r/psychoanalysis

If someone experiences psychosis / total disintegration of self (catatonia, very severe aggression and paranoia, age regression, depersonalization and derealization, hallucinations) yet only in the context of attachment relationships - particularly when it comes to abandonment / engulfment, mortality (paired with a psychotic denial of loss of loved one), and loss of external objects, *what is really happening*?

I’ve read that the person may beable to accept death if they are merging with someone else / recreating a symbiosis. Is a part of the psyche stuck in symbiosis due to trauma? How does this get resolved?

I’ve been in analysis for just over a year- it’s been life changing in a lot of ways but I still feel stuck in many areas of my life. is there research on when you start to see meaningful progress?

I wonder how this can be conceptualized from a psychoanalytic perspective? Is it, for example, from a Kleinian perspective, merely a manic reparation, or could there be creative, constructive potential in it—such as moving toward health and life, becoming a separate person, or perhaps gaining a certain strength that the caregiver failed to provide by identifying with a group of people who have severed ties with their families? Something like symbolically killing one’s father so that one can become a father oneself?

However, it seems that associations with revenge or triumph over the object immediately arise, which makes this unconstructive/immature. Here I also have a problem with Melanie Klein, because she believes that guilt and the desire for reparation are prerequisites for the depressive position, but what if, say, the object is “objectively” bad, as in abusive relationships, for example—should the subject then also strive for reconciliation with such an object, or is it more that the object doesn’t specifically mean a parent but rather one’s attitude toward the world and people, and, for example, a person who has experienced violence from their parents might make reparation in a different way, such as through work, friendship, or love in a relationship? Could someone shed some light on these nuances?

I get the impression that in this everyday discourse, there is a perception that a therapist is someone who simply listens objectively to the bad/tragic events that have befallen someone, and in one way or another tries to heal that person; it is spoken of as a battle, where external factors are something that has disrupted the normal psychological process.

In practice, of course, it is more complicated; in fact, it seems that psychotherapists rarely advocate cutting oneself off from one’s family—do you share this view, and if so, why is that? Is it because such a severance might be superficial and fail to bring about real change, or because it would mostly result in the person remaining in a paranoid state?

If so, does psychoanalysis not ignore external, “real” factors affecting the subject too much? Is there not a certain fantasy of omnipotence in this—that there might exist a subject independent of the environment who, during analysis, observes their own fantasies and attitudes, and there is no Other in this, no “externality,” it is “only in their head,” which gives a sense of control because it is easier to control something inside us than in our surroundings; if I cannot change something in my surroundings, I can always go to a psychoanalyst, discover that what was causing suffering was actually my neurosis, and then that external factor over which I had no control loses its power.

Can these categories be applied to trends observed in society, or are these too sensitive issues that should only be addressed in a clinical setting?

I’m a candidate in training at a NY institute, and I'm required to work with a training analyst who graduated from the same program. I started analysis with her as part of training. But honestly, it was not a smooth ride from the beginning. I decided to end things after about a month.

I’m posting because I genuinely can’t tell whether this was mostly my own resistance/transference, a major style mismatch, or whether some of the dynamics actually reflect poor analytic work. She describes herself as Classical Fruedian but "less neutral because she's older". I know that difficult feelings are part of the process — but I also don’t think “everything is just transference” is necessarily the full answer. 

I'll share some detailed examples in the comments below. I just want some outside perspectives.

When I was a teenager going through existential crises, I came across the “no self” philosophy in Buddhism (which is basically that the “self” is an illusion and only the “I” , the observer exists) and thought I found the answer to all of my psychological problems but I think it ultimate led to more anxiety and dissociation for me. The writer I read on this topic went even as far as to say having a self was like being schizophrenic.

Now I’m learning through analysis and through my own research into psychoanalysis how important it is to build your own sense of self and denying the “self” is not necessarily a quality reached by very wise, enlightened people. The amount of time I spent believing that almost mystical sounding philosophy though is making it longer for me to essentially resolve my dissociation.

So yeah, I just wanted to post this here as I think this is just another example of how these “new age” philosophies or some religions such as Buddhism are not very realistic ways of looking at human psychology. What are your thoughts on these ideologies? Do you think they are defense mechanisms used to an extreme?

Thoughts and opinions?

Hi crew, any books out there on shamanism (medicine) x psychoanalysis? As there are Buddhism x pa books? Thanks!

I'd like to share a few thoughts.

I want to focus on psychoanalytic listening — not the kind we apply inside the consulting room (although I believe what I'm about to develop applies there too), but rather the analytic listening that allows for the generativity of what is new and creative in our profession.

In Studies on Hysteria, Freud is approached during an excursion by a young woman asking for help. When the young woman rejects the seduction hypothesis (which was Freud's theory on the etiology of hysteria), and given that he cannot hypnotize her in that setting, he asks her to say whatever comes to her mind. It is from that act of receiving what the patient chooses to bring — from that permeability — that he invents free association (so valued today as a means of accessing automatic mental processes). Melanie Klein does something similar when she uses children's toys and sets aside dreams and free association to access the inner world of children.

Culturally, something analogous happens with theory. The intersection of psychoanalysis with other disciplines brings creative elements: with Greek drama, with the works of Goethe, with the philosophy of Schopenhauer… We can see how these crossings have profoundly enriched our beloved discipline.

1. Would you agree with my thesis?
2. What current films or series do you think could help us enrich our psychoanalytic understanding of the human being — the way Oedipus Rex may have done in Freud's time?
3. What interdisciplinary crossover do you consider most valuable in your clinical practice or in your own theoretical construction as an analyst?

I'm trying to do some research on psychoanalytic perspectives on human sexuality, and could use some help on where to begin

I’m a final-year medical student in Europe, planning to go into psychiatry, and I’m thinking about doing a short observership or traineeship after graduation.

I’m especially interested in psychiatric settings where psychoanalysis is still taken seriously, especially Lacanian psychoanalysis, or at least places where Lacanian ideas would not be seen as completely alien to clinical psychiatry.

My French is still pretty limited, especially speaking, so I’m mostly looking for places where English might realistically be accepted. I already tried looking into Belgium, but unfortunately it didn’t really work out.

I’d also be curious about neuropsychoanalytic or related clinical/research settings, f.e., if anyone has done something connected to Mark Solms or Cape Town, I’d be interested to hear about it.

More generally, if anyone knows psychoanalytically oriented psychiatrists, departments, hospitals, research groups and so on in Europe that might be open to a short observership, I’d be very grateful for any suggestions.

P.S. yeah, I know, Lacan and Solms are very different figures, and I am not assuming that some straightforward “Lacanian neuropsychoanalysis” project is really possible. I just think the broader intersection between psychoanalysis, psychiatry, neuroscience, and clinical work is worth exploring more seriously.

it’s gonna be a massive rant post be nice lol

I’m 2nd year psychology student in France and im growing disgusted and frustrated of psychoanalysis in my university.

it’s been 2 empty years turning in circles around Freud and Lacan, we barely had 2 classes on Klein and Winnicott and what’s more frustrating is that we still barely know anything about freudian and lacanian theory.

why ? because if you dare asking a question that makes sense the teachers will look down on you, like you don’t deserve the knowledge they hold because they’re greedy of it. It’s like their only value as intellectual is sometimes quoting Lacan, with a semi-arrogant tone. They turn in circles around concepts instead of explaining them, they stumble upon their own contradictions.

if half of the classes is quotes and gibberish, the other half is them defending themselves against imaginary enemies: autism this, autism that, DSM this, DSM that, neuroscience this, neuroscience that. I’m not against the critique of modern therapy and psychiatry, but their arguments are always flawed and empty, on top of them constantly taking the victim position.

I’m just grieving those two wasted years of trying to reach out, trying to understand, asking questions while having a knot in my stomach, something I don’t have with teachers of other subjects.

p.s the answers to this post just kinda confirmed all of that. I guess this field is a circus full of offended
clowns.

I wanted to know opinions and experiences with patients who have a covert or vulnerable type of narcissism, not the obviously grandiose type. I find it dfifficult to differentiate from borderline personility for example in someone who has high sensitivity for rejection, chronic feelings of emptiness, chronic depressive symptoms, but also a sense of entiltelment and envy. I wanted to know what´s your experience with this type of patients and how do you guide treatment.

Curious what people’s internal monologue/thoughts actually sounds like day to day.

The random thoughts, overthinking spirals, funny observations, and deeper takes that run through your head when no one’s around.

If you’re open to it, drop a few examples of what your mind sounds like. Interested to see how different (or similar) people really are.

Recently listened to a podcast with Frank Yeomans and Diana Diamond and was left with questions about Transference Focused Psychotherapy.

The two noted that more than any other modality, TFP makes an aim to alter the underlying personality organization, helping an individual not just deal with symptoms, but also have more stable object relations.

A few questions. First off, is the concern with supportive modalities that they reinforce splitting mechanisms? Is the idea that they in part are dealing with symptoms through better developed primitive defenses? That by dealing with symptoms, they may mask underlying chaos within the personality? That leads into my main question which is, how is identity diffusion spotted in clients that do have history of rather successful development in supportive therapies?

I am largely trying to make sense of an incongruence between BPO and BPD. Of course, the connection between the two really is based just on the word borderline…if it was called Splitting Personality Organization perhaps I wouldn’t be posting this question. But Kernberg notes the BPD diagnosis operates at a “low-borderline” functioning.

It seems to me that someone could meet 5 of the 9 symptom criteria for BPD without actually meeting Kernberg’s criteria for BPO. Someone can have intense anger, fear of abandonment, feelings of emptiness, impulsive behavior and rapid mood changes but be able to reflect on these things in a way that is incongruent with identity diffusion.

Has anyone trained here (or considered it)? Wondering about the experience, particular in terms of size and cohesion of cohort as well quality of supervision.

Do therapists often refer clients to analysis and under what conditions? What does it mean if they do this and what is the relationship between psychotherapists and psychoanalysts like?

Hi there,

Quick preface: I searched the sub for similar posts where people have asked for reading recommendations. I've already picked up a few books from those posts, and looking forward to digging in. I noticed most requests for recommendations, or reading lists, are related to people studying the field with a goal to become a practitioner, however. I'm merely just interested in the huge, nebulous thing that is psychoanalysis.

I recently read through Ernest Becker's Denial of Death as part of a creative writing project I was piecing together for an MLitt, and although I took swathes of it with a pinch of salt, and didn't necessarily chime with a lot of the outdated analysis of things like homosexuality, I did take a lot from the piece that informed my own past, and debilitating, health/death anxiety.

I loved the experience of wading through the thinking, and so I'm keen to delve in more. I've read some Freud and some Jung, in the past, but otherwise I'm pretty much clueless about the whole field. I'm not sure what area to look at (possibly language? I bought an introductory book on Lacan that I can't wait to read), so I'm not sure how to narrow my focus. I'm also probably not informed enough to dive into denser works.

TL;DR what would you recommend a newcomer read, if they're just simply interested in the ideas, findings, theories for themselves, rather than with a view to studying the field or working in it?

Thanks in advance!