Thanks for your comments on psychoanalysis in general, feileacan. Found them very useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by feileacan
Although it is typically defined in terms of a frame (e.g. blank slate, using the couch, frequent sessions, expecting to schedule vacations etc) and the frame is an important part, I don't think this is a defining feature. There is something else that is much more important, so that if you take this something else away and only the frame remains then there is really nothing analytic left. I think public view of the definition in terms of the frame exists because these are the visible parts - this other something is not really visible, but if I would have to define it then perhaps right now I would say that this expresses itself in few things.
|
I think that is the really important bit. But: It's not just the "public view". I met serveral psychoanalysts for interviews who were so caught up in their method/approach that they seemed unable to focus on the relationship part. For them the approach or structure has become more important than the content, I suppose. Which is really sad. Also, those type of analysts are probably the ones who fail to 'notice' that their client (who is only half there) is simply not at the point to enter into the therapeutic relationship in way that the actual 'work' might begin. Or the other way round, they fail to realize, that helping the client to stay present in this relationship is part of the work...
When I met those analysts for interviews *all* of them were incredibly keen to take me on as patient. Without exception. Because all of them focused on this highly functioning part of mine, were intrigued by my intellectual and introspective abilities and were totally and utterly convinced that they would be able to help me (despite by now 7+ years of therapy with some improvement but no significant results regarding the 'core problems').
I met a few of them for a second session, and when I told them that I found it difficult to "hold" the connection to them during the session, they said that they hadn't been aware of that... Which speaks volumes.
I've surprised myself that I started working with a psychoanalytic T now. Those interview experiences over the years were so disillusioning that I never really considered this approach for myself. This new T is very unorthodox in her approach. In fact, with her, I felt right from the start, that she 'sees' me and adapts her approach accordingly. Which is how it should be really. We briefly discussed the 'framework' in the beginning (no. of sessions per week, couch /sitting up etc.) and she made it so clear, that this is 'my' therapy therefore it's about what I need in any given moment. And her job is to help me find out what I need, but not to use coercion to bring me into an 'ideal' psychoanalytic frame. It might help that she's also got extensive training in trauma therapy. Which I find a very good combination. And which makes her approach so refreshingly "un-analytical", whilst she is deeply aware of the emotional dynamics in the room. Which works for me so far (and I'm hoping this will continue...)