Posted by pseudoname on July 16, 2006, at 11:52:45
In reply to Re: on Ellis, posted by Declan on July 15, 2006, at 22:10:15
> I've got a lot of sympathy for psychoanalysis even with its success rate
That's the spirit. ;-)
> until someone like Nabokov or Edmund White comes along saying it is simply vulgar
I'm glad you posted that because that "vulgar" claim has really hooked me. I blurt: (a) How could it possibly be true? and (b) I don't know what would be wrong with that.
I *really* have to read White's book now. ("My Lives")
> I just like to feel superior.
Not so depleted, then. (Joke!)
> Why am I posting this?
I read a thing this morning that friendship in America is not what it used to be, in America or ancient Greece. It used to be closer to the relationship in a well-made marriage: about knowing somebody deeply and being known. I think psychoanalysis and other therapies can be like that.
And while I think broad knowledge (like of trivia) can be vulgar, could deep knowledge ever be vulgar?
I think the catches are that in psychoanalysis the deep-knowing is only in one direction, the relationship is constrained by "boundaries" and treatment rules beyond the tolerance of ordinary human needs in human relationships, and the whole collaboration hangs by a thread (payment, diagnosis, etc) that can be permanently severed at any time for reasons that would seem to destroy the entire pretense of the feelings & "reality" of the relationship. Those constraints could seem "vulgar" (used derisively) in comparison to a "real" friendship that is two-way and flexible and organic and risky, free to grow and be wounded in whatever channels it may.
I guess psychoanalysis *commodifies* the deep-knowing relationship, removing a lot of the best parts of it but making it available to anyone, whether they have a bohemian heart or not. I guess that's vulgar — like packaged tours or foie gras McNuggets.
Maybe a constrained relationship would be better than none, like a packaged tour might be better than never going at all. But that's not an endorsement: psychoanalysis is costly in many ways, not just money, and it is by no means the only option. As scientifically inadequate and unsatisfactory as psychotherapy doggedly remains, there are nevertheless in it other more promising, honest, and generalizable options for being known deeply. They're scarier or harder, maybe; but I guess that's the distinction of sophisticated, higher-class learning, whether it's sailing or books or whatever: openness and less protection but a whole new level of awareness and power.
So yeah, I guess it's true, if I understand this: psychoanalysis is vulgar (in these ways).
poster:pseudoname
thread:667290
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20060703/msgs/667485.html