Lay Versus Medical Analysis: A Conflict Centered on the Disciplinary and Professional Identity of Psychoanalysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

In 1985, a group of four psychologists, on the behalf of a declared class of several thousand psychologists, filed a class action lawsuit against the APsaA with the charge of promoting a conspiracy to disallow non-physicians from gaining access to psychoanalytic training. These psychologists claimed that the APsaA was in direct violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Eventually, the lawsuit was settled in 1988 in the favor of the psychologists. 1 This lawsuit was the resolution of a conflict that had plagued psychoanalysis for about sixty-five years. Starting in the 1920's, psychoanalysis was split by disagreements between lay and medical analysts. The conflict centered around whether psychoanalysts needed to have a medical degree to practice psychoanalysis, or if psychoanalysis was its own discipline and should not reside under medical regulation. In this paper, I explore and analyze the different arguments that were made in the conflict between lay and medical analysis. Using both primary and secondary source material on this topic, I show how this psychoanalytic conflict is an expression of two conflicting ideas for the disciplinary identity of psychoanalysis.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.