Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Am J Psychoanal. 2021 Mar;81(1):27-50. doi: 10.1057/s11231-021-09283-1.
It is argued that, in the course of the history of psychoanalysis since 1914 or thereabouts, the clinical and theoretical interests of psychotherapy have occluded our comprehension of the radicality of the free-associative method that is special to psychoanalysis. Setting aside the entirety of the range of endeavors that we might call "psychotherapy," this essay defines critically the practices of "psychoanalytically-informed therapies" and distinguishes them from Sigmund Freud's "analysis" that is tied to the unique method by which he discovered the inherent repressiveness of self-consciousness. This thesis implies that the human psyche can neither be properly understood nor healed by theory-driven techniques that prioritize epistemological considerations. Rather the liberatory potential of psychoanalytic praxis must be grasped as an "onto-ethical discipline," by which the ideological commitments of therapy might be subverted.
有人认为,自 1914 年左右以来的精神分析历史进程中,心理治疗的临床和理论兴趣掩盖了我们对精神分析特有的自由联想方法的激进性的理解。本文抛开我们可能称之为“心理治疗”的所有努力范围,批判性地定义了“精神分析知情治疗”的实践,并将其与西格蒙德·弗洛伊德(Sigmund Freud)的“分析”区分开来,后者与他发现自我意识内在压抑性的独特方法有关。这一论点意味着,以认识论考虑为优先的理论驱动技术既不能正确理解也不能治愈人类心理。相反,必须将精神分析实践的解放潜力理解为一种“存在伦理学科”,通过这种学科,治疗的意识形态承诺可能会被颠覆。