Continuing the previous Posts, we now return to the questions that sparked the reflections in this essay: to what extent is todays’ subjectivity a reflection/result of cultural changes? Is psychoanalysis outdated? With the aim of creating a familiar vocabulary in order to think of today’s symptoms, we will consider Freud’s methodology from two of his main assumptions, which address the role of anguish in psyche development. 1) Anguish[1] is the primary existential condition of the human being- it emerges alongside the need for survival (breastfeeding). 2) Anguish also acts as a “thermometer” to measure whether a conflict in the present triggers a disproportionate stress response to the actual event. Both definitions remain valid and, in our view, are the one of the most refined understandings of emotional disorders. Anxiety, depression and difficulties with sociability have been exhaustingly detailed in terms of symptoms but not in terms of etiology, unless we consider the triggers of symptoms as their etiology. Various theories and methods exist to address circumstantial anxieties and to map psychopathological patterns. However, if these patterns are as neurotic, there is a high likelihood that they will reoccur (the same symptom) or will manifest in other symptoms (with the same psychological function). Unconscious patterns are structural and arise from areas of the psyche[2] that have not fully developed due to early traumas and/or inhibitory atmospheres such as rejection, abandonment, hostility, indifference, among others. Following this line of thinking, it is unlikely for these patterns to be resolved solely through training techniques/strategies, unless individuals actively address these introjected memories. From this perspective, psychoanalysis continues to offer a valuable contribution. In conclusion, its contribution remains relevant to reflect on todays’ personalities, from two main points 1) in clinical investigation on inhibitory atmospheres during childhood, which, today, in major cases, are less usually sexual repressive ones; 2) in the introjection of identity models, particularly parental ones, which serves as the fundamental pillar of ego development. Ego is constituted by values, concepts, ideas, preferences that shapes one’s self-perception. To sum up, life aspirations and identity references have undergone changed. Obviously, social changes will have an impact on Egos’ development, once old moral values and esthetical references have been replaced. Our goal has been/was to show that these changes have had an influence on more creative Egos and on more reluctant ones, in what concerns their own needs and desires (many references and possibilities available). This is the background of new emotional disorders. The last generations, in general, are less neurotic (meaning less sexually repressed) but they are also more anxious, with more difficulty to focus/concentration, and with many associated anxiety disorders[3]. The link between them is the increase of existential anguishes- the ones related to the direction in adult life. To be continued in the next Post [1] For Freud, in his last version of Anguish theory (Inhibition, symptom and anxieties, 1926), the difference between them is that the latter- automatic anguish -is the product of a psychic helplessness concerning latent content, whereas the first one is a product of biologic helplessness. La Planche and Pontalis (2001)., p.27. Martins Fontes. São Paulo. SP. Brazilian edition. [2] For more details see Post 1- Cenesthetic Phase, in essay 5- Anguish. In: www.ceciliapsicologa.org. [3] This topic will be developed in the following essay.
Comments