Iaap newsletter 28 - The new Israeli Jungian society

Still we can make some empirical observations. Our clientele is evolving: we see more
and more analysands in a face to face setting, since their personality structure isn’t
solid enough to sustain the deprivation of the couch. Theory has evolved as well. One
of us quoted, in last year’s Newsletter: “Society, at least in our country, has changed:
people, associations, enterprises and political leaders want to be covered against any
risk and distrust is prevailing. We get more and more ‘mcdonaldised’: efficiency,
measurability, predictability and control have sway over the management, and …
‘more is better’. People and institutions get more and more one-dimensional, and this
affects scientific thinking as well.”(1) Potential patients expect prompt solutions to
their ailment, and the perspective of a long and painstaking therapy frightens them.
Quick forms of psychotherapy, following simple instructions and yielding quick results
– evidence based! – and medicinal treatments tend to supplant the analytical
approach.
For us, ‘good’ psychoanalysis does not reduce psychic functioning to a single theory or
technique. This is the main reason why we call ourselves Jungian psychoanalysts:
didn’t C.G. Jung resist reductionism in all its forms? Analysts need to have a plurality
of theories at their disposal in order to grasp the complexity of the psyche. This is not
to facilitate the task of our training members. The B.S.J.P. is a very small school,
and many of our members reached the age of 65, which is the age of retirement in
Belgium. They want to reduce their activities. This puts a heavy burden on the
following generation. So we are struggling, well aware of the fact that we have to sail
upstream with regard to the prevailing tendencies in society.
We would like to reiterate our doubts about this Newsletter once more. Last year we
offered subject matter for an ideological debate; we did not receive one single
reaction. We also asked the possible readers to send us an e-mail in order to inform us
of the fact that they did read our contribution to the end. We even playfully offered a
prize for those who would make this little effort. Once again: no single reaction!
This leaves us with the question: is our (very doubtful) narcissistic gratification the
only motive for drawing up this contribution?
Submitted by
Roland Schols Jef Dehing
(1) See Nijsmans, M. (2005), De ‘op-lossing’ van de psychoanalyse? Een pleidooi voor de
meerdimensionale mens. In: Dehing, J., Hysterie en psychoanalyse – Springlevend ondanks
onrustwekkende verdwijning. Garant, Antwerpen/A
IAAP Newsletter 28 || IAAP Society Reports || Belgium BSJP
pg. 31