The Dream After A Century: Symposium 2000 on Dreams, edited by Melvin

Lansky. Madison, CN: International Universities Press, 2008; 292pp., $39.95.

Beth I. Kalish, PhD, FIPA
What has happened to dream analysis in contemporary clinical work? What has changed
and what has remained? Is it still considered ` the royal road to understanding the
unconscious mind? Given the plurality of views in psychoanalysis today, are their major
differences to the status of dreams among analysts? This book, beautifully elaborated
and edited by Melvin Lansky, attempts to analyze some of these provocative issues. The
book is a compilation of papers and discussions stemming from a historic event.
Symposium 2000 was held in celebration of the hundredth anniversary of the publication
of The Interpretation of Dreams. The book The Dream after a Century takes a wide
range of stands towards the current status of the dream in psychoanalysis. Each of the
clinical papers demonstrates the authors use of and technical thinking about dream
material in the context of his/her own clinical practice experience. The choices in the
handling of the dream made by each clinician, reveal, implicitly or explicitly, the position
that clinician takes toward theory and its relation to clinical work. The format [of the
book] allows the reader access to what distinguished practitioners of different
psychoanalytic persuasions actually do, and also allows for interchange between the
authors themselves and the audience at the Symposium about the implications of their
presentations. (Lansky, 2008).
In his Introduction, Lansky presents a comprehensive review for the reader, of what he
calls a selective overview of the legacy of the Interpretation of Dreams. I found this
section a refreshing and clarifying re-orientation to Freuds original writing and thinking.
It could serve any analytic candidate well, as an important way to begin the task of
tackling primary source material found, for example, in the Standard Edition. Following
his excellent Freudian review, Lansky launches into current controversial topics in what
he calls, Pluralism and the Forking of the Royal Road. In this section he draws from
Solms (1995) and Rangells (2004) concerns that we have a crisis in psychoanalysis
posed by a multiplicity of theories that must be resolved. Lansky states his agreement
with Rangell (1997) regarding the convincing argument for a total composite theory
which . synthesizes disparate contributions into a unitary model. (p.19). Lansky
beautifully elaborates the thesis that pluralism and the excitement it engenders with socalled new discoveries in psychoanalysis can pose an enormous risk of further
fragmentation in the profession. A kind of new radicalism exists, a pars pro toto thinking,
in which there is an overemphasis of one aspect of psychoanalysis over another. Such
thinking leads to the loss of a balanced view so basic to psychoanalysis.
The introductory section concludes with the important question of, What is the status of
the psychoanalytic study of the dream today? Lansky uses this provocative question to
introduce the reader to the detailed papers to follow. The book format and specific
content is divided into three topical sections, each with a different chairperson followed
by several sub-chapters representing papers by individual presenters. and followed by
questions from the audience and discussion For example, Part I: Psychoanalytic Theories
of Dreams and Dreaming, was chaired by Morton Reiser. There were two individual

papers: 1)Proposals for the Next Century of Psychoanalytic Dream Studies by Mark J.
Blechner; 2) Dreaming, Endogenous Stimulation and Development by Steven Ellman.
Ellmans paper is the only one in the text, which focused in depth, on the neuroscience of
dreaming. His interest in REM states began as early as the 1970s and he continued his
laboratory research for some 20 years. He was attempting to find ways to operationalize
Freuds concepts of dreaming and drive theory, calling his work
endogenous (internal) generated stimulation. (p.48) While the early experiments were
with animal subjects, he continues his formulations drawing largely from clinical
examples from his patients. I found his paper fascinating and particularly important, in
that once again we are reminded of the value of retaining (as opposed to discarding) drive
theory within a unitary conceptual model of psychoanalysis.
During the discussion of Part I, Mark Solms joined in to support Blechners ideas that
Freud used dream phenomena as evidence for the function and structure of the mind. He
used this to underscore the basic importance of what distinguishes psychoanalysis from
the numerous forms of psychotherapy that have developed in this century. Freuds was
the first serious attempt to make a scientific theory of What makes us tick, of what
makes us who we are. But like any other scientific method, this method has both
strengths and limitations. It is our job as analysts to grasp the problem, identify
weaknesses in our method and find solutions that do not fragment theory, as we know it.
Solms was strong on this point saying You cant have a whole lot of different theories
about the same thing and each of them correct. The psychoanalytic method, for all its
strengths, doesnt seem to enable analysts to decide between these different theoretical
points of viewI think that the way we all privately solve it is that we know that our
theory is right and the others are all completely wrong. (p.73).
Part II: Dreams in Clinical Work was chaired by Ellen Rees (Panel I); Ernest Kafka
(Panel II) and Ruth Imber (Panel III).
This section is a series of clinical papers with focus on case material to illustrate how
each analyst works with dream material in his/her practice. The authors come from
diverse theoretical views with a commonality of interest as well as commitment to dream
work. The choices made by each clinician reveal his/her position toward a particular
theoretical perspective. In this brief review it is not possible to discuss each paper,
however I found this section most interesting as representing the heart of the book. The
reader can easily tie each clinicians theory to his unique way of working with dream
material vis--vis the case illustrations. Dream process notes always have a profound way
of speaking to analyst(s)!
In the group discussion that followed Clinical Panel I, the Chair, Ellen Rees, stressed
several central questions that could be useful to all clinicians in their practices. Questions
such as, 1) How do we understand and use manifest content of the dream? 2) What is the
role of defensive process in the formation of dreams? 3) What is the relationship of the
dream to unconscious fantasy and to memory? 4) How do we understand and use
references to the analyst in the dream? 5) Are dreams always about transference? 6) How
do we come to understand the meaning of a dream within a session? 7) What is the role
of the past in dream formation-the genetic past and- the past during analysis? 8) Can the

dream promote psychological organization? Then she asked the panel to comment on the
productions of the other panelists. How they understood and used the dreams they
presented. A lively discussion arose with comments from the audience, revealing
similarities and differences between them. Unfortunately, the panel never directly
addressed the questions the Chair asked originally to be their central focus. It occurred
to me as I read; such questions could easily be the basis of another book, yet to be
written.
Chapters 6-11 contain a rich variety of papers read and discussed by Elsa First, Robert D.
Gillman, Paul Lipmann, Philip M.Bromberg, Marianne Goldberger and Mervyn Peskin
followed by the comments they received from their audiences.
Part III: Commentary and Rejoinder was chaired by Owen Renik with Commentary
by Sydney Pulver and Howard Shevrin.
Pulver began his commentary, saying that most of the papers in this book represent a
variety of viewpoints, including the relationists the researchers, Mahlerians, Kleinians,
evolutionary theorists, Anna Freudians, classical analysts and conflict theorists. (p. 247).
Yet, he found they all work with dreams [clinically] in much the same way. The basic
approach utilized by the panelists included: 1) Getting associations, 2) Emphasizing the
importance of the dream experience, 3) Exploring the transference and 4) Exploring
defenses. Of course, it is clear that three out of the four points refer to all aspects of
analytic work, not just limited to working with dream material. To that degree, dream
work needs to take its rightful place in the overall context of the total analytic
experience. Dreams are a part rather than the whole of the analysis in any clinical
endeavor. While most of the presenters material reflects work stemming from conflict
theory, that of James Fosshages theory illustrated a deficit model or that of
developmental arrest. His and Philip Brombergs approach were farther from that of
Freudian methodology than were the other presenters different from each other.
The final chapter of the book, appropriately titled Rejoinder, consists of a long
dialogue with all the commentators, presenters and the audience responders. How this
detailed a discussion was ever clarified and organized for publication, speaks to the subtle
skills of the books editor. The beauty of this section is that it gives the reader the
moment to moment opportunity of `being there. We hear from each speaker by name
and exactly what they are responding to from the previous speaker. Clearly
improvisational. While in some respects the dialogue between the speakers tends to
wander far from dreams as a topic and goes more toward where people differ from each
other, I found it meaningful as a way to summarize a highly charged interchange among
distinguished presenters. Owen Renik, who served as chair for this part of the program,
ended by commenting on the astonishing amount of energy generated by the speakers and
the audience. He acknowledged the work of Arnold Richards in creating this event and
suggested that Richards energetic style was contagious throughout the Symposium.
In concluding this review, I would like to add the value of the book itself as a very
important contribution to the utilization of dream work in the Twenty First Century. This

book brings the old and new together for consideration that one rarely has the opportunity
to read in our current literature.
References
Ellman, S. (1992) Psychoanalytic theory, dream formation and REM sleep. In Interface
of psychoanalysis and psychology, ed. J. Barron, M. Eagle & D. Wolitzky,
Washington, D.C. American Psychological Assoc. pp 357-374.
Rangell, L. (1997). At centurys end: A unitary theory of psychoanalysis. Journal of
Clinical Psychoanalysis. 6: 465-484.
Rangell, L. (2004) My life in theory. New York: Other Press.
Solms, M. (1995) New findings on the neurological organization of dreaming.
Implications for psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 64:43-67.
Beth I. Kalish
bkalishweiss@mindspring.com