An American psychoanalyst comments on the matters in his world - books he reads, movies he watches, conferences he attends - from a psychoanalytic perspective. Intended for those curious about modern applied psychoanalysis.
This grows out of a project - the 10,000 minds project of the American Psychoanalytic Association - intended to help the public become aware of contemporary psychoanalysis.
Research and Treatment Outcome: The Reluctant Psychoanalyst Continues to Report from the Convention
Psychoanalysis has a long and uneasy relationship with
traditional empirical research. Freud
was quite concerned that researchers would not appreciate that the unconscious
cannot be observed directly and he privileged the analytic hour as the one and
only position from which we can learn about the unconscious and, indeed, the
functioning of the human mind. Taking
this position hamstrung psychoanalysis.
It interfered with it joining the mainstream of scientific development
that revolutionized so many fields during the twentieth century. I suppose it is a testament to the
psychoanalytic situation and to Freud’s genius that he developed something from
it that still has some relevance now, more than one hundred years later. But we are woefully behind our peers who work
from other disciplines, many of which were founded within an empirical
tradition, of using research techniques to both a). Understand how well our patients “objectively”
benefit from our work together and b). Understand what is taking place between
ourselves and our patients.
This year, a German researcher, Marianne Leuzinger-bohleber,
presented the results of research that she has done with others over the course
of the past decade or so. She is working
in a country where insurance is still paying for psychoanalysis – and where the
insurance companies are, like those here, asking whether longer term more
intensive treatment is worth it. Some
interesting results that mollified the insurance companies – who are concerned
not just with their own expenditures on treatment but on the productivity of
the workforce – including noting that those with treatment had fewer sick days
after the treatment than the population as a whole – and that this discrepancy
increased across time – so that they had many fewer sick days six years out of
treatment than they did when ending treatment and that they were bucking the
trend of the comparison population which had an increasing number of sick days
as time passed. They also noted that,
when compared with medications and with shorter term treatments, psychoanalysis
led to fewer relapses and, as with the result above, increasing measures of
health across time.
I should note that in another session, the folks who study infant's attachment to their parents were discussing their speculations about treatment. They have shown that poor attachment style in
infants is related to difficulties as an adult.
They have also shown that poor attachment styles of parents predict
difficulties in the attachment of kids.
Finally they have shown that attachment styles of adults improve as a result
of therapy. The step that is left to
demonstrate – the study hasn’t been done, but it will be - is that therapy can
interrupt the pattern of poor attachment – so that those who were poorly
attached who go through a treatment that improves their attachment style will
parent children who are less likely to be poorly attached. Wouldn’t that both make sense and be neat?
So the question gets asked, what is it that causes these
changes? Why does psychoanalysis foster
improved functioning? Psychoanalysts
have long written about this subject.
They have posited many factors.
The early analysts suggested that interpretation – particularly what
were called mutative interpretations – were what caused the changes. In essence, they proposed that increased
insight caused the changes that we see in treatment. More recent analysts have argued that what
changes is the quality of the relating that the analysand does, and that this
is the result of engaging in a deeply satisfying relationship with the
analyst. (This, by the way, has been a
tough sell to the old school psychoanalysts who see a relationship cure as
temporary and only lasting as long as the therapeutic relationship – but the
relational group has demonstrated that something about the relationship with
the therapist sticks). Yet a third group
has proposed that the process of freely associating frees the mind up and the
patient can approach difficulties with more creative enthusiasm and solve
problems with greater ingenuity and verve.
Leuzinger-bohleber and her group did an interesting thing –
they measured all three of these qualities before and after treatment, plotted
them in a three dimensional space – and looked at how they changed from before
treatment to the conclusion of treatment.
The graph, which had empty spheres for the before data points and solid
for those after, looked like two clouds – one dense and compact, centered
around poor insight, poor relationships, and little creativity at the beginning
of treatment and a much bigger, but also more divergent cloud up, to the right
and in back of the beginning of treatment that were the bubbles post treatment. Some people improved on one dimension, some
on two, and some on all three. A few did
not improve, but the majority did (enough for the insurance guys to be
impressed), but the intriguing thing is that improvements look different in
different people. Overall there is a
shift in the cloud, but on an individual level, some people had much more
insight, though their relationships didn’t change much; others were much more
creative, but not necessarily significantly more insightful – a myriad of
configurations that described the arcs of particular treatments.
One size does not fit all.
What patients walk away with differs.
When we measure symptoms, there is a reduction – but this may be
occurring for different reasons with different people. One of us may feel less stuck because we
finally get how it is that we have ended up at this particular point in our
lives. We may not change things much,
but we may derive comfort from knowing – coming to peace as it were – with who
we are and how we got here. Others may
figure out a way out of a complicated and convoluted trap – moving away from
situations that previously baffled them – and these situations may be external,
internal, or some combination. Yet
others may feel more connected with others – perhaps as a result of coming to
trust a particular person they may be more willing to risk trusting others in
the world. For most of the people in the
study, there was at least some of each of these elements – but there may have
been a strong suit among the three – though many seemed to move significantly
positively on all three dimensions.
So then the question becomes, what happens that these
changes are coming about. Traditionally
the theorizing and the research have focused on what the therapist does, what
the patient’s characteristics are, or on the quality of the relationship
between the therapist and the patient.
In the discussion within this group, an idea emerged that we may have
overly focused on the activity of the therapist. We, as analysts, are constantly thinking
about our technique. Another group in
the discussion presented data that suggested that even when an analysis is
going poorly, the analyst may still be doing “good” technique as we measure if
formally. What might matter most – and what
might be most mysterious and difficult to assess and to effect is what is going
on in the patient. What is the patient
doing in the treatment? Wouldn’t this be
the best predictor of a good outcome?
And what does analysis allow? It
allows space for the patient to work – a place for the patient, in the presence
of a reasonable other, to explore.
Perhaps our emphasis on what we are doing is partly a means of helping
us stay within bounds – to help prevent us from interfering with a healing
process that the patient “knows” how to engage in.
This series of thoughts, which draws on the conversation in
the research group but also begins to move away from it, mirrors parts of the
conversation with the attachment folks.
The attachment folks were commenting on how much care it took to provide
a solid attachment foundation. They were
noting that it was kind of miraculous that the human species is doing as well
as it is. In fact, they noted, if
positive attachments in infants to their caregivers were necessary to the
survival of the species, we would be extinct.
So how do we pull ourselves up by our bootstraps? Despite not having gotten all that we need, we
are frequently able to provide for other’s needs. Or, more precisely, others are able to make
use of our well-intentioned but not perfect efforts to do what they need to do –
to get better. Yes, the better able to
be attuned, to be present, to sense what is just outside of awareness and to
offer that at a moment when it can expand awareness we are able to do and be
the more we can help this process along, but we might want to focus some of our
efforts on the healing desires and abilities of the people with whom we work –
to think, as Jonathan Lear alluded to in his plenary address, which I have
written about in another blog, not just about what is wrong with our patients
and their situation, but to help recognize what might be right, and what might
help them make it righter.
To access a narrative description of other posts on this site, link here. For a subject based index, link here.
To subscribe to posts (which occur 2-3 times per month), if you are on a computer, hit the X button on the upper right of this screen and, on the subsequent screen, hover your cursor over the black line in the upper right area and choose the pop out box that says subscribe and then enter the information. I'm sorry but I don't currently know how you can subscribe from a mobile device - hopefully you have a computer as well...
Psi is an HBO series about a Psychoanalyst in Sao Paolo, Brazil. He is recently separated from his wife (an
attorney) and two stepchildren, and he hangs out with a friend who watched his
parents die and now works in a graveyard, and a former student, who was an
anthropologist before she became a psychoanalyst. A friend of mine, a film analyst and Spanish
Literature faculty member at my University, joined me to present the fourth
episode at our local psychoanalytic institute last night and to lead a discussion about
it. My friend is from Argentina, and
knows quite a bit about South American culture – so she was quite helpful in
understanding some of the context of the series.
My friend stated that Sao Paolo is a city of 20 million and
that this series is less about Sao Paolo or Brazilian culture, and more about
living in a megalopolis and the resulting alienation that can occur. To underscore this, the version of the series
that is available in the US on HBO has been dubbed from P…
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, both in the form of Ken Kesey’s novel and Milos Formans’ film starring Jack Nicholson and featuring Danny DeVito and Christopher Lloyd in early roles, and Louise Fletcher in her Academy Award winning performance as Nurse Ratched, were powerful influences on me as an adolescent.R.P. McMurphy, Ken Kesey’s alter ego, based in part on Kesey's experience as a psychiatric orderly, is a petty criminal who, at least in the book, chooses an insanity defense in order to get what he believes will be lighter treatment at a psychiatric hospital than he would get in jail.Instead, he runs into Nurse Ratched, authority figure deluxe, in her starched uniform and her rules upon rules intended, in her mind, to help the patients improve, but, as is apparent to the most casual observer, serving to protect her world view and to keep the patients repressed. Meanwhile McMurphy’s self-sacrificing rowdy mischievousness leads to actual therapeutic change as the patients uni…
A friend of mine teaches the newbies in our clinic how to be clinicians. She is most challenged by the students who have not had enough rain in their lives. This movie, Inside Out, from Pixar and Walt Disney, tells the tale of a little girl, Riley, who starts out looking like she is headed for being one of those future psychologists who will be challenged by having faced too little difficulty - her childhood is just too perfect to be able to empathize with others whose lives have been marked by rain. Riley's mother and father dote on her and even love to play hockey with her so that the Minnesota winters, which can be depression inducing, are something to look forward to. But then, thank goodness for the plot and for her future as a good psychologist, some rain falls into Riley's life.
The twist in the way this movie works, of course, is that this girl's inner life - the emotions that literally run her control panel - are personified. The girl's basic emotions: J…