November 1999

REVIEW OF OCTOBER MEETING

The Analyst's Authority
Monte Evan, Ph.D.
By Dale Lang Roskos, Ph.D.

Monty Evans, Ph.D. is an advanced candidate of the Dallas Psychoanalytic Institute, a member of DSPP, and maintains a full-time private practice in Dallas. He is a faculty member of Southern Methodist University’s Sociology Department and a Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Southwestern Medical School. He also is on the faculty of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Baylor University Medical Center and is involved with developing practicum sites at Baylor as well as at SMU, UNT, and UTSWMC.

In his presentation, Dr. Evans reviewed the changing psychoanalytic concepts of authority, truth and knowledge and intertwined them with a thorough review of Stephen Mitchell’s article, "The Analyst’s Knowledge and Authority." The pithy, intellectually challenging and informative presentation was lightened by Dr. Evans’ humor and by his use of his favorite quotations to highlight important issues. The breadth of his interests, knowledge, and expertise enriched the presentation.

In his review, Dr. Evans indicated that the analyst’s authority has changed from being absolute to acknowledging the mutual sharing of authority and influence between the analyst and the analysand. Finally, the concept of authority has become an issue of focus for psychoanalytic theorists. In essence, we have moved from viewing the analyst as the ultimate in authority and knowledge, to a different understanding in which the analyst and the patient both have authority and knowledge.

Dr. Monty Evans described Dr. Stephen Mitchell’s development from an "excellent graduate student at New York University to a noteworthy author, to the person who has had a major impact on the development of psychoanalysis in New York [and possibly elsewhere]." The term relational psychoanalysis derives from interpersonal relations and object relations. Dr. Evans highlighted the importance of Dr. Mitchell and of relational psychoanalysis by describing the graduate psychology school at New York University. Their program has two separate psychoanalytic tracks, a classical track and a relational track. Moreover, he noted that there is also a track associated with the American Psychoanalytic Association that is hospital-based. In the relational track, the faculty draws upon teachers from New York University, from the William Alanson White Institute, and from the New School for Social Research.

According to Dr. Evans, relational psychoanalysts initially were mainly from the interpersonal school, and included such notable people as Jessica Benjamin, Donnel Stern, and Lewis Aaron. Dr. Evans continued, saying these people came together and named themselves, retrospectively, as relational psychoanalysts. In recent years, he noted, analysts from within the American Psychoanalytic Association, such as Owen Renik, have joined their ranks. The relational psychoanalysts have debated analysts within the Kohution, Interpersonal and Classical analytic schools. Dr. Evans wondered if Dr. Mitchell is aware that relational psychoanalysts have presented papers at both the American Psychoanalytic Association and the International Psychoanalytic Association. Moreover, Monty Evans, Ph.D. indicated that he himself had first heard about relational psychoanalysis at the American Psychoanalytic Association. He continued, saying Spezzano places this school of thought, which Spezzano labels "The American Middle Group", midway between classical psychoanalysis and Harry Stack Sullivan’s interpersonal psychiatry and psychoanalysis.

Dr. Evans indicated that he has read Dr. Mitchell’s books and articles for ten years. He continued on to review the article by S. Mitchell, Ph.D., entitled "The Analyst’s Knowledge and Authority". [The article can be found in Mitchell, Stephen, 1997. Influence and Autonomy in Psychoanalysis, 203 – 230, Hillsdale, New Jersey: The Analytic Press]. Dr. Evans found the article to be both useful and informative. He said, "at best, it provides an awareness of contemporary thought, which is remarkable and of post-modern criticism, which is widespread in academia today."

Dr. Monty Evans went on to discuss Dr. Mitchell’s article in great detail. This review will highlight those areas that Dr. Evans found particularly captivating and helpful, as well as his critique of Dr. Mitchell’s article. Dr. Evans believes that Dr. Mitchell usefully challenges the Grünbaum phenomena. Adolph Grünbaum, an articulate critic of Freud, concluded that there was no scientific way of testing the validity of psychoanalytic theory in any independent fashion. This resulted in the Grünbaum Phenomena, a syndrome with which psychoanalysts and psychoanalytically oriented psychologists occasionally become afflicted. Their symptoms include stomachaches and sleeplessness, and drive them to take down their statistics books. The books lie unopened, and the psychologists spontaneously recover in several days!

Dr. Evans concurs with Mitchell that one of psychoanalysis’ strongest claims for validity is "its stunning obviousness and usefulness in understanding human difficulties in living". Moreover, he agrees with Dr. Mitchell that "analytic neutrality is difficult if not impossible to maintain". Dr. Evans is using the term analytic neutrality in the classical manner in which the analyst remains neutral relative to the patient’s conflicts with reality and conflicts between the patient’s ego, superego and id. Dr. Evans embraces Dr. Mitchell’s statement that analytic interpretations/constructions are among "many ways of organizing the analysand’s experience that may be helpful in generating personal meaning and value, and reduce unnecessary suffering."

Dr. Evans takes Dr. Mitchell to task because he believes that while there is much to criticize in classical psychoanalysis, Dr. Mitchell presents classical analysts and classical psychoanalysis in a negative and devaluing light. Dr. Mitchell describes classical analysts as isolationists whom, according to Dr. Evans, "mindlessly and blindly follow scientifically outmoded techniques". Dr. Evans noted that Dr. Mitchell’s need to compete with and dominate classical views, are evident throughout his article. Consequently, he describes Dr. Mitchell’s article as setting up the classical analyst as a "straw man". Importantly, Dr. Evans pointed out that Mitchell’s paper is a well-written political document espousing the greater use and sophistication of relational psychoanalysis."

Dr. Evans’ thought-provoking, evocative and provocative presentation was followed by a discussion that posed many germane questions about relational psychoanalysis. Issues touched upon during the discussion include the following: the lack of a developmental perspective in relational psychoanalysis [L. Bass Wagner, Ph.D.]; the lack of any place for drives [S.R. Roskos, M.D.]; and the lack of relational theory to address the embodied patient [Dr. Robert Aberg]. The discussion also reflected Dr. Monty Evans’ wide range of interests and expertise. He raised a question concerning the reason feminists prefer relational psychoanalysis. Dr. Laurie Bass Wagner, who noted feminists' dislike of classical psychoanalytic thinking because it is "phallo-centric" and because it places the oedipal complex in a central position, adeptly handled that issue. Literature majors and philosophy majors are drawn to psychoanalytic thinking because they are comfortable with the use of "interpretations" [Judith Samson, Ph.D.]. Dr. Monty Evans both facilitated and participated in the discussion. This intellectually challenging and stimulating meeting laid a good foundation for the upcoming Fall Workshop. At that time, we will have the opportunity to meet Dr. Mitchell and explore these issues with him.