Curing Schizophrenia

Views of Schizophrenia

A simple internet search for the word reveals a profusion of definitions with similar typecasting; e.g. Schizophrenia is “a chronic, severe, and disabling brain disorder...” (NIMHa, 2007), or “a severe, lifelong brain disorder,” (Medline, 2007), or a “disease.”

The reader may perceive something approaching a unanimity of opinion on the idea; i.e., that since this “disease” involves the brain and these authorities have deemed it to be “lifelong,” it must ipso facto be something strictly biological. A host of inferences follow: “it’s all in the genes,” “you’re born with it,” “there’s something wrong with their brains,” “the poor parents,” “medicine can cure them, if only we can find the right medicine,” “there’s no hope,” etc..., etc...

This writer thinks most of these views are about as useful as earlier ideas that people with schizophrenic symptoms were guilty of witchcraft. At least the same National Institute of Mental Health Report listed above candidly admitted:

“…schizophrenia is believed to result from a combination of environmental and genetic factors. All the tools of modern science are being used to search for the causes of this disorder.” NIMHb, 2007.

Nature or Nurture?

In fact, medical science has been looking for a biological cause for schizophrenia for close to a century and has yet to find one. Over that time, many announcements of such “findings” have been made – always accompanied by the greatest publicity, but none were proved to be verifiable.

Another curious fact of this “disease” is that people who have it sometimes spontaneously recover. How then is it a disease? Or a brain disorder? Or lifelong? It is a rare disease indeed where people spontaneously recover and where there is no known physical etiology.

What about the “environmental” factors mentioned; i.e., the family backgrounds of the people who develop schizophrenic symptoms?

Peter Breggin, M.D. (p. 103, et seq.; see generally, 1994) speaks of one of the seminal reports on schizophrenia in the history of psychiatry, the study of the Genain Quadruplets (all of whom had schizophrenic symptoms). He notes that the report of the study recites the potential “biological” evidence for schizophrenia in that case in almost inexhaustible detail – but somehow neglects to consider it noteworthy that the family life of the quadruplets included such horrors as having acid poured on their genitals.

John Modrow, did not suffer the same horrors as the Genain Quadruplets; but did endure a significant amount of craziness from his parents, which he describes throughout his outstanding book “How to Become a Schizophrenic.”

Modrow notes that:

“The claim that most schizophrenics come from perfectly normal families deserves careful consideration… (regarding a case study he presented earlier)… Although the parents in this family appeared to be very ordinary and sensible people, they were later found to be playing with their daughter’s mind, subjecting her to strange ‘telepathy experiments’… it took over a year of investigation to discover those parents’ bizarre behavior.”

1995, pp. 205-206, emphasis original.

In spite of the extreme craziness of his own parents, Modrow still thinks of them as “basically decent and relatively normal” (1995, pp. 206); but also says:

“Had a psychiatrist examined my parents… he would have found… nothing strange or odd… Moreover, had that psychiatrist known my parents intimately for several years he probably would have retained his favorable opinion of them… However… there is no doubt in my mind that their behavior towards me was the major cause of my schizophrenic breakdown.”

Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient

It is no accident that the decisive text in modern psychoanalysis is entitled “Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient.” (Spotnitz, 1985). Though the theory and techniques in that book are equally applicable to all sorts of mental difficulties, Dr. Spotnitz arrived at those results through his groundbreaking work with schizophrenic patients.

Spotnitz (1985, p. 17) proceeded from the premise that “Regardless of etiology… there is no evidence that the condition is not completely reversible.”

“The operational concept follows: Schizophrenia is an organized mental situation, an intricately structured but psychologically unsuccessful defense against destructive behavior. Both aggressive and libidinal impulses figure in this organized situation… Obliteration of the object field of the mind and fragmentation of the ego are among the secondary consequences of the defense.”

Spotnitz, 1985, p. 57, emphasis original.

As to the “environmental” variables, Spotnitz says:

“It is unnecessary to postulate that a particular type of relationship produced the infantile pattern. It may be in part innate and in part learned. Even in cases where it was taught by the mother, her attitude may not have been pathological; there may simply have been a disequilibrium between her emotional training and the infant’s impulsivity. The dynamics of the mother-child relationship are not uniform in these cases. More significant than whether the parent actually loved, hated, or was indifferent to her infant is the fact that the totality of his environment failed to meet his specific maturational needs…”

1985, p. 68, emphasis original.

In this writer’s opinion, the techniques set forth in “Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient” work equally well with other mental difficulties because mental conditions have much in common – they are all part of the human condition.

One could even say that mental difficulties are normal; part of being human - the only question being whether we still function well in spite of our difficulties, or whether those difficulties have reached intolerable proportions, such as with the schizophrenic condition.


The Talking Cure

Many people will use Herculean efforts to appear normal, to distinguish themselves from those with problems, to split themselves off from the idea that they themselves might have any mental difficulties at all.

In spite of the efforts and protestations of these ordinary people, however, skilled observers may have little difficulty seeing the underlying troubles. And, if the troubles reach a stage where they seriously interfere with the individual’s ability to love, work, or play it may be time to seek help.

When we speak of the physical illnesses we tend to think of cure as involving the complete eradication of anything relating to the condition, Not so with mental conditions – in those cases, the cure consists of placing the individual in a position where he or she can love, work and play without serious hindrance – where they can be productive and enjoy life.

The particular weakness of the individual is not likely to be completely eradicated. If a person tends to display in a phobic, or an obsessive-compulsive, or a schizophrenic, or any other way, they could have some resort to their characteristic mechanisms even after being cured. After all, we do not cure people from being human; nor do we seek to.

But, the person who has been competently treated by a modern psychoanalyst will be able to enjoy the whole range of human feelings and action available to the best of us.


References

Breggin, P. (1994). Toxic Psychiatry, New York, St. Martin's Press.

Medline. (May 24, 2007). Service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, online at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/schizophrenia.html

Modrow, J. (1995). How to Become a Schizophrenic, Everett, Wash., Apollyon Press.

NIMHa, (March 1, 2007). “Schizophrenia,” National Institute of Mental Health, online at http://www.nimh.nih.gov/healthinformation/schizophreniamenu.cfm

NIMHb, (Jan. 24, 2007). “What Causes Schizophrenia?” National Institute of Mental Health, online at http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/schizoph.cfm#symptoms

Spotnitz, H. (1985). Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient: Theory of the Technique, Second Edition, New York, Human Sciences Press.


© 2007, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org

The Narcissistic Defense

One of the unique offerings of modern psychoanalysis has to do with its understanding of the importance of “the narcissistic defense.” While it is well known that the narcissistic disorders possess a vast range of defenses available for use, something much more particular is meant when modern analysts refer to “the narcissistic defense.”

Dr. Spotnitz first observed the narcissistic defense during his clinical investigations of schizophrenia, and later successfully applied the concept to treatment of other patients:

“When the patient is frustrated, the appropriate way to discharge his feelings is to put them into words. If he is prevented from doing so when frustrated and feeling deprived by the analyst, he usually bottles up the aggression: in other words, he turns these feelings inward and begins to attack the self. This is referred to as the narcissistic defense.” (Spotnitz, 1976b, pp. 56-57, emphasis original).

Freud’s idea was that the “narcissistic wall… brings us to a stop,” and that “…(o)ur technical methods must accordingly be replaced by others; and we do not know yet whether we shall succeed in finding a substitute.” (1917, p.423). Spotnitz, however. “… discovered that the analyst resolves the adult patient’s repetitive self-attacks by changing the flow of destructive impulsivity.” (1976b, p. 56).

From the root of the word narcissism, it might at first appear that the problem is excessive “self-love,“ yet not all narcissism is “disordered:”

“We commonly recognize the value of narcissism, as well as the vital role it plays in creative activity. If we regard sleep as the quintessence of absorption in the self, we agree that narcissism is essential for self-preservation.
Need I point out that ‘narcissistic defense’ does not involve these kinds of normal activity? What we are concerned with is narcissism in a pathological sense, with self-love that serves as a cloak for self-hatred. The polarities of self-hatred and self-love are linked together in the defensive system, but the nuclear problem is the self-hatred.” (Spotnitz, 1976a, p. 104).

How might an individual develop the narcissistic defense? According to Spotnitz, the foundation is likely to be found in early childhood and:

“… is not total emotional deprivation... The defense seems to originate in a relationship which was gratifying to the infant in some respects, especially in meeting his biological needs for the intake of stimuli, but failed to meet the need of his mental apparatus for cooperation in discharging destructive energy. Nevertheless, he was not totally abandoned; he was sufficiently gratified to develop a strong craving for more gratification and, consequently, to place an unduly high value on the source of this bounty.” (Spotnitz, 1976a, p. 104).

Could it be that for the infant it is a question of survival? In the minds of very young children thoughts may have magical properties. If we have horrible thoughts; i.e., that mother frustrates us, or that we hate her, or worse; even for an instant – mother might leave us forever. Or, our violent thoughts might actually kill her; or maybe if we’re so monstrous as to think those thoughts, she might actually die, as punishment for our bad thoughts. We need to protect her at all costs.

Spotnitz hypothesizes that…

“(t)he infant got to understand that his mother might be damaged by his rage; perhaps she discouraged such reactions by withholding her favors. At any rate, the infantile ego which was not trained to release mobilized aggressive energy towards its object in feelings and language responded to prolonged periods of frustration by internalizing its destructive impulses. Much of the energy that would otherwise have been available for maturational processes was expended to bottle up this impulsivity…
The child who started out to console himself with self-love thus compensates for a specific type of damage incurred in the course of maturation by becoming the object of his own hatred. Sacrificially, he attacks his ego to preserve his external object.” (1976a, pp.104-05).

As with all the other defenses, “(t)he survival function of the narcissistic defense is respected. Though primitively organized, it has served to stabilize his mental apparatus in his interpersonal relations and insulate him against unwanted feeling states.” (Spotnitz, 1985, p. 164).

Modern psychoanalysts have a greater understanding and a wider range of techniques available to outflank Freud’s “stone wall of narcissism,” and “…(i)f the analyst provides the proper environment, the patient will re-experience emotional reactions in his relationship with the analyst that resemble those he had at some point in the past when his maturation was blocked.” (Spotnitz, 1976b, pp. 57-58).

With proper treatment, the narcissistic defense can thus be made unnecessary, allowing patients the full range of options and emotions available to mature individuals.

References

Freud, S. (1917). Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (Part 3) in the Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud, (James Strachey, et al., Ed., 1953-74), London, Hogart Press and the Institute of Psychoanalysis, 16:243-463.

Spotnitz, H. (1976a). Psychotherapy of Preoedipal Conditions, N.Y., Jason Aronson.

Spotnitz, H. and Meadow, P. (1976b). Treatment of the Narcissistic Neuroses, NY, Man. Center For Advanced Psychoanalytic Studies.

Spotnitz, H. (1985). Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient: Theory of the Technique, Second Edition, NY, Human Sciences Press.

© 2006, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: analyst@modernpsychoanalysis.org
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org

Modern Psychoanalysis and Religion

One of the first questions on this topic might be: Is it useful to talk about this? The techniques used in Modern Psychoanalysis do not seem to require a religious perspective and the creeds of the major religions do not depend upon psychoanalysis. Additionally, at least some tendencies in each perspective have been noticed to consider the other either unwelcome and intrusive, or with outright hostility.

Certainly, Sigmund Freud's own ideas towards religion would fit in the latter category and at least part of the issue from the psychoanalytic view has been the inability of some to disentangle themselves from Freud's idiosyncrasies on the subject. (See e.g., Zilboorg, 1950; see also Becker, pp. 173-75, 1973).

On the other hand, it is reported that C.G. Jung "... had never, he claimed, had a patient whose neurosis was not due to his lack of religion, nor had he ever cured a patient whose cure was not due to his return to religion." (Bartemeier, p.12, 1995).

Thus, some would agree that there at least enough of an "overlap" between the goals of religion and those of psychoanalysis to warrant discussion. But, if there is to be such a discussion, what should it consist of? Alternatively, what should it not consist of? Who might be benefited by this dialogue?

In this writer's opinion, the only really useless area of inquiry concerns one trying to prove or disprove the other; i.e., advocates of religion and psychoanalysis each adhere to self-sustaining teleological tenets as part of their individual belief systems. By their very nature, these tenets are neither provable nor disprovable by outside sources; though even this should not interfere with an open dialogue if the participants are willing to respect the feelings of others. So, perhaps the dialogue should include anything the participants wish to discuss.

While one would not expect religious instruction to be included in the curriculum of psychoanalytic institutes, or psychoanalysis to be required in seminaries, it would seem to me that each could benefit from some knowledge of the other.

Modern analysts have their own spiritual existence to consider; as well as many patients who come from a religious perspective, or even have religious components integrated into their difficulties with the world. Likewise, religious leaders have their own psyches to consider; along with some followers who would be helped by being able to talk freely in a modern psychoanalytic setting. The institutional structures in place in each of the perspectives could also be broadened by further dialogue.

As a methodology, Modern Psychoanalysis should be well-suited to a dialogue about psychoanalysis and religion because of its emphasis on the role and importance of emotional communications. Individual belief systems are often highly charged with emotion, as part of the person's self-identification process with the world.

These root emotional processes have caused some to notice a correlation between the emotional forces at work in either arena, which "...emerges as the reflective awareness of powerful affectivity rather than as a purely intellectual grasp of logical relations between concepts and symbols." (Cousins, p. 36, 1995).

Perhaps it is time for us to jointly explore these powerful emotional processes.

References

Bartemeier, L.H. (1995, 1976). "Psychoanalysis and Religion," in Psychoanalysis and Catholicism. Wolman, B., ed., NY, Jason Aronson, Inc.


Becker, E. (1973). The Denial of Death. NY, The Free Press.

Cousins, E. (1995, 1976). "The Many-leveled Psyche: Correlation Between Psychotherapy and the Spiritual Life," in Psychoanalysis and Catholicism. Wolman, B., ed., NY, Jason Aronson, Inc.

Zilboorg, G. (1950). Psychoanalysis and Religion. NY, Barnes & Noble.

© 2006, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org

Free Association and Resistance

Professor Freud (1913, p. 147) insisted that there was one “fundamental rule” the analyst needed to tell the patient “…at the very beginning:

‘Your talk with me must differ in one respect from ordinary conversation. Whereas usually you rightly try to keep the threads of your story together… here you must proceed differently… You will be tempted to say to yourself: ‘This or that has no connection here, or it is quite unimportant, or it is nonsensical, so it cannot be necessary to mention it.‘ Never give in to these objections… say whatever goes through your mind. Act as if you were sitting at the window of a railway train and describing… the changing views you see outside.’”

This fundamental rule of “saying everything” has since been referred to as “free association.” How do modern psychoanalysts implement this rule?

First, we can say that modern analysts accept that “(e)ven the analytic directive to talk must be viewed as resistance-provoking.” (Spotnitz, 1976b, p. 169).

Spotnitz (1976b, p. 159) commented that one of Freud’s first followers,

“Ferenczi had noted many devices used by patients to resist cure. He observed how difficult it was for the patient to follow the first rule of free flow of ideas until the close of the analysis, and that patients could not understand that free association did not demand complete thinking out of ideas, but complete utterance of what was actually thought.”

Dr. Spotnitz (1976a, p. 78) also recounts that attempting:

"… to overcome the resistance to free association by ‘making use of psychical compulsion’… got Freud into various difficulties. Although time-saving, his approach proved traumatizing to the patient, giving rise to feelings of disturbance, strangeness, withdrawal and the like which inhibited or even blocked communication.”

This classical approach to resistance undoubtedly also caused many patients to be labeled from the very beginning as “unanalyzable” or ‘not suitable for treatment.”

I think it could be said that most modern analysts recognize and respect the patient’s need for the “insulation” (or defenses) that result in resistances. They do not try to “smash through” the defenses and may even help reinforce some defenses until the patient is ready to give them up. This same respectful approach is taken with the question of free association.

Spotnitz (1976a, p. 141, emphasis added) indicates that cooperative behavior would be:

“…that the patient lie on the couch and talk. He is not instructed to free-associate. As the opening move in educating him to do so, he may be asked to tell his ‘ life story’ or simply to talk of his experiences; a severely disturbed individual may begin by recounting how he traveled to the office, what he ate for breakfast, and the like.”

In modern psychoanalysis, the patient’s job is to talk, while the analyst bears the responsibility of helping the patient do so.

In most cases, modern analysts rely on the contact function of the patient’s ego in deciding when and how to help in the patient’s attempts to satisfy this fundamental rule of “saying everything.” This approach helps to safeguard the patient’s developing ego from unwarranted intrusion by the analyst. (See e.g., Fennessy, 2007)

The modern psychoanalytic approach to resistance and free association has had the added benefit of expanding the number of people who may be helped by our methods to the point where “… (w)ith our increasing understanding of the psychological reversibility of the narcissistic disorders, the phrase ‘not suitable for treatment’ has been dropped from the vocabulary of the modern psychoanalyst.” (Spotnitz, 1976b, p. xi).


References

Fennessy, J. (publication pending, 2007). Narcissism and the Contact Function, in PRACTICE MATTERS, A Journal of Modern Psychoanalytic Treatment Technique (Vol. 2)

Freud, S. (1913). Further Recommendations in the Technique of Psychoanalysis (On Beginning the Treatment) in Freud; Therapy and Technique, (Philip Rieff, Ed., 1978), NY, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

Spotnitz, H. (1976a). Psychotherapy of Preoedipal Conditions, N.Y., Jason Aronson.

Spotnitz, H. and Meadow, P. (1976b). Treatment of the Narcissistic Neuroses, NY, Man. Center For Advanced Psychoanalytic Studies.


© 2006, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: analyst@modernpsychoanalysis.org
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org

Narcissistic Transference

Freud (1926, pp 52-3, emphasis original) was describing the phenomenon of transference when he said:

The neurotic sets to work because he believes in the analyst, and he believes in him because he begins to entertain certain feelings towards him…. The patient repeats, in the form of falling in love with the analyst, psychical experiences which he underwent before; he has transferred to the analyst psychical attitudes which lay ready within him…

Yet classical analysts soon found that many individuals appeared to be unable to form this type of transference with their analysts. These individuals were then often deemed “unanalyzable,” because of the central role that transference plays in psychoanalysis. (See e.g., Fennessy, 2006).

How can individuals who seem to lack the capacity to develop this “object transference” be helped? Modern psychoanalysts understand that the difficulties experienced by many patients have their origins in the pre-oedipal period. Another way of expressing this is that “(t)he narcissistic patient is arrested at some point or points in approximately the first two years of life.” (Margolis, 1981, p. 149).

Modern analysts are then able to use their skills to build a transference on a narcissistic basis. In this narcissistic transference:

“(t)he patient is permitted to mold the transference object in his own image. He builds up a picture of the therapist as someone like himself – the kind of person whom he will eventually feel free to love and hate.” (Spotnitz, 1976a, p. 109).

Dr. Spotnitz answers the question:

“’Do we want a narcissistic transference to develop?’ We do because in a negative, regressed state, the patient may experience the analyst as being like him or part of him. Or the analyst may not exist for him. The syntonic feeling of oneness is a curative one, while the feeling of aloneness, the withdrawn state, is merely protective. Because traces of narcissism remain in everyone, we seek, when beginning treatment, to create an environment that will facilitate a narcissistic transference so that, first we can work through the patient’s narcissistic aggression.” (Spotnitz, 1976b, p. 58).

Margolis further says that:

“In operational terms… the oedipal patient transfers the images of distinctive objects of his oedipal period onto the analyst, whereas the preoedipal patients transfers onto the analyst the fuzzy and ambiguous images of his narcissistic period… In building the narcissistic transference and eliciting the patient’s picture of the analyst, we are actually eliciting his picture of himself.” (1979, p.140).

Therapists who have any experience with narcissism know that narcissists are often consumed with themselves and themselves alone - given the opportunity they may talk about nothing but their own self-absorptions for years on end. Therefore, it should be apparent that the narcissistic transference will not be come into being on its own – it must be developed through the skills of the therapist.

What does the narcissistic transference look like? Spotnitz (1976a, p. 109) states that:

“On the surface it looks positive. He builds up this attitude: ‘You are like me so I like you. You spend time with me and try to understand me, and I love you for it.’ Underneath the sweet crust, however, one gets transient glimpses of the opposite attitude: ‘I hate you as I hate myself. But when I feel like hating you, I try to hate myself instead.”

Developing the narcissistic transference is normally an emotionally charged process, that proceeds at the patient’s own pace. (See generally, Fennessy, 2007). The training and clinical skills of the modern analyst, including proper use of emotional reinforcement, object-oriented questions and joining techniques, make all the difference between success and failure in nurturing this relationship.

Spotnitz (1985, p. 201) describes the result when the narcissistic transference is successfully developed:

“(w)hen one focuses on the narcissistic patterns and works consistently to help the patient verbalize frustration-tension, object transference phenomena become increasingly prominent… Eventually, the patient’s transferences are aroused by his emotional perceptions of the therapist as a parental transference figure.”

In other words, personality maturation takes place. The symbiotic relationship developed between analyst and patient (See, Spotnitz, 1984, p. 135) may help the patient’s emotional perceptions along. Repeated emotional associations to the mental images of the analyst, as constructed by the patient; strengthen the object field of the mind, or form new neuronal connections.

The greater emotional maturity which results has enduring and important ramifications for the patient in therapy, and in life.


References

Fennessy, J. (publication pending, 2007). Narcissism and the Contact Function, in PRACTICE MATTERS, A Journal of Modern Psychoanalytic Treatment Technique (Vol. 2)

Fennessy, J. (2006). Modern Psychoanalytic Education. (Online at: http://modernpsychoanalysis.blogspot.com, June 08, 2006).

Freud, S. (1926). The Question of Lay Analysis. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XX (1925-1926).

Margolis, B. (1981). Narcissistic Transference: Further Considerations. (Modern Psychoanalysis, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1981).

Margolis, B. (1979). Narcissistic Transference: The Product of Overlapping Self and Object Fields. (Modern Psychoanalysis, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1979).

Spotnitz, H. (1976a). Psychotherapy of Preoedipal Conditions, N.Y., Jason Aronson.Spotnitz, H. and Meadow, P. (1976b). Treatment of the Narcissistic Neuroses, NY, Man. Center For Advanced Psychoanalytic Studies.

Spotnitz, H. (1984). The Case of Anna O.: Aggression and the Narcissistic Countertransference. In M. Rosenbaum & M. Muroff (Eds.), Anna O.: One Hundred Years of Psychoanalysis. NY, Free Press.

Spotnitz, H. (1985). Modern Psychoanalysis of the Schizophrenic Patient: Theory of the Technique, Second Edition, NY, Human Sciences Press.


© 2007, James G. Fennessy, M.A., J.D.
Matawan, New Jersey 07747
E-mail: njanalyst@hotmail.com
http://modernpsychoanalysis.org

Wilhelm Stekel

Of Polish origin, Wilhelm Stekel initially contacted Freud in 1902 for a short analysis. He then joined the group of Wednesday evenings when he met Alfred Adler. It is together with Adler that, following the Weimar congress, he founded, the Zentralblatt für Psychoanalyse, whose direction they assumed.

Freud's correspondence needs to be read to note the extent of his poor regard for the two above, which caused him many torments. Whereas Adler had broken in a definitive way, Stekel remained much more ambivalent. Taking as a pretext the difference in opinion regarding the publication of a text by Tausk, Stekel resigned from the Vienna Association of Psychoanalysis, but refused to give up his position with Zentralblatt before the First World War ended its publication.

Stekel thereafter tried to join Freud again but the latter did not want to resume the old differences.

Stekel practiced a method of short analysis implying a more active participation on the part of the therapist. He is not really known to have had any disciples.

Copyright René DesGroseillers
http://www.microtec.net/desgros/index.html

Wilhelm Reich

Born in Galicia, Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957) is one of the best known figures of Freudian dissidence. Continuing his studies of medicine in Vienna, Reich was quite early allowed at the Psychoanalytical Society of Vienna , in 1920, where he joined a group of brilliant young analysts.

After a bright start in his with the publication of Characterial Analysis, the first part of which always makes a classic on this subject, W. Reich radically moved away from psychoanalysis while being more and more directed towards a Marxist vision on society. He was then involved in the communist movement and worked out a line of thought giving rise to both dissension and regard from such analysts as Marxists.

One of the major problems of Reich's work lies in the fact that he takes repression for repression of sexuality. Repression is an intra psychic process, accomplishing defensive needs confronted by psychical conflicts, whereas repression of sexuality is an external social process aiming at controlling a population's sexual behaviors. We can therefore understand why Reich could urge to sexual revolution and greater sexual freedom to make neuroses disappear, while at the same time being aware that the absence of adequate external controls often increases rigidity of intra psychic defenses in place.

Because of his revolutionary ideas, Reich soon had to flee from the rise of Nazism. His settled in Maine, the United States, where he founded the Orgone Institute in 1942, in agreement with his theories based on the power of the orgasm. Towards the end of his career, Reich work out increasingly esoteric theories which had little impact in the analytical media, at least.

Following a lawsuit by the American Food and Drug Administration, Reich was imprisoned and he finally died in prison.

Copyright René DesGroseillers
http://www.microtec.net/desgros/index.html

Georg Groddeck

Georg Groddeck (1866-1934) occupies a special place among those who can be regarded as Freudian dissidents. Groddeck had indeed already worked out his own theoretical vision when he came into contact with Freud who, impressed by this original doctor's ideas, prompted him to regard Groddeck as one of his own group.

In fact, the first contact between Freud and this Baden-Baden doctor went as far back as 1912, when Groddeck had published a highly critical analysis of psychoanalysis. A few years later Groddeck renewed his contacts with Freud to apologise and acknowledge his poor understanding of psychoanalysis at the time. This was the first letter of a long correspondence between the two,

It is from Groddeck that Freud borrowed the concept of Self (id), by considerably modifying however the direction he gave this term. For Groddeck, das Es represents the unknown force in control of people, the source of all physical diseases. Freud turned it into a psychic authority, the source of all impulses.

Though never an analyst, Groddeck attended psychoanalytical congresses and meetings. He often shocked the assistance by his description as a wild analyst. Ferenczi was extremely impressed by Groddeck's ideas and they often discussed the latter's own ideas on techniques known as active .

Copyright René DesGroseillers
http://www.microtec.net/desgros/index.html

Alfred Adler

Alfred Adler (1870-1937) was a young doctor in Vienna and among the very first disciples to join Freud, and take part in the discussion sessions on Wednesday evenings. He was never a close relation of Freud however, as the latter's correspondence often expressed his little regard for his disciples who did not produce a significant work.

Adler quickly proved an ambitious and suspicious collaborator, not very inclined to play the role of disciple. Adler soon worked out his theoretical divergences around the idea of the dominate-dominated ratio. In his opinion, Oedipus is merely a symbol of much more fundamental problems, bringing to the fore the weak little boy seeking to compensate for his physical inferiority versus his father in his desire to dominate the mother.

Adler estimated that the position of President of the International Psycho-Analytic Association was rightfully his, and he disagreed with the appointment made by Jung in 1910. Adler was not satisfied with Freud's proposal who, in spite of his own dislike for him, offerred Adler the leadership of the Vienna Society for Psychoanalysis.

Adler, who, together with Stekel, ran the Zentralblatt für Psychoanalyse , gave up his positions in 1911 in order to create, with nine of the 35 members of the Vienna Society, an association which was going to become the Society for Individual Psychology.

After having moved away from Freud, Adler worked much in the field of pedagogy. The sources of his thought seem more on the side of Marx, Nietzsche and Leibniz than of Freud.

Copyright René DesGroseillers
http://www.microtec.net/desgros/index.html

C.G. Jung

Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) was considerably important in the analytical movement for his being generally regarded as the dissident prototype, for the impact of his break as well as for the extent of the movement he created thereafter.

Of Swiss origin, Jung was the son of a preacher. He made medical studies, became specialised in psychiatry, then entered Burghölzli, the famous Zurich Psychiatric Hospital, whose manager was the no less famous Eugen Bleuler.

Between 1902-1903, Jung attended a training course in Paris, with Pierre Janet, then returned to Zurich to be appointed chief physician in Burghölzli

It is in this context that Jung became introduced to Freud, in 1907. Freud was attracted by Jung's prestige and personality and was soon to see him as his spiritual son, who could ensure the survival of psychoanalysis.

BurgholzliStrong bonds were then woven between the two at the time of the development of psychoanalysis.

Jung was the subject of an impetuous rise in the hierarchy of psychoanalysis. He became the editor of the Jahrbuch, in 1908, took part in the 1909 voyage to America, and became the first president of the International Association of Psychoanalysis, in 1910.

In his desire to find a quality promoter of his ideas in Jung, Freud tended to minimize Jung's ambivalent manifestations and reserves. The latter had to do with the role of sexuality in the psychic development. Jung had in fact never truly acquiesced to Freud's sexual theory, which he judged as too extensive.

Starting with 1912, Jung took more and more distance in his writings, which cause a clamorous rupture to be made concrete in 1914, by Jung's resignation from his positions.

Freud/Jung LettersThe Freud-Jung Letters, published in English. More info about this book here. Read some abstracts here.
After a short period of personal disorders, Jung founded his own movement (the analitical psychology), and produced a considerable work which appealed to many disciples.

Forsaking the meanders of psychosexuality, Jung embraced spirituality and the so-called rational theology.

_______________
Source: http://www.freudfile.org/jung.html

C.G. Jung

Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961) was considerably important in the analytical movement for his being generally regarded as the dissident prototype, for the impact of his break as well as for the extent of the movement he created thereafter.

Of Swiss origin, Jung was the son of a preacher. He made medical studies, became specialised in psychiatry, then entered Burghölzli, the famous Zurich Psychiatric Hospital, whose manager was the no less famous Eugen Bleuler.

Between 1902-1903, Jung attended a training course in Paris, with Pierre Janet, then returned to Zurich to be appointed chief physician in Burghölzli

It is in this context that Jung became introduced to Freud, in 1907. Freud was attracted by Jung's prestige and personality and was soon to see him as his spiritual son, who could ensure the survival of psychoanalysis.

BurgholzliStrong bonds were then woven between the two at the time of the development of psychoanalysis.

Jung was the subject of an impetuous rise in the hierarchy of psychoanalysis. He became the editor of the Jahrbuch, in 1908, took part in the 1909 voyage to America, and became the first president of the International Association of Psychoanalysis, in 1910.

In his desire to find a quality promoter of his ideas in Jung, Freud tended to minimize Jung's ambivalent manifestations and reserves. The latter had to do with the role of sexuality in the psychic development. Jung had in fact never truly acquiesced to Freud's sexual theory, which he judged as too extensive.

Starting with 1912, Jung took more and more distance in his writings, which cause a clamorous rupture to be made concrete in 1914, by Jung's resignation from his positions.

Freud/Jung LettersThe Freud-Jung Letters, published in English. More info about this book here. Read some abstracts here.
After a short period of personal disorders, Jung founded his own movement (the analitical psychology), and produced a considerable work which appealed to many disciples.

Forsaking the meanders of psychosexuality, Jung embraced spirituality and the so-called rational theology.

_______________
Source: http://www.freudfile.org/jung.html

The Psychoanalytic Movement : The Dissidents

C.G. Jung
Alfred Adler
Georg Groddeck
Wilhelm Reich
Wilhelm Stekel

The history of the psychoanalysis is strewn with debates concerning the theory and the clinical practice. More often than differently, these quarrels are also wars of being able and competitions personal. It is there probably the batch of many similar movements where abound the strong personalities and the original ideas.

As a whole, the analytical movement could compose rather well with diversity. However, certain individuals worked out from the points of view theoretical or clinical at such point far away from the central designs of the Freudian psychoanalysis which they felt the need to break with the movement or were excluded from it. We approach here the dissidents who surround Freud, those which led it to create the secret committee dedicated to the backup of the psychoanalysis.

Overdetermination

(Paul Klee Death and Fire)

Overdetermination describes Freud’s unconscious as a “thought factory” in analogy with an inexhaustibly productive team of weavers.

Freud was by no means the first neurologist to refer to the fact that symptoms appear to have multiple causation. He does seem to be one of the few in the late 19th century to be making claims such that multiple causation is the rule rather than the interesting exception. In Studies on Hysteria he points out that:

There is in principle no difference between the symptom’s appearing in a temporary way after its first provoking cause and its being latent from the first. Indeed the great majority of instances we find that a first trauma has left no symptom behind, while a later trauma of the same kind produces a symptom, and yet the latter could not have come into existence without the co-operation of the earlier provoking cause; nor can it be cleared up without taking all the provoking causes into account.

Overdetermination refers to all the provoking causes of an hysterical symptom. There is a hint here already of that Nachtraglichkeit--the activated-after-the-event-ness of the provocation--that Derrida picks up on in “Freud and the Scene of Writing” and which seems rather profoundly to suggest a notion of time not subordinated to the present.

The pattern is as follows: a trauma may have little or no effect at first yet a later trauma of a similar kind provokes a symptom by triggering off the provocation of the earlier trauma as well--a process which is continued repeatedly. It is also the pattern of the repetition compulsion (and is thus indicated by the function of the letter in Lacan’s reading of Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Purloined Letter”).

Later in Studies on Hysteria it is Joseph Breuer who first writes the actual word--although he does attribute it to Freud: “Such symptoms are invariably ‘overdetermined,’ to use Freud’s expression.” The word is überdeterminiert. When Freud employs a similar term at around this time it is überbestimmt. In the Dreambook the notion is pretty much taken for granted--a parenthesis explains to the reader why it is possible to have more than one interpretation of a dream: “The two interpretations are not mutually contradictory, but cover the same ground; they are a good instance of the fact that dreams, like all other psychological structures, regularly have more than one meaning.” The notion of meaning here should be referred to the notion of “provoking cause.” But later he defines it in the famous statement derived from Goethe’s Faust. Analysing a dream (his own) in which “botanical” is a nodal point (of condensations) he says: “Here we find ourselves in a factory of thought where, as in the Weaver’s masterpiece --

' . . . a thousand threads one treadle throws,
Where fly the shuttles hither and thither,
Unseen the threads are knit together,
And an infinite combination grows.'"

The factory of thought, or the textile, is explained thus: “The explanation of this fundamental fact can also be put another way: each of the elements of the dream’s content turns out to have been ‘overdetermined’--to have been represented in the dream-thoughts many times over.” In other words the textile unconscious is overdetermined by a plural and busy production team--actively producing, causing, provoking symptoms (like dreams and puns and jokes)--ad infinitum.

In Derrida the determination that escapes all determinations is what is referred to by the term differance--and it is this that gives all those other determinations their chance. Derrida’s reading of Freud (vigilant against his concepts) finds a language describing the psyche in terms of forces and resistances, and which consistently uses metaphors of retentive writing machines (the mystic writing pad for instance as memory) with inexhaustible receptivity. In other words the phenomenon of overdetermination is in fact an effect of the unconscious as reserve of repetition and a function therefore of the inexistent repeatability of the trace--overdetermining all provocations.

In terms of deconstruction this has interesting implications. Like Freud faced with a multiplicity of dream thoughts, the reader generally is faced with the question of where to begin (the beginning of Derrida’s Glas poses the problem with underestimated clarity). So Geoffrey Bennington, for instance, in “Derridabase,” writes: “The somewhere where you always start is overdetermined (surdetermine) by historical, political, philosophical, and phantasmatic structures that in principle can never be fully controlled or made explicit.” And as if in impossible exemplification, Derrida, at the bottom of the same page: "Consign them here, but why I wonder, confide to the bottom of this book what were my mother’s last more or less intelligible sentences, still alive at the moment I am writing this, but already incapable of memory, in any case of the memory of my name, a name become for her at the very least unpronounceable . . .”

Source:http://www.angelfire.com/de/jwp/deconstruction.html