Psychoanalytic and therapeutic training in Germany: ‘After’ Freud

Abstract

This paper will consider, first, the ambiguity of the title as an introduction to and structuring of the following paper and, following this, the historical Freud's legacy in regard to psychotherapy will be discussed. The invention of the Freudian classic will subsequently be examined including such aspects as apparent paradoxes and inconsistencies, the confusion of psychoanalytic method and one technique of treatment and then the integration into the healing arts and the claim of psychoanalysis to be something other than psychotherapy. The discussion will then focus on the history of psychoanalysis in post-war Germany, considering whether it was a successful one and looking at the integration of psychoanalysis into public health care–both the profits and the losses. In discussing ‘A new paradox as a way out of the dead-end’ in referring to Freud's legacy, what is meant is for psychoanalysis not to be a clinical psychology and a part of medicine, but a general depth psychology which gives the fundamentals of a general psychology and an encompassing method and allows a variety of techniques of treatment. Following this will be an outline of psychoanalytic method, specifically: (1) attitude/identity as insufficient concepts, but pointing to method, that is equally private, personal and professional: a form of life; (2) the abstract meaning of method, the aspect of activity combined with the corpus of theory, together forming a scientific project. In conclusion, I shall consider Freud's legacy: psychoanalytic and psychotherapeutic training which is centred around methodical education.