How May We Say that Psychoanalytic Therapy Changes Us?

I freely admit that I've struggled for twenty years to read Lacan with any profit--nearly the same period as I've sought to discern the effects of my own psychoanalysis, which ran for seven years four times a week on the couch. So I am glad, finally, to have been exposed to enough of his writings to find some insightful and useful ideas therein for understanding my own experience as an analysand. 

At the same time, though, I am aware of violating my own practice of always seeking to read primary literature rather than secondary sources, which I have done in this case in the form of Luis Izcovich's recent book The Marks of a Psychoanalysis, trans. E. Faye and S. Schwartz (Karnac, 2017). Izcovich is a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and academic teaching and practicing in Paris, where he is a founding member of the School of Psychoanalysis of the Forums of the Lacanian Field. He has written several other books, most of which have not been translated into English. He quotes Lacan lavishly, especially in the latter half of the book, which was far and away the more valuable part to me. 

Part of the accessibility of this book, for me, was that it does not confine itself only to Lacanian thought. Chapter 10 takes me into deeply familiar territory: England, where Izcovich reviews the work of Winnicott and Guntrip. The latter was especially interested in the question at the heart of this book: how much change can anyone expect to experience after having been analyzed? 

Guntrip was first analyzed by the unjustly neglected Scottish analyst W.R.D. Fairbairn (about whom John Sutherland wrote an interesting if incomplete book, Fairbairn's Journey into the Interior) toward the end of the latter's life. Fairbairn--to the extent he is known at all today--is invariably introduced as a solitary Scottish analyst practicing in isolation in Edinburgh where he kept out of the Controversial Discussions and turmoil in the Klein-Freud feud around the English psychoanalytic scene down in London in the 1940s. Fairbarin, even in relative obscurity, remains, to my mind, important for his early and still valuable work on the schizoid personality type which others--Guntrip most notably--have expanded upon considerably. 

Guntrip felt there was still more work to be done, and so embarked upon a second analysis with Winnicott. He would recount details of both analyses later in writing, showing that he received different gifts from each analyst, but that Winnicott was able to take him farther than Fairbairn, but neither could go as far as Guntrip hoped and wanted. 

If neither analyst was able to effect the comprehensive cure that Guntrip seems to have wanted, he would nonetheless be led to ask a crucial question (which is also Izcovich's question): "How complete a result does psychoanalytic therapy achieve?" 

In one of his last essays, "Analysis Terminable and Interminable" (1937), Freud answered this question in a pessimistic way. Here Freud recognizes that almost all analyses will be incomplete in some way for diverse reasons. In some cases it may be that the analysis was broken off too soon; but in in others an analysis may have been successful, allowing for the patient to have a long period of health and freedom which may then be unexpectedly replaced by a return of old habits, or fresh suffering, requiring new therapeutic attention. Sometimes the analysis did all that it could, and new trauma, which nobody could anticipate, emerges, requiring new therapy. This is also true in a well analyzed analyst's life, leading Freud here to give his famous--and welcome--counsel that "every analyst should periodically--at intervals of five years or so--submit himself to analysis once more, without feeling ashamed of taking this step." 

Izcovich goes beyond Guntrip to ask additional questions: What are the marks of a successful and completed analysis? Can we see them clearly? 

When he finally and fully turns to these questions, Izcovich offers an attractively straightforward answer, at least for me: "without doubt the most salient (marquant) indicator of analytic progress is a very clear change in the intellectual inhibition that preceded the analysis" (121). This, he notes later on, does not have to be immediate and is not always calculable. 

A little later Izcovich writes in what seems to me reminiscent not only of Winnicott, but even more of Adam Phillips (whom he does not cite) when Izcovich notes that "one aspect of psychoanalysis is anti-identity" (135). As Dodi Goldman (inter alia) has mentioned, one of the most attractive aspects of Winnicott was his thwarting of ideology and identity in their essentialist guises, his refusal to be dogmatic about these and other matters. 

That, it seems to me, is an especially rare and important gift today--to be freed of the need to have have questions of "identity" solved in a clear and unambiguous way. At the same time, however, such freedom comes at a cost, which was well captured in Auden's haunting panegyric poem for Freud where he notes that "To be free/is often to be lonely." 

The answer to these questions--about the ends and marks of psychoanalysis--is not automatic, and Izcovich shows that Lacan would want us to remind us that the "crucial question concerns what use is made of the effects of an analysis" (213). It should not be assumed, he continues, that one effect is for the analysand to become an analyst "but rather it is what analysis changes in the way someone lives his life" (215). Such changes, however, do not result in having everything resolved sensibly and in understanding everything. Rather there is "discontinuity" at the end of the analytic journey, which leaves one--here Izcovich and Lacan quote Melanie Klein--with a renewed capacity for "solitude" (which is well treated in the contemporary English psychiatrist Anthony Storr's book Solitude: A Return to the Self.)   

In the end, then, Izcovich says that for Lacan "therapeutic analysis should clear the way, via a freedom in relation to the symptom, and, as a consequence, open up the most direct path in life to the realization of one's desire" (239) insofar as this can be known and accepted (for some people do not want what they desire, or do not want to desire at all!). In some cases, one's desire, after an analysis, has been re-directed: "libidinal redistribution implies the withdrawal of libido from certain partners in life in order that it be invested in new ones" (243). 

Izcovich's book did not offer all the answers I may have expected when I first picked it up, but it was and is a useful reminder (especially when joined to the chorus of others whom I love, particularly Nina Coltart but also Michael Eigen) that analysis begins and ends in mystery.