Bulletin of the Psychoanalytic Research Society, Volume II, Number 1, Spring, 1993
In an article so inflammatory and so challenging that it could have cost Henry Murray (1935/1988) a tenured professorship, he asserted that "many of the revealed facts, and a few of the theories advanced by psychoanalysts represent the weightiest contribution ever made within a short space of time to an understanding of human nature" (p. 349). Murray suggested that academic psychology, in contrast "has contributed practically nothing to the knowledge of human nature," a consequence of methodological fussiness. But he also argued that "psychoanalysis needs the university" (p. 349) and the rigorous experimental methods of the academic psychologists, for such rigor may steer psychoanalysis away from "propaganda," "simple minded technical patter," and other intellectual malfeasances.
Although Murray's (1935/1988) paper was published more than 50 years ago, its message continues to resound in certain quarters. Robert Holt (1992), writing on the contemporary crises of psychoanalysis, contends that "it will be helpful for all institutes to affiliate with universities, and for their faculties to be subject to prevailing academic standards" (p. 397). As Murray before him, Holt argues that cross-disciplinary communication will prevent the "ingrown insularity that plagues psychoanalysis." Further, in lauding the university life, both Murray and Holt note the personal and economic security enjoyed by tenured professors.
But does the university "need" psychoanalysis and tenured psychoanalytic psychologists? Do universities need psychoanalytically oriented psychologists who are not affiliated with psychoanalytic institutes? More to the point (in these lean and parlous times), can the university "afford" psychoanalysis? Two developments may prove illuminating in pondering these questions. Consider first the now-familiar climate of multiculturalism, the storm of discordant voices emanating from university classrooms and lecture halls. A brief sampling: The liberal icon Arthur Schlesinger writes a book denouncing black nationalism. The afrocentrist Molefi Asante is similarly outspoken. Sociologist Robert Bellah and colleagues (1991) decry Allan Bloom's famous best-seller The Closing of the American Mind as a "bitter attack" that features a "rather bizarre conspiracy theory" (p. 167). Henry Louis Gates, Leonard Jeffries, Donna Shalala and numerous others have also received media attention for their views on multiculturalism. One commentator ironically observed that Shalala's Wisconsin among other universities, requires students to enroll in Ethnic Studies courses, despite the absence of such a requirement for American History or Western Civilization (D'Souza, 1991). Next, consider the climate of financial hysteria at today's universities. Stanford business professor William Massey cynically believes that the curriculum should be responsive to the demands of the marketplace. "Tastes have changed," he explains, "people used to be interested in the classics; now they are interested in making money" (cited in Bellah et al., 1991, p. 169). And by now most of us are all too familiar with the relationship between grantsmanship and the politics and economics of hiring and tenuring university faculty.
Enter psychoanalysis into this inclement "average expectable" university environment. The creation of a dead white European man, psychoanalytic theory remains notoriously phallocentric, and clinical psychoanalysis remains a haven for the moneyed elite. Psychoanalysis has also been inscrutably out of touch with the advances in human and biological sciences, especially those methods and paradigms designed to address the social and public health problems that are taken seriously by federal funding agencies.
Junior faculty in all disciplines, regardless of theoretical bent, who seek grants and tenure in today's tumultuous climate face challenges that are not merely intellectual but political and economic as well (Kornberg, 1992; Price, 1992). The university's "need" for psychoanalysis is as conditional as its need for virtually any other discipline, including those comprising the so-called canon. We need to determine how young, untenured psychoanalytic psychologists can effectively develop in this challenging environment. How can we obtain tenure and remain productive after tenure has been granted? What initiatives will allow psychoanalysis to grow and thrive within the university? Perhaps the Bulletin will provide a forum in which we can begin to address some of these questions.
The breadth of the psychoanalytic family of theories provides more than enough grist for the (funded) research n mill, even without studying the esoterica that is of little interest to those outside the cozy but narrow confines of institutionalized psychoanalysis. But it is unlikely that such work will be accomplished if psychoanalytic scholars isolate themselves or merely "communicate" with those in other disciplines. Growth and development will be borne out of work conducted both within psychoanalysis and in active collaboration with those outside psychoanalysis.
From my perspective, the university and psychoanalysis need each other. Let us not forget that the psychoanalysis to which Murray referred contained the seeds of a number of shiny modern disciplines, including cognitive neuroscience and behavioral medicine. Today, these subspecialties thrive in "psychology" departments, long after both they and many of the departments in which they reside ceased concern with the subjective construction of meaning. these disciplines would benefit greatly from psychodynamic perspectives and research methods. To illustrate, studies on salivary cortisol reactivity in response to laboratory stressors may: 1) examine life history data; 2) examine object relations; or 3) use stressors that are (hypothetically) personally meaningful to subjects with different personality configurations (e.g., "loss" stressors for dependent subjects). As scholars interested in the construction and reconstruction of meaning, I hope we can work to improve some of the problems that universities currently confront, and help ourselves and others in the process.