The bitter rows over antisemitism sweeping through the world of psychoanalysis have sparked a wider debate about the profession's future, raising fundamental questions about its role in society and the values it upholds.
A deeply divisive dispute emerged at George Washington University in October when Professor Lara Sheehi, a US-based psychoanalytic therapist and academic, found herself at the centre of accusations of antisemitism by Jewish students who attended a virtual class. Sheehi had previously invited a Palestinian law professor to an extracurricular event, which some interpreted as evidence of her own biases.
The fallout has been far-reaching and intense, with both sides accusing each other of bigotry, stifling free expression, condoning violence, and betraying the core tenets of their profession. The crisis has led to legal petitions, ethics complaints, death threats, and the resignation of a prominent US psychoanalytic association's president, who described his departure as a "human sacrifice." Two distinct factions have emerged from the dispute, each claiming to represent the moral conscience of psychoanalysis.
At its core, this internal conflict is about whether psychoanalysts should maintain a neutral stance, focusing solely on individual healing and treatment, or if they have a responsibility to act as activists, diagnosing societal pathologies and fighting injustice. This raises questions about the tension between a clinician's nuanced empathetic role and their public political pronouncements – particularly on social media.
The significance of this debate is heightened by the historical context of psychoanalysis, which was popularised in the US by Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi-era Europe. Its practitioners have traditionally been characterised as older, white, and Jewish, often holding liberal views on issues except those related to Israel. Professor Sheehi's presence – 38, Arab, queer, and with a focus on race, decolonial struggles, and power dynamics – represents a significant demographic shift within the profession.
Many insiders express deep concern that psychoanalysis appears to be failing to apply its own principles of healing and self-reflection to its current crisis. Practitioners describe a "collective regression," where respected mental health professionals are exhibiting behaviour far removed from the ideals of their work, prompting worries about the profession's future.
The implications for British readers are clear: the psychoanalytic community is grappling with fundamental questions about its role and values, raising important considerations for mental health practitioners here. As the debate continues to unfold, it will be crucial to examine whether psychoanalysis can adapt to changing demographics and societal expectations while remaining true to its core principles.