Psychoanalysis

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

This is essentially a learning thread but I am unsure of where to put it. I considered science but I'm not sure that psychoanalysis is considered a science. Move if necessary.

I'm looking for insight into the discipline and I figured that the critical, revolutionary viewpoints of many people here would be useful. I'm going to tackle Freud but I'm more interested in reading Lacan purely because he appears more subversive and controversial.

What are people's critical opinions of psychoanalysis? Is it a useful discipline in understanding the mind? Can it have a beneficial effect to those suffering from various issues? One question that particularly interests me regards the relationship between psychoanalysis and clinically defined disorders such as schizophrenia - is there any significant relationship?

I understand that those are 'let me google that for you' questions but I'm putting them here so that we can have a discussion about the discipline here because I am interested in the opinions/insight of people well read in Marxism and other social/philosophical and scientific theory and think that others might be interested in either learning or sharing their knowledge also.

[Book O'Dead]

I believe that psychoanalysis is a science and that it was Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung who provided its scientific basis. The discovery of the unconscious and understanding of the symbolic language of dreams are enormous contributions to understanding the human mind.

[L.A.P.]

Nah, psychoanalysis is a philosophy that intertwines with psychology more than anything else.

[Kenco Smooth]

Psychoanalysis isn't science if for no other reason than that it has failed to produce any lasting and active research programs. Scientifically it has proven to be a dead end and in practice is far too resilient to falsification to advance at a reasonable rate.

The research into the efficacy of psychonalytic therapy is, to be quite frank, a mess. It tends to jump around from study to study, methodology to methodology, however I've not seen anything to convince me it's anymore effective than the simple listening and support sessions (themselves helpful but not hugely).

[Book O'Dead]

Psychoanalysis isn't science if for no other reason than that it has failed to produce any lasting and active research programs. Scientifically it has proven to be a dead end and in practice is far too resilient to falsification to advance at a reasonable rate.

The research into the efficacy of psychonalytic therapy is, to be quite frank, a mess. It tends to jump around from study to study, methodology to methodology, however I've not seen anything to convince me it's anymore effective than the simple listening and support sessions (themselves helpful but not hugely).

I've had psychoanalysis and have benefited greatly from it. And I think that I stand on firm ground when I say that millions of people have benefited from it as well.

Of course, I look at my own experience with psychoanalysis much like I do a Kalahari tribesman visiting his local witch doctor; not much different. Except mine took place in Manhattan and cost slightly more than two chickens and an out-of-tune kalimba.

Two chickens:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1161&pictureid=9530

Kalimba playing as seen through Western eyes:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1161&pictureid=9531

[Kenco Smooth]

I've had psychoanalysis and have benefited greatly from it. And I think that I stand on firm ground when I say that millions of people have benefited from it as well.

Of course, I look at my own experience with psychoanalysis much like I do a Kalahari tribesman visiting his local witch doctor; not much different. Except mine took place in Manhattan and cost slightly more than two chickens and an out-of-tune kalimba.


Like I said it does often seem to have some affect. Just that this effect is often no better than the 'placebo' (usually listening therapy or befriending programs) against which they're compared which really casts doubt on the reliability of any positive claim that it has to make about the human mind. Interestingly Richard Feynman (correctly in my mind) also compared psychoanalysts to witch doctors, both perform elaborate rituals drawing on arcane knowledge and occasionally do seem to stumble on genuinely useful practices, however we can be pretty sure that whatever reason these practices have for working it is not those provided by the practitioners.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Psychoanalysis isn't science if for no other reason than that it has failed to produce any lasting and active research programs. Scientifically it has proven to be a dead end and in practice is far too resilient to falsification to advance at a reasonable rate.

The research into the efficacy of psychonalytic therapy is, to be quite frank, a mess. It tends to jump around from study to study, methodology to methodology, however I've not seen anything to convince me it's anymore effective than the simple listening and support sessions (themselves helpful but not hugely).

Yeah from the little I know, I'm a little skeptical of the "Science" aspect of it, though I think the therapudic aspects of it I think can be very beneficial.

I just listened to a MP3 of a talk from the ISO's Socialism conference that talked about mental health and capitalism. One interesting anecdote about "talking cures" was that this kind of method was used by the elites in Rome. Obviously again by the bourgeois and then middle classes in modern times - and even working class people in places with good health programs.

http://wearemany.org/a/2012/06/capitalism-and-mental-health

Anyway, I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to these issues, but I thought it was an interesting and I thought convincing presentation: I especially liked his argument about the Pharma industry not "inventing" mental distress to sell pills, but that a lot of these stresses are real and the result of alienation and pressure in modern society. The problem with the Pharma question isn't that they are inventing mental illnesses to diagnose, but that it's not really a way to deal with the situation just manage it in a way that makes sense under the logic of capitalism.

[ColonelCossack]

It interests me. I've tried to apply it to myself but I don't know if I see how it fits into me because I have some expectation it will- i.e. I see a pattern because I'm expecting to- or not.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Freud is, in my opinion, a mixed bag. There are aspects to his theories that are profoundly unscientific such as "penis envy"; I wouldn't recommend taking his writings on women seriously. But I think he gave profound insights into human behavior on many occasions, and should not be rejected out of hand despite his flaws. I find its primary merit in the fact that it refuses to reduce consciousness to the brain and treats it on its own terms. He is a worthy antidote to the current culture of chemical and psychotropic drugs that have dominated the mental health profession, especially in the US.

That having been said, I would also argue that in assessing Freud's method, his students were better than he was. Wilhelm Reich, in my opinion the most interesting of the "Freudo-Marxists", worked personally with members with the working class in Germany with his free clinics backed by the Communist Party. His writings on the subject, contained in a volume called "Sex-Pol", moved me at times in his efforts to supplement Marxism with what he believed to be a materialist psychology.

But that is not all I would recommend. Though Freud himself is a given to read, there are Marxists who have written much about psychoanalysis and its history, particularly in the Soviet Union. Go to this site (http://permanent-revolution.org/essays.html), read an essay or two and see what you think. I found myself quite informed after finishing.

[blake 3:17]

Try Freud's Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis. It's the best general outline of psychoanalytic theory out there.

There's a huge amount of literature out there, some great, some not so great. If you're interested in Lacan, then you really need to read Freud. Beyond Lacan's innovations, his main contribution was a return to Freud's actual writing.

I've many serious reservations about psychoanalysis. Its orthodox forms and many versions of talk therapy are often not all that useful. That doesn't mean that the basic questions aren't worth exploring.

[PetyaRostov]

Nah, psychoanalysis is a philosophy that intertwines with psychology more than anything else.
agreed. Its hard to get empirical data with qualitative results.
Still worthwhile.

[Raskolnikov]

Nah, psychoanalysis is a philosophy that intertwines with psychology more than anything else.

Such a vague little post. So vague!

Best way to learn for yourself rather than rely on others on the internet whose views themselves may be varied from studying it or getting a small class in it.

Read Freud's work first. The Ego and the Id (Middle/Late Freud) and then some Early Freud works on the Dreams.

And take some time with Jacques Lacan. Very difficult to read, but worthwhile in his contributions.

[Human Lefts]

Psychoanalysis is out-dated and lacks evidence. It's a theory that has too many immeasurable constructs. The more recent version of psychoanalysis would be object relations theory. However, all this psychology stuff seems somewhat pointless because it only focuses on an individual. Side note, Freud was extremely sexist. In his theory, he said that there is a period in a boy's life that he has sexual urges for his mother, but is scared that the father would find out and punish him. In the case of a girl, she gets penis envy. Read up on that shit if you want: Oedipus and Electra Complexes.

A psychosocial approach would be more applicable because it couples well with systems theory (Erikson). It takes into consideration that the person itself functions through the integration of biological, psychological, and social systems. Other systems can be considered too, such as through Bronfenbrenner's ecological model. This would also allow you to address social ills through a Marxist perspective.

Another current and prominent approach is cognitive-behavioral. This looks at how emotions, thoughts, and memories work to affect behavior. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is currently the most prominent therapy used for many "mental disorders" such as PTSD and Major Depression. However, CBT is also considered an umbrella term for more specific treatments.

Schizophrenia is usually best approached by an integrated team composed of a doctor, nurse, psychiatrist, and case manager, especially because of its biological foundation. Some drugs are taken; they could be pills, injections, or a combination. The case manager works to keep the person with schizophrenia in check. It's the case with many mental health issues that once people start feeling better, they stop taking their medications and the problem returns. The family should also be given education on how to live and care for someone with schizophrenia. In my opinion, using Freud with schizophrenia would be a waste of time. People with schizophrenia have altered brains (holes) and chemistry (too much dopamine among other things), so they can't think rationally. Like my dad says, "If you try to understand a crazy person, you're going to go crazy."

[Dean]

Psychoanalysis is out-dated and lacks evidence. It's a theory that has too many immeasurable constructs. The more recent version of psychoanalysis would be object relations theory. However, all this psychology stuff seems somewhat pointless because it only focuses on an individual. Side note, Freud was extremely sexist. In his theory, he said that there is a period in a boy's life that he has sexual urges for his mother, but is scared that the father would find out and punish him. In the case of a girl, she gets penis envy. Read up on that shit if you want: Oedipus and Electra Complexes.
Freud came to be quite rigid and narrow in an attempt to retreat to a narrow set of arguments to defend. Nonetheless, he did acknowledge that the issue were more complicated later in life, and in our consistency the academic world again refused to update its attitude about Freud.

More disturbing is the singular approach to Psychoanalysis taken here: Freudianism has little traction psychoanalysis today. Indicting Freud is popular but it doesn't mean much for psychoanalysis. Moreover, psychoanalysis is alive and well in modern counseling, in the form of all sorts of theories and tendencies that have come about. Anything that acknowledges subconscious drives, or indeed focuses on patients speaking at length, owes a lot to psychoanalysis.



Schizophrenia is usually best approached by an integrated team composed of a doctor, nurse, psychiatrist, and case manager, especially because of its biological foundation. Some drugs are taken; they could be pills, injections, or a combination. The case manager works to keep the person with schizophrenia in check. It's the case with many mental health issues that once people start feeling better, they stop taking their medications and the problem returns. The family should also be given education on how to live and care for someone with schizophrenia. In my opinion, using Freud with schizophrenia would be a waste of time. People with schizophrenia have altered brains (holes) and chemistry (too much dopamine among other things), so they can't think rationally. Like my dad says, "If you try to understand a crazy person, you're going to go crazy."
Boiling schizophrenics down to "crazy people," impossible to understand and requiring drugs, does nothing for them nor for your understanding of them. I don't know what kind of Freudian theories you are talking about. But some of the best programs, with the best rates of success for schizophrenics, are group counseling sessions where schizophrenics meet each other daily. The positive effects are profound. I can't comment about the necessity or lack thereof for drugs in general, but the fact that you think drugs and 4 professionals are needed as the "best approach" when there are alternatives involving the "talking cure" shows just how much "anti-freudianism" has poisoned the discourse on the issue.

It's debatable to what extent patient-driven counseling can be said to be psychoanalysis, but it owes the field more than you acknowledge. Conflating Freud with psychoanalysis is bizarre, if not uncommon. If the choice you present is accurate, between a "talking cure" and drugs and intensive medical services, then the talking cure seems preferable in almost every circumstance.

[Generalist]

Modern psychoanalysis and theory, like Lacan, is not really about curing sick people. Sure, there are clinical analysis or some sort of treatment function. But what it aspires to, under Freud or Lacan, is not this direct social function but trying to understand all human behaviors, attitudes, drives, desires, in other words, the human subject. In this sense, it is a rival to philosophy. In America, where everything is reduced to profit, psychoanalysis there has become the joke of the "shrink." But, elsewhere it is seriously studied not only in clinical practice but also as theory of the human subject as intended by Freud.

I think it is a great tool like Marxism to understanding human society. Just as Marxism talks about the macro-level structural conditions, so psychoanalysis talks about the micro-level of why supposedly reasonable man chooses to believe in unreasonable things. Where Marxism leaves at teaching the masses class-consciousness, a Freudian asks, why are some willfully ignorant? and even if they understand the class struggle, why are they not struggling for their interests? Why some choose to be oppressed? So, it is a Marxist tool, in my opinion. For example, you can read an article in the NYTimes, and you can give a Marxist critique of that article, say for example, this is a reactionary argument, this is slightly progressive but, nonetheless, serves the interests of the capitalists. On a psychoanalytic reading, you directly engage with the author about his or her personal beliefs, phobias, biases, and where it came from, why it still 'holds' her, etc. It is a psychoanalysis of the author. It is a powerful tool for Marxists that they unfortunately often neglect, but it is nonetheless revolutionary because we liberate the mind first.

[blake 3:17]

People on this thread, might be interested in Eli Zaretsky's Secrets of The Soul. It's a social/cultural history of psychoanalysis informed by Marxism.

It doesn't make too much claim on the value of psychoanalysis per se, but how it developed and shaped and was shaped by the world.

[Positivist]

I have long wondered how psychoanalytic understanding of individuals could be formatted into the much more social historical materialism. Good thread hopefully we can get a good assessment in here.

[Human Lefts]

Boiling schizophrenics down to "crazy people," impossible to understand and requiring drugs, does nothing for them nor for your understanding of them. I don't know what kind of Freudian theories you are talking about. But some of the best programs, with the best rates of success for schizophrenics, are group counseling sessions where schizophrenics meet each other daily. The positive effects are profound. I can't comment about the necessity or lack thereof for drugs in general, but the fact that you think drugs and 4 professionals are needed as the "best approach" when there are alternatives involving the "talking cure" shows just how much "anti-freudianism" has poisoned the discourse on the issue.

It's debatable to what extent patient-driven counseling can be said to be psychoanalysis, but it owes the field more than you acknowledge. Conflating Freud with psychoanalysis is bizarre, if not uncommon. If the choice you present is accurate, between a "talking cure" and drugs and intensive medical services, then the talking cure seems preferable in almost every circumstance.

Do you have any scientific evidence that supports psychoanalysis or "talking cure" over a multidisciplinary team, medicine, and family inclusion at improving the quality of life of people with schizophrenia?

Freud was definitely a visionary for his time, but he was also sexist. Penis envy was a central topic in human development. I know I'm restating that and doing so because I want to highlight it considering that this forum states a stance against all oppression.

Besides that, my central position and argument was that there are other perspectives that are better applied to studying schizophrenia. Here: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro03/web2/acazaban.html
Schizophrenia is not in the ranks with mood disorders. There are processes that are physiological in nature that could benefit from medical intervention.

Using my dad's quote was a bit of folk knowledge to show that it's difficult to understand the logic people with schizophrenia have. To be clear, I think people are people and people with schizophrenia are people too just as much as you, me, or any other human being, even the those that make up the bourgeoisie and state. Medical treatment of schizophrenia is sometimes necessary because people are having hallucination and delusions. If the hallucinations are too much, there's no effective way to conduct therapy. For example, you can't talk to someone that can't hear you over voices telling them that the therapist is sent to kill her. Furthermore, my statement doesn't rule out group modality.

This approach does a lot for my understanding of people with schizophrenia. I grew up with someone in my family with schizophrenia and have had close friends in the same position. I know what it is from long-term personal experience outside of the professional system. I've also worked in the mental health field and understand what it's like to work with them. Without proper treatment, the person's life can change drastically. Someone could go from stable or improving to on the streets, incarcerated, or dead. A case manager is essential to addressing stability however she sees fit, which could include referral to a group. The psychiatrist provides access to the medication. And as a general rule, it's good to keep the primary care doctor in the loop.

Lastly, I read over my prior statement and can't find where I created a false dichotomy in which one option has to be chosen. I made some arguments against using a Freudian perspective to understand schizophrenia, discussed some mental health therapies, and provided other perspectives, specifically, the ones that I feel may be best to understand general human behavior, cognition, development, and more precisely, schizophrenia. The intent was to guide the OP to learn about perspectives that may help understand what she is curious about using my experiences and knowledge.

PS I know I have used too many, commas.

[Luís Henrique]

Do you have any scientific evidence that supports psychoanalysis or "talking cure" over a multidisciplinary team, medicine, and family inclusion at improving the quality of life of people with schizophrenia?

Freud at least never claimed that psychoanalysis can do anything for schizophrenics. Indeed, he explicitly excluded psychotics from his practice, because he recognised it cannot help. People need a functioning ego to undertake psychoanalytic treatment. It's more or less like saying that physiotherapy is "unscientific" because it cannot mend broken bones.

On the other hand, no treatment for schizophrenia is really successful, so...

Luís Henrique