Member in the Spotlight
Interview with Aleksandar Dimitrijevic of Serbia by Sharon ZivBeiman

Aleksandar Dimitrijevic holds a PhD in clinical psychology. In addition to his teaching at the University of Belgrade, he devotes much of his time to psychoanalytic and psychotherapeutic work.  He has recently been part of  the introduction of a community mental health system into Serbia. His research interests include:  attachment and psychopathology, the mutual influence of arts and psychoanalysis, and conceptions and history of the private self. He has presented and published several papers on these topics in English (some of which were quoted in the American Journal of Psychoanalysis and Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association,  and translated into German, Italian, Slovenian, Spanish, and Turkish).  He also co-edited,  with Elizabeth M. Fox and Murray M. Schwartz, Psychoanalytic Encounters: Interdisciplinary Essays in Applied Analysis. In Serbian he has edited or co-edited five books and published thirty papers.

Sharon Ziv Beiman: Would you describe for us the world of psychotherapy in Serbia today generally and in Belgrade particularly?

Aleksandar Dimitrijevic: Until the mid-1980's, psychotherapy was, more or less explicitly, discouraged in the former Yugoslavia. This may well be the reason for its flourishing in the recent years. In Belgrade, one can now choose among training curricula in individual and group psychoanalysis, cognitive-behavioral therapy, family therapy, etc., all open to psychologists, psychiatrists, clinical social workers, but more and more to graduates in various other disciplines who follow a more demanding curriculum. Although there is still stigma surrounding the idea of seeking help from mental health professionals, psychotherapy included, it is especially young people who realize (or feel it intuitively) how beneficial it can be for their further development. Unfortunately, psychotherapy is confined to private practice and is not subsidized by the state or insurance agencies, so many who need and long for it cannot afford it.

Sharon Ziv Beiman: What is the status of psychoanalysis in Serbia?

Aleksandar Dimitrijevic: Psychoanalysis came to Serbia before World War II and continued in the 1950’s when Professor Vojin Matic was analyzed and trained in France. A group of his pupils managed to found the Belgrade Psychoanalytical Society during the years of war and isolation in the 1990s, and it is now a component society of the IPA. The Society has eight training analysts and almost thirty members. The annual conferences are being held in November, often with distinguished guests from abroad, mostly devoted to basic psychoanalytic phenomena, and to the oeuvre of Freud, Klein and Winnicott. Since we have had a huge number of traumatized persons across the Balkans, the Society members have been devoted to clinical work, research, and lecturing in this field.

Sharon Ziv Beiman: How did the civil war in the former Yugoslavia and the traumatic, tragic and violent events that had took place there influence the world of psychotherapy in general and the psychoanalysis in particular?

Aleksandar Dimitrijevic: In the first phase, we were flooded by thousands of war refugees who needed housing, food and clothing. Basically, what psychologist were able to do were psychosocial interventions and support to adaptation to the new way of living. Only somewhat later were some of these people treated psychiactrically or psychoanalytically.  PTSD symptoms can still be encountered and research shows a larger than expected percentage of the Unresolved attachment pattern in community samples both in Serbia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina. A more recent issue are problems of adults who were once forced to abandon homes, playgrounds and schools.

Sharon Ziv Beiman: What is the place of Relational Psychoanalysis in the professional psychotherapy world in Serbia?

Aleksandar Dimitrijevic: Unfortunately, it is still not very strong, but there may be several avenues for the change to come about. The translation of “Can Love Last,” for which Margaret Black wrote a special introduction, is popular with general readership. Also, a copy of “Freud and Beyond” is circulating among psychology students and many of them have told that me that it has fostered their first steps into the discipline.  Attachment theory and research are exceedingly growing in popularity, though probably more in their developmental than clinical aspects. Nevertheless, those may forge a link to relational psychoanalysis for some colleagues.

I have tried to pass on my enthusiasm and wrote a chapter on relational psychoanalysis for a textbook on psychodynamic psychiatry that is being used at universities and psychoanalytic study groups or societies in the former Yugoslavia and has been translated into Slovenian.

Sharon Ziv Beiman: What is the connection of the local community with IARPP?

Aleksandar Dimitrijevic: I am afraid that these connections are very weak. Suffice it to say that I may be the only IARPP member in Serbia. I was very glad that my friend Marko Pejovic contributed to the latest conference in New York.

Sharon Ziv Beiman: How did you became familiar with the Relational Approach?

Aleksandar Dimitrijevic: I first encountered the work of Stephen Mitchell in July of 2001, during my visit to the University of Illinois in Chicago. By that time, as a candidate in psychoanalytic training, I could not learn anything more contemporary than Kohut’s self-psychology and Daniel Stern’s 1985 book on infant research. “Relational Concepts in Psychoanalysis” and “Freud and Beyond” struck me immediately as the most innovative psychoanalytic literature I had ever read. Then I met Margaret Black in 2004, and what started as a short talk about translating “Freud and Beyond” into Serbian turned into a constant source of support which I appreciate enormously.

Sharon Ziv Beiman: How did the Relational Approach influence your professional work and thought?

Aleksandar Dimitrijevic: Mitchell’s exposition of the relational basis of all human experience has “persuaded” me that even “the innermost mental contents” need to be considered in their relational context, not only developmentally but also clinically. Also, my clinical work has changed enormously under the influence of the intersubjective “branch” of the relational theory.  In my research I am trying to contribute to the uncovering of the underlying relational nature of clinical phenomena.

In my efforts at writing, I always have Mitchell’s clarity and quest for synthesis as ideals.

Take me to eNews Cover | Take me to top of this page