In Analysis最新文献

Context

This article is based on S. Hertzog's doctoral research. It focuses on therapeutic resistance in fibromyalgia, i.e. the lack of pain relief despite a medical treatment. We explore causes and effects of this, through the prism of medical knowledge, but also through the psychoanalytical prism, which can shed light on both the doctor–patient relationship and on the unconscious stakes anchored in the history of the subject.

Aims

This article aims to illuminate the ways in which psychoanalysis allows for a singular reading of the dominant discourse in the healthcare system, given the neoliberal context promoting productivity and quantifiable efficiency. Furthermore, the identification and analysis of the unconscious issues emerging in medical care allow us to understand what is at stake in such a context for the patient, who is likewise caught up in the issues of her/his history.

Method

On the basis of research interviews and content analyses of patients’ discourse, we have explored the different aspects outlined above. In this article we will expose a clinical case.

Result

Our results are based initially on the study and effects of the neoliberal discourse. We have observed that the patient is asked to be autonomous in their choices and responsible for their behavior, while the healthcare system disarms the subject from the symbolic, structuring laws of the Other (heteronomy). The second part of our results allows us to focus on the question of the subject, specifically in relationship to illness and to the doctor, but also her/his demand for subjective appreciation, which is deeply rooted in a conflictual past, specifically in terms of identity.

Interpretation/conclusion

Our interpretation underlines how the individual deals with the social discourse that impacts the subject of the unconscious. In this sense, the psychoanalytical approach enriches our understanding of the effects of social and medical discourses, linked to the unconscious “stage”.

Objective

This is an epistemological theoretical analysis that aims to show how the cannibal trope and the flesh are repressed in psychoanalysis.

Context

For this, I rescue the discussion that subdivides matriarchy and patriarchy, made by Freud in Moses and Monotheism. There, the abstraction and the negative facet of thought is taken as superior as the body and the sensitive field. In order to show the limits of this vision that marks psychoanalysis almost as a whole, I present reflections made by Oswald de Andrade in his noted essay The crisis of messianic philosophy.

Method

The procedure was the analysis of both texts (Moses and Monotheism and The crisis of messianic philosophy) with the flesh outline as a critic of the patriarchy.

Results

Instead of a negative and moral character, as it has been observed in Western culture, Oswald postulates the anthropophagy that devours elements of European culture, without allowing cultural aspects to be colonized. The anthropophagic model marks the culture of the Amerindian peoples, which incorporates aggressiveness and love in a single central gesture in religious and collective rituals that happen among them: anthropophagy.

Interpretation

The repression of the flesh and of the anthropophagic devouring return impetuously as violence in Western civilization, destroying in an unavoidable way all-civilized pretensions achieved by sublimation processes. The conclusion points to what we should learn from Amerindian models and autarchic cultures: an amalgamation of love and hate that drives to a less destructive cultural forms and to a better relation to nature and to humans.

Le texte de Jérôme C. Wakefield, professeur de travail social clinique à l’Université de New York, propose au lectorat francophone, certainement peu familier de ses travaux en anglais d’épistémologie de la théorie clinique et de « Freud studies », le résumé d’une étude récente évaluant le fondement conceptuel du « complexe d’Œdipe » à partir de l’étude du cas du « Petit Hans ». Tout l’intérêt de cette contribution réside dans l’occasion qu’elle offre de réfléchir aux conditions à remplir pour développer une critique épistémologique de la psychanalyse. En effet, la première question fondamentale qui se pose pour l’évaluer, qui rends oiseuses toute les autres, est de déterminer comment se forme le jugement psychanalytique ? A-t-il ou non une spécificité ? Dans cette perspective, la discussion s’installe dans les quatre procédés remarquables de l’argumentation de Wakefield pour en analyser les présupposés et les conséquences.

Background

Freud identified his theory of the Oedipus complex as his greatest scientific contribution, made it the centerpiece of his clinical theory of the etiology and cure of the psychoneuroses, and adamantly defended it throughout his life. The theory dominated psychoanalysis for almost a century and determined how the problems of countless patients were interpreted. However, recent scholarship suggests that the arguments Freud used to support the theory are unsound and that, far from being harmless pseudoscience, the Oedipal theory constitutes an oppressive form of Foucauldian “knowledge-power” that rearranges family relationships in sociosyntonic but emotionally harmful ways. Continued identification of psychoanalysis with Oedipal theory poses an obstacle to fresh psychoanalytic thinking and psychoanalytic credibility. To liberate psychoanalysis from its Oedipal shackles, a clear understanding of the theory's faulty origins and deleterious effects is essential.

Objectives and methods

This paper distills the conclusions of two recent books that consider how and why Freud staunchly defended the Oedipal theory and the deleterious effects on the modern family that resulted. After the failure of his seduction theory, Freud developed the Oedipal theory to defend his central theoretical claim, the sexual theory of the neuroses. However, the Oedipal theory remained an entirely ad hoc, scientifically unpersuasive defense without novel evidential support less dependent on psychoanalytic method, which had also been cast into doubt by the seduction theory's failure. Freud attempted to provide such “more direct” evidence in the case of Little Hans, on which my analysis focuses. Regarding the evaluation of Freud's evidence, the method is philosophy-of-science logical reconstruction, analysis, and evaluation of the arguments Freud offered. Regarding the theory's effects, the method is neo-Foucauldian analysis of how acceptance of the theory changed family power relations — that is, the theory's knowledge-power.

Results

I identify four pivotal arguments Freud presents in the Hans case to support Oedipal theory. Each argument is brilliant as a logical construction but unsound when compared to the evidence of the Hans case history. I then analyze the knowledge-power of the Oedipal theory as it appears in the Hans case as well as in modern family life. Acceptance or awareness of the theory serves to create a sense of danger in mother-son physical affection, leading to separation of children from parents — especially at bedtime — and thus protection of the marital bed in the new era of egalitarian sexual and emotional marriage that started at about the time that the Oedipal theory was proposed.

Conclusions

Freud's arguments defending Oedipal theory are brilliantly conceived, but Freud misreads the facts of the Hans case so tha