoanalysis with Freud i n 1914, a plan thwarted by tlie outbreak of \Vorld \Var I. A few years after the war’s end, at a time when Freud, following the rifts with Adler arid with Rank, was bent on preserving the “purity” of his new movement, Burrow came u p with a iiew approach. In
F
Y
P
1231
LEI-I‘EKS ‘1‘0 T l 1 E EDI~I‘OK
marked variance with contemporary psychoanalysis, lie postulated a “social neurosis” encom assing both patient and analyst. Abandoning tlie coucli, lie developech fresco “analytic” group sessions comprising patients, co-workers, students, family members, and even children. This new practice first termed “group analysis” and Inter “phyloanalysis” soon came to be widely perceived as eccentric, if not unethical. Since Burrow’s early presentations and writings expected group members to have had a prior individual analysis (Sclieidlinger, 1986), it is ironic that Freud’s reaction was positive. In fact, liis observation: ‘tJustifiable attempts have also been made to turn this antagonism between neuroses and roup formation to therapeutic account” (Freud, 1921, 1 142) protably referred to Burrow’s work. However, when Burrow began to criticize other analysts as “being as neurotic and as confused as their patients” (Galt et al., 1958) and to make exaggerated, messianiclike clainis for liis new physiological “discoveries” (Burrow, 1930), lie lost his cr-stwhile American SLI porters (e. ., C. 1’. Oberndorf and Adolph hleyer), and was expe led froin t ie American I’sychoanalytic Association. As for Freud aiid his Viennese Circk, they were by iiow both irritated and embarrassed by Burrow’s pronouncenients arid prolific writin r s , copies of which Burrow sent to distinguislied scientists the w o r d over. Freud’s biograplier, Gay (1988), refers to Burrow as “a curious amalgarn of physician and crank” and quotes Freud as viewing B L I ~ ~asOaW “muddled babbler.” It is therefore not beyond credibility that Burrow’s roup analysis” crusade spurred Freud not only to dismiss Burrow, B u t also everything that even smacked of gl-oup psychology! Gay referred to my su gestion as “intriguing and perhaps worth pursuing” (1989, personay communication). I t is notewortliy that favorably W wliile a number of American group workers viewed B L I ~ I - O as a ioneer in group psychotherapy (Rosenbauni arid Berger, 1933; Neil( 1990), the former took great pains to dissociate his work from the emerging group psycliothempies of the early 1940’s because these were not (lee enough failing to recognize “tlie phenomenon of de. tension as a Jsortlcrcd pliylic process” (Burrows, 1953, p. 17). Not unlike \Villielni Reich, a trace of tlie tragic surrounds tlie figure of Burrow, for he was at once ahead of his time but flawed by excessive competitiveness and a flair for the grandiose. His early writin s and practice unquestionably presaged the later development of ana ytic group therapy. But liis peculiar fixation on obtuse physiological studies led to his cjection from the ps dioanalytic movement and-perhaps unwittingly-to Freud’s aban onment of group psycI1ology.
P
P
“
P
d
REFERENCES ANTIIONY,E. J. (1971). The history of group psychotherapy. 111 Coitiprehensiue Group Psyhofhem/y, ed. H. I . Ksplnn k B. J. Sntlock. Baltimore, hlD: \\’illiams & \\’ilkins.
BUKKOW, 1’. ( I 930). I’hysiological behavior re;ictioiis iri the individual and iri the cominunity: a s t u d y in pliyloaiialysis. l’sjclir, 1 157-8 1. (1933). Scirrtcr m i d i\fn:i5 Uehnvior. New l’ork: PIdosopliicaI Library. FREUD,S. (1921). Group psycliology arid tlic ruinlysis of the ego. S. E., 18. GALT, I\’. E. et al. (1958). A Seorcli f o r Af(iri’s Smiifj: Tlir Seledril Lellcrs of Trigmz~Bto-row. New York: Oxford Uiiiv. I’rcss. GAY,P. ( I 988). Freird: 11 L$e f o r O w 7i:ne. New York: Norton. NEILL, J. R. (1990).Trigant 15urrow remembered. Psjcltolltrr., 27542-546. ~ O s E N n ~ u ah1. l , & BEKGEK,hI. (1963). Groirl) rsjclto!hcrci,bjnrtd Group Fu:icfio:i: Selcctrd Rendirigr. New York: Basic Books. S(:IIEII)LIxCEK, S. (1986). ‘I‘rignnt Burrow: a pioneer revisited. Groirl, A?td., 19~73-76.
Saul Scliridliriger, l%D. 715 Blecker Aweitlie i\latiinro:ierk, A’Y 10543
January 8, 1992
P s y h oa nnlyis’ R esistn ii ce to Ne7u I d e m 1 wish to call attention to what secnis to nic a significant obstacle to scientific progress in psychoanalysis-nanicly, the resistance to discussing new ideas that conflict with what arc bclicvetl to be Freud’s views. At tlie same time, I acknowledge that enormous progress has been made since Kalpli Greenson wrote his classic paper “The Origin and Fate of Ncw Ideas in Psychoanalysis” (1969). 1 am fully aware that much lively debate transpires at scientific nieetin s and appears at times in published articles. Because there is no o jcctive way to measure what constitutes the appropriate level of debate in scientific journals, I can prodrice no rigorous roof for my thesis. However, I will try to share with you tlie basis o my impression. Attitudes accounting for the deficiency of publislied debate in nalytic journals niay also explain tlie exceptional difficulty I ave encountered i n contacting analysts through personal correspondence, despite succcss with some of the most eminent fi ures in the field. A sociologist once told me that in his opinion about ifty percent of sociologists would bc willing to engage in such correspondence. hloreover, such scholarly correspondence fi tires in tenure decisions. hly initial efforts were aimed at finding ana ysts willing to discuss the concept of the unconscious and the nature of psychoanalysis a: a science. Guided by the analytic precept of dealing with the presenting resistance, my current efforts focus on the resistance to discussion. If it can be overcome, my next goal will be to ac
P
i
REFERENCE ISI\KOWEK, 0. (1‘338).A contribution to the patlio-psychologyof phenornciia associated with f’alling asleep. l i i f . J. I’syhontinf., 19233 1-345. \\’aye A . i\ljers, M.D. 180 Enst 79th Streel hrew York, hrY 10021
Uridatctl
Wliy Did Frciid Drol, the Tliem of Groiip Ps~cholog)l? In his history of grou psychotlicrapy, Anthony (1971) puzzled about why Sigmund Freud ailed to pursue his interest in group sychology after his single, uniquely important contribution on t ie subject (Freud, 1921). To quote Anthony: “\Vhy did he [Freud] stop at these critical points? \\%o can tell? I t is ossible that his intense interest in individual intrapsychic confiicts- iis own-supcrsetied everything else” (p. 9). I suggest that another, very specific reason accounts for Freud’s (and for Anna Freud’s) abrupt abandonment of the theme of group psychology. I t centers on Tripint Burrow, an erstwhile president of the American Psychoanalytic Association who liad arranged to come to Vienna for a psychoanalysis with Freud i n 1914, a plan thwarted by tlie outbreak of \Vorld \Var I. A few years after the war’s end, at a time when Freud, following the rifts with Adler arid with Rank, was bent on preserving the “purity” of his new movement, Burrow came u p with a iiew approach. In
F
Y
P
1231
LEI-I‘EKS ‘1‘0 T l 1 E EDI~I‘OK
marked variance with contemporary psychoanalysis, lie postulated a “social neurosis” encom assing both patient and analyst. Abandoning tlie coucli, lie developech fresco “analytic” group sessions comprising patients, co-workers, students, family members, and even children. This new practice first termed “group analysis” and Inter “phyloanalysis” soon came to be widely perceived as eccentric, if not unethical. Since Burrow’s early presentations and writings expected group members to have had a prior individual analysis (Sclieidlinger, 1986), it is ironic that Freud’s reaction was positive. In fact, liis observation: ‘tJustifiable attempts have also been made to turn this antagonism between neuroses and roup formation to therapeutic account” (Freud, 1921, 1 142) protably referred to Burrow’s work. However, when Burrow began to criticize other analysts as “being as neurotic and as confused as their patients” (Galt et al., 1958) and to make exaggerated, messianiclike clainis for liis new physiological “discoveries” (Burrow, 1930), lie lost his cr-stwhile American SLI porters (e. ., C. 1’. Oberndorf and Adolph hleyer), and was expe led froin t ie American I’sychoanalytic Association. As for Freud aiid his Viennese Circk, they were by iiow both irritated and embarrassed by Burrow’s pronouncenients arid prolific writin r s , copies of which Burrow sent to distinguislied scientists the w o r d over. Freud’s biograplier, Gay (1988), refers to Burrow as “a curious amalgarn of physician and crank” and quotes Freud as viewing B L I ~ ~asOaW “muddled babbler.” It is therefore not beyond credibility that Burrow’s roup analysis” crusade spurred Freud not only to dismiss Burrow, B u t also everything that even smacked of gl-oup psychology! Gay referred to my su gestion as “intriguing and perhaps worth pursuing” (1989, personay communication). I t is notewortliy that favorably W wliile a number of American group workers viewed B L I ~ I - O as a ioneer in group psychotherapy (Rosenbauni arid Berger, 1933; Neil( 1990), the former took great pains to dissociate his work from the emerging group psycliothempies of the early 1940’s because these were not (lee enough failing to recognize “tlie phenomenon of de. tension as a Jsortlcrcd pliylic process” (Burrows, 1953, p. 17). Not unlike \Villielni Reich, a trace of tlie tragic surrounds tlie figure of Burrow, for he was at once ahead of his time but flawed by excessive competitiveness and a flair for the grandiose. His early writin s and practice unquestionably presaged the later development of ana ytic group therapy. But liis peculiar fixation on obtuse physiological studies led to his cjection from the ps dioanalytic movement and-perhaps unwittingly-to Freud’s aban onment of group psycI1ology.
P
P
“
P
d
REFERENCES ANTIIONY,E. J. (1971). The history of group psychotherapy. 111 Coitiprehensiue Group Psyhofhem/y, ed. H. I . Ksplnn k B. J. Sntlock. Baltimore, hlD: \\’illiams & \\’ilkins.
BUKKOW, 1’. ( I 930). I’hysiological behavior re;ictioiis iri the individual and iri the cominunity: a s t u d y in pliyloaiialysis. l’sjclir, 1 157-8 1. (1933). Scirrtcr m i d i\fn:i5 Uehnvior. New l’ork: PIdosopliicaI Library. FREUD,S. (1921). Group psycliology arid tlic ruinlysis of the ego. S. E., 18. GALT, I\’. E. et al. (1958). A Seorcli f o r Af(iri’s Smiifj: Tlir Seledril Lellcrs of Trigmz~Bto-row. New York: Oxford Uiiiv. I’rcss. GAY,P. ( I 988). Freird: 11 L$e f o r O w 7i:ne. New York: Norton. NEILL, J. R. (1990).Trigant 15urrow remembered. Psjcltolltrr., 27542-546. ~ O s E N n ~ u ah1. l , & BEKGEK,hI. (1963). Groirl) rsjclto!hcrci,bjnrtd Group Fu:icfio:i: Selcctrd Rendirigr. New York: Basic Books. S(:IIEII)LIxCEK, S. (1986). ‘I‘rignnt Burrow: a pioneer revisited. Groirl, A?td., 19~73-76.
Saul Scliridliriger, l%D. 715 Blecker Aweitlie i\latiinro:ierk, A’Y 10543
January 8, 1992
P s y h oa nnlyis’ R esistn ii ce to Ne7u I d e m 1 wish to call attention to what secnis to nic a significant obstacle to scientific progress in psychoanalysis-nanicly, the resistance to discussing new ideas that conflict with what arc bclicvetl to be Freud’s views. At tlie same time, I acknowledge that enormous progress has been made since Kalpli Greenson wrote his classic paper “The Origin and Fate of Ncw Ideas in Psychoanalysis” (1969). 1 am fully aware that much lively debate transpires at scientific nieetin s and appears at times in published articles. Because there is no o jcctive way to measure what constitutes the appropriate level of debate in scientific journals, I can prodrice no rigorous roof for my thesis. However, I will try to share with you tlie basis o my impression. Attitudes accounting for the deficiency of publislied debate in nalytic journals niay also explain tlie exceptional difficulty I ave encountered i n contacting analysts through personal correspondence, despite succcss with some of the most eminent fi ures in the field. A sociologist once told me that in his opinion about ifty percent of sociologists would bc willing to engage in such correspondence. hloreover, such scholarly correspondence fi tires in tenure decisions. hly initial efforts were aimed at finding ana ysts willing to discuss the concept of the unconscious and the nature of psychoanalysis a: a science. Guided by the analytic precept of dealing with the presenting resistance, my current efforts focus on the resistance to discussion. If it can be overcome, my next goal will be to ac
