pretty much title; looking for some reading on ADHD/ADD from a psychoanalytic view - approaches, ontologies, case examples, etc. not exclusive to any population or age group
Can anyone recommend psychoanalytic literature on how an analyst’s public visibility affects the analytic frame? I’m particularly interested in overlapping social circles and changes in anonymity over the course of a longstanding analysis.
I’d appreciate theoretical or clinical writing on these dynamics and their implications for transference, privacy, and boundaries.
I'm a third year psychology student and I spent all of summer getting into Lacanian theory, I've read books like "how to read Lacan", "introduction to the lacanian clinic", "signifier pointing at the moon", "The queerness of psychoanalysis" and so on...
But I'm having a difficult time in uni applying this lense to the given material cause the material's too reductionistic, methodical and too focused on psychopathology through the lense of books like the DSM-V
I believe diagnosis via a lacanian lense is possible because of Bruce fink's books, but he only talks about hysteria and obsessive compulsion and perversion... is there a way to understand personalities like let's say, narcissistic, schizoid, depressive, hypomanic by Lacan?
I have my own critiques of psychoanalysis, using “psychoanalysis” here to refer broadly to the whole body of literature and school of thought that has accumulated under the term "psychonalysis" over time, but I would like to hear yours.
Is there anything you feel psychoanalysis falls short of describing—or, rather, anything you think that, given the theoretical material currently available, psychoanalysis doesn't quite have the language to put into words?
Or are there aspects of psychoanalytic methodology where you feel it falls short, and that you have had to supplement on your own, outside what is commonly discussed by psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic theorists?
Do you ever feel that, at some point, the model becomes strained or reaches its limits when dealing with certain subjects?
And I don't mean genuine limitations, since obviously there are things we cannot reasonably expect psychoanalysis to address. I mean more whether you sometimes feel that there are “subjects psychoanalysis doesn't touch on” that should be explored further; whether you sometimes feel that the psychoanalytic vocabulary falls short when it comes to naming certain mental phenomena; or whether you feel that it doesn't provide tools you consider necessary for therapeutic work, forcing you to move beyond the psychoanalytic framework.
I'll read your answers.
I'm one of those people who love tests. Things like questionnaires, projective tests (Rorschach, etc.). From those more intended to understand the emotional subjectivity of a patient, to those more focused on cognitive functions (memory, attention, etc.).
Have there been psychoanalysts who have developed different tests and structured techniques?
---
For example, I know about Otto Kernberg's STIPO, although I still haven't been able to find the full version.
Part of the reason I'm asking is that I was thinking about the “un-scientific method of psychoanalysis.” I know that's a whole different discussion, but I was thinking, “Hey, I think it might be very possible to create a questionnaire to try to measure and capture psychic phenomena.” For example: ideas of omnipotence, different defense mechanisms, etc.
Because I think that many times we leave these things as “it's unconscious material; we can hypothesize about it, but we can't measure it.” But then I thought, “Wait a minute, maybe something can be done with all this.”
I don't mean being rigid about it, like other bad methods. I don't mean something like, “Okay, your results on the questionnaire were this, so that means this.” I mean it more as an approximation, of course, or as a way to guide the clinician, and even as a way to perhaps try to make at least some parts of psychoanalysis a little more scientific.
I admit that I haven’t finished it, but I’m finding myself irked by the self-helpy bent of the book. At the conclusion of each chapter, we get a little run-down of what it takes for that particular “type” to be able to fully love and fully live. It all feels just a bit too pat. I have loved some of her other work, and she seems like a talented clinician. I’m just not loving this new one, but I would be delighted to be convinced otherwise. Does anyone have a different perspective that will help me to see this book differently? Or just any thoughts at all about this book so far?