Posted by Pfinstegg on September 21, 2006, at 21:04:31
In reply to Re: making it back.., posted by alexandra_k on September 20, 2006, at 21:42:45
People have been talking for a long time about whether psychoanalysis is an art or a science, haven't they? Now, the majority of younger analysts have backgrounds in psychology or social work, rather than medicine, which puts it a little further away from science. At the same time, people are starting to do PET and fMRI imaging to see what is happening, both in illness and during therapy, which gives it a real scientific foundation for the first time.
As a consumer, analysis feels like a moment-to-moment creation, informed by the analyst's knowledge, personality and unconscious feelings as they connect with the same things in the patient. It is never the same with any two analyst-patient dyads, nor is it the same within the dyad- it is always changing, and, hopefully, progressing. So, I'd be inclined to call it more of an art.
I don't think people emphasize ego, super-ego and id the way they once did. They do rely heavily on an "observing ego", able to look within and put things in perspective. I think super-ego refers to a severe conscience, which is not emphasized now too much. Rather than "id", people talk about "implicit memory" and "implicit relational knowing". These are thought to be right hemisphere functions roughly equivalent to one's unconscious. Even in analysis, they may never become conscious, but the emotions connected to them play a very important part in the relationship to the analyst, and in the growth which takes place within the person.
A new concept, which we all talk about a lot here, concerns attachment between the patient and analyst. This is considered to be vital in creating a new, healthier kind of "relational knowing" to supercede the original damaging parental relationships, which always remain partly unconscious .Attachment centers lie very deep in the brain-way below conscious knowing. Freud sometimes emphasized this a bit, but sometimes didn't. The person who originally recognized its importance was Sandor Ferenczi.
I am not the best person to ask about what to read, but I think Daisy will know much more, as she is taking a fellowship in just this area- trauma and psychological repair. Alan Schore is very interesting on the neurological basis of attachment and successful psychotherapy; Donnel Stern is another contemporary
author with similiar interests. I think we will see a huge explosion of increasingly sensitive brain imaging which will shed a lot of light on what trauma and attachment failure do to the brain, and how psychotherapy can repair those deficits. We're going to be able to see the repair! So exciting! We just need enough really well-trained therapists so that everyone who needs it can get really good therapy. That will make such a difference in personal happiness and family health.
poster:Pfinstegg
thread:686042
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20060911/msgs/688001.html