Listening To You - Lacanian Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy in London
  • Welcome
  • Listening
  • Psychoanalysis
  • The Therapist
  • Beginning therapy
  • Code Of Practice
  • Contact Details
  • Links
  • A Psychoanalyst's Blog

The Unconscious, part 2

8/9/2009

 
In my previous post I have promised that I will write a bit about how one works with the Unconscious, this elusive entity that is only manifesting itself in our mental lives through its effects, such as dreams, “insignificant” or “accidental” errors, lapses of memory, symptoms etc.

Of course it is not in my intentions to offer an online course in psychoanalytic technique. Rather I am eager to show what sort of interventions a psychoanalyst can make, and how he or she can assess the accuracy, the effectiveness if you will, of those interventions.

After all we have seen that this is what most critics of psychoanalysis see as its Achilles’ heel –that it’s "impossible" to verify or falsify a hypothesis.

So I will try to show that such a claim is based on ignorance if not on bad faith.
I have said elsewhere that the main rule of psychoanalysis is that of free association. You speak about whatever comes to your mind.

The underlying principle is that the human mind operates in a vastly complex and yet rational way. If you think of something, this is because of a reason. We may not know the reason, but a reason is postulated to exist. In a similar vein, when you forget something that you usually know –for example the name of that very good old school-friend, or what you were just going to say now– this also has happened for a reason.

Again, we might not know it; but we postulate that a reason exists. Similarly there are reasons behind what you dreamt of last night, reasons why you possibly forgot what you dreamt of; and so on and so forth.

The only way to approach those “hidden” reasons is by allowing the subject to talk about whatever comes to their minds. The idea is that whatever comes to their minds is indeed related, and that the relation will be eventually revealed. Think of it as a huge fresco that we can only see through the keyhole and with the help of a spotlight. You need to look again and again before you can have the bigger picture.

Facilitating this task is the work of a psychoanalyst.

As they proceed, the patient speaks and the psychoanalyst forms hypotheses. The psychoanalyst might decide to put forward one of those hypotheses, stressing, for example a similarity between two seemingly unrelated memories or thoughts, or pointing out what might appear as a pattern in the patient's behaviour or reactions.

The patient then might choose to accept the hypothesis or refuse it, but what they will consciously do is irrelevant to the analyst. The patient might exclaim “Yes! Exactly what I was thinking”, or just say “That’s stupid”. The analyst will not take either reaction as a confirmation or refutation of his hypothesis.

What will serve as confirmation or refutation is the material that the patient will bring up after the intervention –something that they suddenly remembered or an insight that they unexpectedly had. Sometimes this confirmation or refutation will come in a later session, possibly days or weeks later. The job of the analyst is to remember, and constantly readjust his hypotheses by taking into account all material brought by the patient.

He might be using all his hypotheses to construct a “model” of what is happening in the mind of his patient, but he is always ready to abandon his model if it does not suit the observations.

Does this way of working remind you of something?

Well, it does not have controlled experiments or trials –that’s for sure. But it does rely on hypotheses and their confirmation or refutation based on observations.

Is it not in the same way that cosmologists readjust their models about the universe? They don’t conduct experiments; they do not compare this universe to that universe, either. What they do is collect further data and check their hypotheses against them.

Nobody would think seriously of calling the cosmologists unscientific and their theories mythological.

I don’t see why we have to put up with all those who insist on doing exactly that with psychoanalysis.

As I said before, if this is not bad faith, it’s ignorance.

Neither will do for me, sorry.
Jim
13/11/2010 02:43:46 am

I agree but since you have put forth an argument based on analogy to cosmology, one difference between cosmology (and other hard sciences) and psychoanalysis might be that the observations in question can be verified by other scientists - That you could get the coordinates and observe the same star, nebula with your own telescope etc.. The unfortunate problem (if indeed it is one) for psychoanalysis is that it is a neccessarily one to one relationship - and that leaves open the issue of subjectivity on the part of the analyst. The key hole is only open to one analyst at a time, and no two moments, nor analysts are ever the same. I don't believe we should appeal to its scientific credibility but treat it perhaps like Adam Phillips might: i.e. as an interesting way of going about a certain type of creative insight, discovery etc..

Christos T
13/11/2010 03:37:30 am

There are indeed many differences between cosmology (and other hard sciences) and psychoanalysis. The analogy can only be a limited one.
What I wanted to stress is that in cosmology you don't have a way to refute or confirm a hypothesis other than by collecting more observations. You cannot design experiments and you cannot control the variables of what you observe. In fact, cosmology is not a hard science at all; rather it is an interpretative one. This is where the analogy with psychoanalysis lies.


Comments are closed.

    About

    This is the blog of
    Christos Tombras
    a psychoanalyst practising
    in London.

    For more information,
    please click here.

    For a list of all posts,
    please click here.

    Archives

    April 2025
    January 2020
    May 2019
    March 2016
    October 2014
    April 2014
    May 2013
    October 2012
    February 2012
    July 2011
    June 2011
    February 2011
    September 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009


    RSS Feed


    Categories

    All
    Body Mind Dichotomy
    Books
    Brain Initiative
    Cfar
    Descartes
    Discourse Ontology
    Dsm
    Event
    Evidence
    Falsification Criterion
    Films
    Free Will
    Hard Sciences
    Health Professions Council
    History
    Immanuel Kant
    Jacques Lacan
    Jouissance
    Lanzmann
    Lecture
    Martin Heidegger
    Measuring Effectiveness
    Medical Model
    Mental Illness
    Nazism
    Nimh
    Oedipus Complex
    Phantasy
    Psychoanalysis
    Psychosis
    Randomized Control Trials
    Reality
    Regulation Of Psychotherapy
    Resistance
    Reviews
    Scientific Research
    Sexuality
    Shoah
    Sigmund Freud
    Signifier
    Stigma
    Symptoms
    Teaching
    Therapy
    The Unconscious
    Truth
    Ukcp


Listening To You • An Invitation to Talk • Lacanian Psychoanalysis • London     © 2009 - 2025