The tares of clinical psychoanalysis in the consumption society
By Jean Chiriac
An author that issues a psychoanalysis site on Internet - in fact, dedicated more to
Sigmund Freud - was complaining of the fact that the American critique, and not only, doesn't view with a friendly eye a writing - book, article, essay - that mentions Freud! The author under discussion, who is also a
professor somewhere because he mentions "my students", insists on the fact that Freud is a capital character in our modern culture and that's the reason why he teaches him to his students!
first sight, we could say: he is a honest man. He gives to Cezar what belongs to him and claims "Freud's justice" or more precisely "for Freud". But this judgment is hasty. Why ? Simple: because, in
fact, our author doesn't render a service to Freud teaching him to the young generation. A Freud taught among some other subject matters at the University courses is nothing more than "some Freud", a subject
from a library God has forgotten! Psychoanalysis obtains nothing from this teaching because what is essential at Freud – if I could say so – is his psychoanalysis and, more precisely, its clinical aspect (the theory
of neuroses, as Freud himself would say).
I won't deny the cultural importance of psychoanalysis, its remarkable contributions to the field of cultural hermeneutics, but, on this area psychoanalysis
confronts a harsh competition and, particularly, time challenge. In time, it is depreciated because it is no more in fashion… Psychoanalysis is great on clinical level, when it deals with neuroses, which it tries to
understand and solve. This is its favorite issue! Or, exactly here psychoanalysis seems to get its great defeat.
Again in America. Where, as we find out from an interview with Peter Gay, the American
Freud's biographer, the psychoanalysts, running to enrich themselves, prefer other psychotherapeutical techniques, which are shorter and faster.
There is no need to discuss any more about "the
quality" of these "techniques". The sharp need for more and more money explains why in America "Freud's" psychoanalysis seems to have disappeared. Remember: not its inadequation to its
therapeutical task disqualified psychoanalysis, but the fact that the duration of the therapy is long and the amount of money brought as a profit is small ! It is as if we would use an inadequate wooden scalpel, which
cuts a bit, but is more profitable because it's cheaper, than a true steel one, which has the disadvantage of being more expensive!
The failure of psychoanalysis on the level of cultural interest, its
rejection from the clinical sphere, because it's not financially profitable for the analyst, mostly explain why it seems out of season. It remains for us to appreciate if these apparent shortcomings could be seriously
taken into account ?!