A few days ago, someone close to me told me when she mentioned I was a psychoanalyst to some friends, they said they thought psychoanalysts didn’t talk. They said that they didn’t like psychoanalysis because “you’re expecting them to tell you what to do and they don’t even talk.”
I'd like to split this statement in two parts; that the analyst doesn’t speak, on the one hand, and that the psychoanalyst does not tell the analysand what to do, on the other.
Let’s take the first: The analyst does not speak.
It is very common to find this image in comic books and films. Someone goes to the psychoanalyst’s office, lies on a couch and talks while the analyst takes notes. Eventually he emits onomatopoeic sounds. This may be a good filming resource to make the protagonist’s inner speech audible in the scene, but does not accurately reflect the psychoanalytic session in reality.
Of course the psychoanalyst is interested on what the analysand has to say! After all, this is exactly the point of a tratment. Therefore it is correct to say that the psychoanalyst does not talk, if it means that he does not engage in his own personal affairs. Can you imagine going to a medical consultation with pain and the doctor ends up telling you his personal problems rather than focusing on his task?
The analyst will do everything in his power to facilitate that the analysand speaks. That includes questions and silences, among other possibilities. But the analyst will operate with the analysand’s speech. This is part of his function. Sometimes an intervention can be a silence. But sometimes does not mean always. What’s the point of a psychoanalytical treatment if the psychoanalyst is not going to make any intervention with the analysand’s speech?
To be continued…
by Fernando Schutt, LMHC
No comments:
Post a Comment