Blakeman Rachel, Goldberger Marianne
J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 2016 Dec;64(6):1133-1152. doi: 10.1177/0003065116680079.
Mandated use of the couch-whether specifically stated or tacitly communicated by supervisors and colleagues-to fulfill requirements for graduation or certification is a significant disservice to candidates and their patients. In its training standards, it is argued, APsaA and its member institutes should state explicitly that a treatment can qualify as a psychoanalysis, regardless of whether the patient is using the couch, as long as the process is analytic and the candidate's thinking is demonstrably analytic. The mandate, however conveyed, that one must use the couch interferes with candidates' optimal analytic functioning, jeopardizing their patients' analyses. Data from infant observation, neuroscience, and facial expression studies-unavailable to earlier generations of analysts-support a more nuanced view of use of the couch. Each analysis is unique, and some analyses might well benefit from use of both the couch and the chair at different phases of treatment, but unless this is spelled out by ApsaA and its member institutes, candidates and junior analysts will be prevented from freely contemplating the clinical benefits or detriments of their use in specific cases.
无论是由主管和同事明确规定还是默示传达,强制要求使用躺椅来满足毕业或认证要求,对候选人及其患者都是极大的伤害。有人认为,美国精神分析协会(APsaA)及其成员机构在其培训标准中应明确指出,只要治疗过程具有分析性且候选人的思维具有明显的分析性,无论患者是否使用躺椅,一种治疗都可被视为精神分析。然而,无论以何种方式传达必须使用躺椅的指令,都会干扰候选人的最佳分析功能,危及他们对患者的分析。来自婴儿观察、神经科学和面部表情研究的数据——早期分析师无法获取这些数据——支持了对躺椅使用的更细致入微的观点。每次分析都是独特的,有些分析在治疗的不同阶段可能确实会从使用躺椅和椅子中受益,但除非APsaA及其成员机构明确说明这一点,否则候选人及初级分析师将无法自由思考在特定案例中使用它们的临床益处或弊端。