Belonging To vs. Belonging Together: Change and Stability in Psychoanalysis and Psychoanalytic Institutes
by Orshi Hunyady, PhD, and Pascal Sauvayre, PhD
The authors explore the combination of our powerful internal needs and the external demands of the social organizations to which we belong. They then discuss the idea of "belonging together," a form of belonging that they differentiate from "belonging to," which can lay the foundations for creative and imaginative possibilities. The authors highlight how institutionalized practices, of psychoanalytic institutions in particular, too often stray from this form of belonging that lies at (in) the heart of the psychoanalytic endeavor.
We belong to the William Alanson White Society and are graduates in psychoanalysis from the William Alanson White Institute; we are part of this community. How does that define us? How does that shape our psychoanalytic identity? And how do we, in turn, shape and define the Society and the Institute?
In this essay, we explore not so much the specific contents of these questions, but how belonging is structured. In particular, we illuminate some of the less obvious deeper links that structure belonging and identity, both intrapsychically and socially; we then explore how this applies to training and membership in psychoanalytic institutes. In our exploration, we outline the powerful internal needs that underlie our interdependence as subjects, and which, in combination with the external demands of the social organizations to which we belong, lead to the dominance of belonging’s more oppressive and insidious qualities, specifically obedience and conformity. Hopefully, we do not have to remainhostage to this dynamic; instead, we can draw on these same sources of interdependence and develop ways to belong “together,” a form of belonging that we differentiate from “belonging to.” Without foregrounding the hierarchical aspects of “belonging to,” belonging together can lay the foundations for creative and imaginative possibilities, which in our opinion lie at (in) the heart of the psychoanalytic endeavor, and from which its institutionalized practices all too often stray.
Belonging appears at first to be a dyadic phenomenon between the person that belongs and the “it” (another person, group, system, etc., henceforth called ”entity”) to which one belongs. But the definition points to a boundary between those who belong and those who do not belong (us vs. them); therefore, the presence of a third party, the outsider, is also always evoked. Even when there are only two people actually present, the relevance of a third is implied – if only through absence; in other words, belonging always takes place in a context; it is actually a triangular event.
The triangular nature of belonging is not readily apparent when we look at the main definitions, which, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, include:
– To go along with or accompany as an adjunct;
– A thing connected with, forming a part, appendage, or
accessory of another;
– The fact of appertaining, especially a person’s membership in
and acceptance by a group or society.
These meanings define the nature of the relationship between the one that belongs and the larger entity (to which one belongs) as well as the nature of the boundary between inclusion and exclusion. When we talk about belonging, what we hold in our conscious mind is the bond between us and the entity. The bond is stated in terms of positives: we have/do/are something in relation to the entity and, therefore, we are acknowledged and seen as part of it. But what remains implicit is the surrounding “others” – the context – those who do not have/who are not/who do not do what is required in order to belong. These meanings (definitions) demarcate the line between inside and outside, even though they make explicit reference to the inside only.
Drawing these boundaries provides a roadmap to membership (from outside to the inside). While these boundaries are arbitrary in and of themselves (like the geographical borders of nations), the rationalizations used to draw them often become experienced as possessing inherent value. These borders entail compliance with multiple standards, rules and regulations, first to determine acceptance into the community (such as candidacy), followed by standards to maintain that membership (e.g., graduation). These rules or regulations specify ongoing qualities/attributes/behaviors that rule out others as necessary conditions for belonging, and once one complies with the rules/regulations, one does indeed “belong to.” If, for example, the bloodline is the defining quality of belonging to a family (as graduation is to an institute), then those who were not born into the family (or did not graduate) are excluded. Those born into the family belong, no matter how they experience that belonging or participate in family matters, and regardless of whether they ultimately wish to belong or not. Indeed, the strong bonds that tie family members are often used to describe the analytic lineage to which we belong. Criteria for belonging (or leaving) can be, of course, more or less complex and demanding. As a counterexample, belonging to a gym requires only the ability to pay the entry fee (or ceasing to do so).
By complying with the rules and regulations of the organization, a sense of legitimacy and relevance is provided in return through “social personhood,” one of the psychological benefits of membership. In all of its meanings, however, the one who “belongs to” is part of something larger than oneself. Hierarchy is implicit in this arrangement; there are rules and the rules are set forth from the inside. A power-differential is inevitably present between the members and the entity, and the insiders and outsiders are segregated. With hierarchy and rules comes an idea of order: the one who belongs has an appropriate place in the larger whole, which is denied to those who do not belong. This place is defined in terms of privileges, obligations, possibilities and non-possibilities. The internal psychological benefits (or drawbacks) are part of the complementary intrapsychic dimension of social personhood, discussed in the following section. The person who belongs feels part of something, maybe even feels necessary to the entity, often in some sense purposeful. From the perspective of the entity, those who belong are always constitutive and hence functional. This, of course, automatically creates the possibility of transgression – of rules, of regulations; with having a place comes the possibility and fear of being out-of-place. Transgressions, in turn, create their own functions, purposes, and incentives. Most importantly, rules lead us to experience similarity among those who belong and among those who do not; and this sense of similarity is an unfortunately fertile ground for splitting and “othering” of the excluded. Further, because the very purpose of the boundary-defining rules and regulations is to create order, we tend to use them to avoid further inquiry into the genesis, usefulness, clarity, and meaning of the distinction they carry.
By making this explicit, we see how this plays out in psychoanalytic institutes where, just as with other organizations, a set of rules defines roles and status. On the face of it, these rules promote a fair meritocracy, they convey a consensually validated objective standard, and through compliance provide the means for rising through the ranks. They aspire to define boundaries between those who belong and those who do not, and seem to imply that promotion is fairly accessible to all on the basis of objective standards. While psychoanalytic institutes – again, just like any organization – are products of their times, the political pressures of the era, current levels and nature of available knowledge, and theorizing in the field, a critical exploration of the contextual circumstances out of which the rules and regulations emerged is generally discouraged. Their examination suggests their inherent instability and arbitrariness, which undermines the sense of order and structure (and sense of safety) that the rules provide and represent.
Intrapsychic Implications of the Triangular Nature of
Belonging: The Bonds That Tie
Belonging – in its dominant usage – provides order. Parts fit together, and parts fit in(to). The subjective conscious experience of belonging is often one of harmony. “Ideally,” the criteria one meets and the rules and expectations with which one complies are ego-syntonic, so to speak. Identity is dependent on membership, in fact it emerges from it. The internal order fits with the external and a fantasy about belonging may become one of being fully seen (as a “whole person”) and being accepted by/within the entity. In spite of this fantasy, in reality what probably happens instead is that one is seen and is accepted in those ways that fit (or are made to fit) with the needs of the larger entity/order.
For a child growing up in a family, this enforced adaptation takes place so early and so pervasively that it is taken for granted. Analogous to the acquisition of language, we tend to appreciate the child’s progress upon forming words and conveying meaning, and we fail to even notice those sounds (and linguistic possibilities) that drop out imperceptibly of the child’s repertoire. The personality, the intrapsychic and interpersonal functioning all are shaped and influenced by the family system’s pre-existing order that is passed down by the older generations. In all groups, including those to which we “choose” to belong, those aspects of the self and functioning that fit with what the entity needs in order to stay stable will be cultivated and privileged, and those aspects that do not fit will be ignored, repressed, or judged and punished, because these could destabilize and generate change. Each one of us, of course, has a relationship to this very process of being selectively acknowledged and reinforced. Arguably, we psychoanalysts (with our many years of additional “training”) have self-selected ourselves to make belonging (and its accompanying compliance) a more central, a more elaborate, and more psychically “deeper” (internalized) process than most.
We not only exclude those who do not belong from the group in the external world, we live with excluded parts within us; belonging generates a process within the psyche so that certain transgressive, subversive, discordant, inconsistent aspects are unacknowledged, excluded, vilified, othered, etc. In other words, compliance with what one’s place requires, similarity that is drawn and experienced among people in the same position within an organization, easily can lead to the splitting off of certain aspects of the self; from there it is a short step to attribute those aspects to the excluded. All this – it seems to us – is an inevitable byproduct of order(ing) and consciousness; the developmental and emotional need for acknowledgment and validation, alongside the need for order, are powerful oppressive forces. This process occurs imperceptibly. Just as certain sounds drop out of the infant’s repertoire, so there are selective parts of ourselves and attitudes (say, a “beginner’s enthusiasm”) that simply recede to privilege other attitudes or states (for instance, “professional remove”). Like the sounds of infancy that do not fit one’s “mother tongue” can only be recovered with great difficulty, if at all, certain parts of ourselves (let’s say “subversive or creative enthusiasm”) often necessitate a break (whether temporary or permanent) from the “mother” institute (a very common phenomenon after graduation). Just like it may become impossible to pronounce certain sounds, or to speak a foreign language without an accent, it also may become impossible to think, let alone act, outside of one’s analytic lineage, at least not without having to experience significant amounts of conflict.
This dynamic is less likely to occur, one would think, where the belonging is simpler and entails a narrow and specific goal or function, e.g., going to the gym. In contrast, when the entity fulfills (or claims ) a central role in an aspect of one’s life, the dynamic may be more pervasive and may create/activate more defenses. When there is a need to belong in order to gain access to important resources or develop an identity, the pressure to conform (externally) and to split (internally) is much more intense.
Early in life the infant is normally defined by the immediate family, but later, as she encounters more entities, the possibilities for divergent growth multiply. Her participation in other systems and family structures allow for more selection, eventually introducing choice in belonging. These choices mean that belonging can function both creatively and defensively. The developing person can choose to belong to one entity in order to ward off the awareness of particular ego-dystonic aspects of the self, or as a defensive solution for an internal conflict, where one side of the conflict is chosen and the other repressed. For instance, this is the case when choosing an institute (or supervisor) simply confirms a particular perspective or way of being. Other times, entities may be chosen to expand an experience and compensate for aspects of the self that were excluded, inhibited, or judged in the original family structure. Belonging to conflicting external groups may express internal conflicts in such a way that the various “belongings” can complement one another.
The more an entity makes a claim to provide a significant part of the person’s identity (this can be seen in graduation speeches when an institute director might thank candidates’ families and friends for “giving their loved ones to us” for the duration of the training), and the more the individual hopes that a major part of their personhood will be obtained and provided to them through the entity (this is also reflected in graduation speeches, this time from the candidates, which mention their “sacrifice” and devotion to their training, not to mention their personal “transformation”), the more the conflicts of belonging are pushed away internally. The extent of the demands of the institute and of the needs of the candidate may reflect each other. Therefore, if belonging to a psychoanalytic institute confers our identity as a “psychoanalyst,” then the feeling of a coherent identity is conferred upon us by the institute, and any conflicts that threaten this coherence must be internally contained – of course at the cost of valuable transgressions. In the more extreme cases, belonging can become so syntonic, so unambivalent, that the conflicts disappear from awareness, and we no longer even recognize ourselves as conflicted.
These processes can easily be identified when it comes to psychoanalytic institutes that play a formative role in candidates’ professional and theoretical development because they “offer” to “train” candidates in analysts – to confer on the graduating candidate the identity of analyst. However, we rarely acknowledge the extent to which this is achieved through ongoing and pervasive restrictions of the candidates’ knowledge, openness, and creativity. Ironically, the origins of many institutes occurred through a burst of creative energy powered by a process we refer to (in the next section) as “belonging together,” a process that broke through (or apart) the fossilized and crystallized remnants of a pre-existing “mother” institute, which the founders of the new institute “belonged to.” In turn, the new institute, having separated from its context in an effort to differentiate and legitimize a new identity, eventually fossilizes and inhibits itself from further growth and expansion. Is that inevitable?
In sum: emotionally we need acceptance, while cognitively we need conscious coherence (order in the world and in our minds) to feel sane and to be able to function. We need to fit in, in some sense, otherwise chaos would ensue and the anxiety would probably be overwhelming. Thus, we selectively develop, first in our families, the context for the initial blueprint of our emotional and intellectual understanding of the world and ourselves in it, and this blueprint consists of often implicit, unsaid, but enacted definitions and restrictions. As we grow, we absorb not only how we personally (as children, siblings, cousins, etc.) belong to the larger entity of an extensive, multigenerational family, but we also absorb and are imprinted by the complementary roles within this same entity. Over time, we take on other roles as we relate to how each role is defined in the family, we identify with “how it is done,” and we repress and dissociate dissenting wishes and experiences as they exert pressures to be acknowledged coming from the unconscious. A similar process takes place, we think, in the professional development of candidates in terms of theoretical approaches and actual clinical work. The experience of belonging always splits off as much as it expresses. This is the cost of any basically stable structure, costs that any entity (including ourselves as its members) would prefer to overlook or minimize. It represents order and focuses our attention on fitting in or not to a pre-existing and defined order. An inherent part of any kind of complex learning, this process is of particular relevance to psychoanalytic training and institutes if we consider the core of psychoanalysis (both as an intellectual and a clinical discipline) as the removal of psychic limitations and rigidified order. Specifically, an inherent contradiction exists between the demands of belonging to an institute (fitting into an order) and the aims of psychoanalysis (removing the limitations of an ordered status quo).
Among the meanings of belonging, one that is less prominent (the OED puts it in sixth and last position), is that of “belonging together(ness).” In this definition, a hierarchical relationship is not implied, unlike the previous definitions of belonging (to). It is interesting to note an intriguing change in the usage of “belongings,” from old English where it designated “relatives” (the parts are not organized vertically,) to its current meaning of “things that I own” (as a hierarchical extension of myself).
The etymology of “belong” includes the words be + long, with the archaic meaning of long (as a verb) being “to be suitable or meet,” which we find in the phrase “belong together.” Belonging here refers to a quality of being with another, which is not governed by pre-established rules. “Being with” does not imply a hierarchical relationship between the one that belongs and who/what one belongs to. The boundaries develop over time (and “be long”-term), through the continued participation/togetherness with one another. This meaning may be the basis for some of our fantasies about belonging, insofar as we think of it as the antidote to aloneness-loneliness, isolation, separation, and in some sense, death. In being together, being is shared; being is together (and by extension, not being, as well). There is no logically implied power differential; if anything, in togetherness the sharing of it is mutual, without hierarchy and, therefore, without the possibility of a transgression of a prescribed order (as described above). If there is any transgression, it is through lack of participation – as in violating the only tenet of togetherness.
If order based on rule/regulation/standard is not the central principle, then disorder does not exist the same way, either. Belonging together(ness) seems to allow for a fuller participation of the person who belongs, where (maybe this is idealistic?) multiple sides of the conflicts can be experienced, albeit not necessarily simultaneously, as long as they are experienced with the other. It may be a good way to capture presence for both members of the psychoanalytic dyad – as a receptivity to the emergent and ever-changing flow of unconscious experience, which is only possible to achieve if one does not superimpose order onto what might be brought up by the process (such as overly rigid elements of the frame). The more the two people in the room are able to be with one another (i.e., partake in belonging together), with all their histories, feelings, knowledge, social roles, their sanity and insanity, the less distinction and boundary will be drawn to hold onto some kind of pre-set order, and the more potential openness exists in the situation.
We want to emphasize that our understanding of belonging together does not preclude order and ordering. The belonging together of relatives (of “belongings”) is what allows the family entity to exist and be continuously redefined. The order and the boundaries, however, change over time between the participants. Through continued belonging together, then, stability exists in this entity through the emphatic togetherness and participation and not through any of its specific components. When two people belong together, their progression, their stagnation, the level and nature of their engagement in their conflicts, while never leading to a state of sameness and perfect alignment, permit a process where they are in sync and mutually affected by each other to emerge.
“Belonging to” essentially captures the dynamics of conditional acceptance. If one complies with the rules and regulations (conditions) set forth, one is accepted into the ranks. In “belonging together,” as we understand it, there is no condition placed on the members, except for continued participation. This difference has profound implications for the nature of change that can occur among participants: whereas “belonging to” orders and guides change with specific standards required as a condition for belonging, “belonging together” facilitates change precisely by not relying on regulations but on participation. Change has a prescribed course and nature (even tempo) in the first case, and it takes a more spontaneous, unpredictable, divergent, and fluctuating form in the second case.
In our field, the admixture of these distinct dynamics might look very different when it comes to belonging to an institute versus belonging to(gether in) a peer study group. In the latter, the lack of a dominant pre-existing structure tasks the group with the creation of its own (and, therefore, the structure belongs to the group), which is accomplished through involved, ongoing interaction. The sharing in the making of a structure then promotes a meaningful bond between participants. In the former, belonging to and belonging together more easily become at odds with one another, given that the structure is a pre-existing, independent force that can come to “own” (both literally and metaphorically) the participants who now belong to it, thus eclipsing the belonging together of the participants who created the structure in the first place. In order to belong together again, the participants must deconstruct (at least through questioning) the order they belong to (or else that order has come to own them).
We think of construction and deconstruction as cyclical phases that follow one another in the life of an entity, ideally fluctuating between the dynamics of belonging to and belonging together, between stability and destabilization. Belonging together becomes threatening and destabilizing when it puts the dominant order (and the need for stability) into question, when it investigates how order has gained primacy over togetherness (and tolerance for anxiety that change brings). Deconstructive activities are often vilified when the structure is too rigid, and in the name of preserving some alleged value expressed by the structure/institution, these activities become excluded, defended against, judged, and so forth. If members do not go along with this kind of splitting, they have very limited room left to actually participate at all, because dissent is not accepted. In turn, members’ remaining desires to participate and feel validated are often used as a motive to enforce compliance or submission to the institution. These dynamics heighten fears of isolation and ostracism, and disengagement can be the safest reaction. Study groups then can drift away (and sometimes against) the institution that the members of the group belong to as a solution to the conflict between wanting to grow and remain engaged in the field together with others without submitting to a particular organizational structure and its ideology of growth and participation.
In sum, therefore, the central proposition of this paper is that “belonging together(ness)” became the repressed and the unconscious that lie below the conscious, orderly and static meaning of the word “belonging,” as it is more commonly used. As all unconscious meanings, it lingers and interacts with what we consciously understand, and certainly colors our subjective experiences of “belonging to.” Belonging together represents a vantage point from which our status quo, with its rules, regulations, axiomatic meanings and assumptions, may be questioned and examined, potentially leading to the deconstruction of our current order – with, however, an inherent implication of creating space for a new order that will inevitably emerge. In this process, both parties (members and entity) are implicated and mutually affected and changed. We further suggest that this quality of belonging together underlies the ability to grow, adapt, and survive, maybe ultimately even thrive.
Manifestations at Psychoanalytic Institutes
At first blush, it may appear that things that belong together do so because of their sameness (perhaps dictated by the uniformity imposed by the entity to which they belong), but the more interesting, and we believe important, aspect of their belonging together is their difference, which underlies their complementarity. Just as it is a crucial feature in two articles of clothing, “going well together” is their difference, even if small, upon which they play off each other so as to reinforce the uniqueness of the parts to the whole. Therefore, a central function of each person belonging together is to pick up on, live, and reflect back what the other person has excluded (i.e., consciously and unconsciously). This process goes both ways and ultimately may result in an experience where the two parties involved form one whole, and they flexibly hold different parts of the “entity.” This is important. The acknowledgment of mutuality in having both our individual “orders” as well as our split-off/excluded aspects, which then hopefully would get integrated over time, is essential to the process. This presupposes a fundamental equality (but not sameness) between the two parties involved, although it does not necessarily define the participants’ roles in a symmetrical way. But we see this mutuality and equality as inherent and essential to the psychoanalytic process, a process that is in conflict with the static nature and defined structure of psychoanalytic institutes as entities, where “belonging to” is based on compliance with regulations and predetermined criteria.
When we state that belonging together is the unconscious and repressed meaning of “belonging to,” we mean that it is the context, the excluded third to our order represented by belonging to a psychoanalytic institute. There is a tension here that we think is worth contemplating: institutes are organizations that have a self-stabilizing need for clear definition of what they do, what they consist of, what psychoanalysis is, how it can be measured and quantified (analogous to the frame in a treatment); all the while, institutes are supposed to stand for, cultivate, and represent tolerance for ambiguity, sensitivity to idiosyncrasy, openness to and understanding of the context, and especially openness to change (analogous to the process of treatment).
Frequently, the frame and institutes are thought of as necessary structures that allow for the psychoanalytic process to unfold. The various positions one could occupy within the structure of an institute, for example, are thought of as promoting the individual’s own process of change in terms of professional activity and identity. Advancing, that is, meeting a series of requirements in order to belong to the institute, is one way professional development may be conceived of and described, if one believes that the meeting of increasing requirements is a reflection of the maturation of an analyst. In this picture, the structure of the institute is frequently conflated with the structure for the growth experience itself; it creates the necessary benchmarks (often thought of as objective measures) to establish the progress one makes (or fails to make).
However, we have to bear in mind that belonging to an institute (just as any other institution) involves submitting to a process that selectively reinforces splitting and exclusion (both externally and internally) and, in its most dangerous form, may come to equate growth with compliance and entity-serving self-presentation. A recent example comes to mind here: in a training committee that had convened to discuss the candidates, the concluding comment on one particular candidate was that it was “such a relief and encouraging sign of her progress” that the previous complaints about this candidate being challenging and oppositional had disappeared, now being replaced by evaluations that emphasized her “positive attitude.” Not one of the dozen or more senior analysts present questioned whether this was merely a sign of compliance, to the detriment of the candidate’s acknowledged creativity. By providing (imposing) an essentially uniform developmental path to follow, the process of becoming an analyst and member of an institute may be insensitive to (and even stifle) each participant’s differences and individuality, which is precisely the creative source found in “belonging together.” (The society of friends meeting in Freud’s living room on Wednesday evenings, as a thrilling study group in the early days of psychoanalysis, may come to mind here, before the process of institutionalization took over and it became the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society in 1909 – as these groups capture two very different types of belonging). The dynamics of belonging together are more likely (but not automatically) to be found in our study groups that locate somewhere “outside” of the institutional frame.
The power of institutionalization, by prescribing rules and regulations of practice, may end up undermining the spirit of the practices the institution allegedly promotes. For instance, technical “standards,” ranging from session frequency, to duration of sessions, to duration of treatment, and so forth, eventually come to quash the mutuality (belonging together) of the analytic process. Caught between the demands of the institution and the ever-changing movement of the dyad, the analyst must choose between pathologizing any or all modifications to stay “in line,” or risk throwing away the security and conferred legitimacy of “belonging to” in favor of the uncertainty of belonging together of the dyad. All too often, we choose the former. This is not simply because under these circumstances we need to protect our own conscious views and beliefs, but because we may be so distant from our own conflicts that we are not able to recognize them, let alone validate them in our work with our patients. More broadly, if success, progress and growth are defined in concrete and inflexible ways in and for the analyst, then she will be less open to alternative, creative questions and solutions.
Finally, as with all structures and definitions, institutes may not recognize and/or appreciate certain forms of creativity that fall outside of the bounds of their immediate interest. This may happen on the level of the institution itself, but also on the level of the individuals who belong to the institute, and psychologically adapt and mirror the needs of the entity. While this is inherent to all institutions, for us, though, because of the content around which our institutes were created (psychoanalysis), it is more important to reflect on this.
To keep these institutional dangers in check, we may want to consider the following: the specifics of the frame and of institutional regulations have a history of changing, and this change reflects an important process in itself. Any given hierarchy, structure, and order can be thought of as a snapshot, a particular constellation observed at a particular point in time, which will inevitably pass. We can certainly see this in our organizational structures, and we propose that they should be deconstructed and contextualized, be it through their specific history, sociocultural surrounds, or national/international context, etc. Other fields, such as medicine, law, business, developmental sciences, or the arts also may serve as such contexts. The context may be how our relationship to structure, rigid roles, and hierarchy has changed historically across the board. The context also may be our patients’ understanding of the arbitrary nature of length of sessions or fees, as mentioned before.
The contextualization of our current practices and regulations becomes possible only if we do not set agreement and compliance with the status quo as a condition for participation and belonging; instead, we rely on the members’ belonging together through the interaction of their own minds and psyches, which by definition is wider and more expansive than the uniformity of the entity they belong to, and encourage contributions that are outside of the current metaphorical box. We then of course have to allow for the anxiety that emerges in face of the idea that there are no absolutes in terms of meaning and consequent structure, especially in our field; that all our assumptions, convictions and current rules, regulations, and orders are subject to change over time as our entity creates its own split-off aspects, divergent or subversive elements in its interaction with its context, which elements will inevitably push for recognition. While such a thing as the fixed order of the frame or of the institute may be an important and integral part of psychoanalysis (at least institutionalized psychoanalysis), we believe that the ever-changing creative dynamism will always reside in the belonging together of its members; that is where the center of gravity of its identity is to be located, and that is where the ultimate key to our survival is to be found, although perhaps not in the institutionalized forms we currently recognize and belong to.
Address correspondence to:
Orshi Hunyady, PhD
286 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7C
New York, NY 10001
Pascal Sauvayre, PhD
49 West 72nd Street
New York, NY 10023
Orshi Hunyady, PhD, is a graduate of the William Alanson White Institute in Division I, and is currently teaching in the Institute's Internship Program. She has published papers on jealousy, infidelity, and psychoanalysis in its social and historical context. Dr. Hunyady has a private practice in New York City.
Pascal Sauvayre, PhD, is on the faculty at the William Alanson White Institute where he is also a supervising analyst. He is an executive editor of Contemporary Psychoanalysis, and has published on agency, philosophy and psychoanalysis, and culture and psychoanalysis. Dr. Sauvayre has a private practice in New York City.