Eisold K
Int J Psychoanal. 1994 Aug;75 ( Pt 4):785-800.
Psychoanalytic institutes, as well as other psychoanalytic organisations, historically have been prone to schisms. This paper attempts to seek out the causes for this institutional fragility in an examination of the kinds of anxiety for which these institutions provide--and ultimately often fail to provide--containment. Intolerance of diversity at one end of the spectrum and schism at the other are seen as social defences against often unrecognised forms of anxiety associated with the practice of psychoanalysis. One source of anxiety, arising from the isolation of psychoanalytic work, derives from the contradiction between the analyst's need to belong to a particular school and his need to believe he is fully receptive to the clinical material of his patient. A second source of anxiety derives from the contradiction between his membership in his organizations and his affiliations to the various pairs within which the primary work of psychoanalysis takes place. A third source of anxiety derives from his participation in the culture of psychoanalysis, which sees itself as apart from the world of social reality; psychoanalysts, as a result, devalue and fear the very institutions that connect them with that world.
精神分析机构以及其他精神分析组织，从历史上看就容易出现分裂。本文试图通过审视这些机构所提供——而最终往往未能提供——容纳的焦虑类型，找出这种机构脆弱性的原因。一端是对多样性的不容忍，另一端是分裂，被视为针对与精神分析实践相关的往往未被认识到的焦虑形式的社会防御机制。焦虑的一个来源，源于精神分析工作的孤立性，产生于分析师归属特定学派的需求与他相信自己完全接纳患者临床素材的需求之间的矛盾。焦虑的第二个来源，源于他在组织中的成员身份与他在精神分析主要工作所发生的各种二元关系中的归属之间的矛盾。焦虑的第三个来源，源于他参与精神分析文化，这种文化将自身视为与社会现实世界相分离；结果，精神分析师贬低并惧怕那些将他们与那个世界联系起来的机构。
