days ago, a very young boy who is starting the race Psychology, asked if the psychoanalyst when interpreting, for example, a dream, does not exert any influence on the "patient" (we'll see what answers the encomillado). Obviously, or some reading, or your own fantasy caused him this question, and possibly also questioned ethically.
not boring friends who have kindly read these lines, I summarize the than the explanation I gave you proposing to change the word "patient" with a more appropriate: "analysand". While "patient" refers to an attitude of waiting, with more or less passive, the "analysand" is pure activity: the dream is not dream images, but words with which to build it as a story analyst. That is, the dream are the words with which the patient built a story that gives the analyst for interpretation. We emphasize from now something: the interpretation is going to give is always in relation to the uniqueness of the subject, precisely because in the dream (as in the failed acts, the slip) is produced what might be called an "effect subject ", the emergence of the subject itself. It is this that suggests the involvement of analyst, and this what, exactly, he never could "control" or "influence" . The question has several other sides to consider, but for our purposes are irrelevant. Quedémonos with the idea that effects are not susceptible of calculation, and that these effects tell us about an another scene, a different component legality.
However, these effects are often not easily discernible causality: interpretations that could be considered brilliant intellectual constructs fail any effect, simply because they do not reach that point of subjective truth, and sometimes a simple silence operates much more efficiently . Or sometimes the effect does not occur at the time and maybe one month appears in the speech of the analysand something linked to this.
I never tire of repeating one of Freud's formulations on the design of the cure: " move from the current neurotic misery to misfortune" . This, in itself, among other things, could summarized as a change in subject position before the world: eg. leave a condition of complaint and consider what has to do one, what it does and what it does not do the things that happen.
And here we reach the point itself linked to our usual topics, I have no pretension of making a parallel between the vicissitudes of psychoanalysis and political issues, economic and social crisis a society, what would be a terrible reductionism, but can stand some points to ponder.
One is that, for better or for worse, in recent years, kirchnerismo has forced us all to start thinking about what we have to do as a society, with what happens to us. ; Indeed, beyond the actions "for the Tribune that we often see politicians on TV, on our level, that of ordinary citizens will increasingly making the discussion of ideas about the kind of society we want. Everything is put on the table, with the passions it provokes, with the meetings and the disagreements, yes, but with mobility. The only way to build a better society is not through consensus but the fertility of ideas, its transformation from its opening gearbox. The consensus is somewhat sterile, conformist. Consensus is the point of agreement of detention of ideas, acts, of life. Could said that reaching consensus is to decree the death of the transformation. The review of the past, so many people uncomfortable, a condition not to repeat: the review of the past is to make him talk, deciphering its structure, cut your circuit repetitive able to make their grief .'s Trials the murderers in uniform should have their counterpart in the trials of the murderers in suits and ties; in no matter their decrepit bodies: only the fact actually be achieved by law. But I think even more important that these things happen in every one of us in the same trial: the symbolic pact law that binds us, makes us community.
Another effect is that our view of the media, and will never be the same . Maybe now we can understand that, as media companies engaged in the business of communication, are governed much more by the entrepreneurial freedom of the press that is, mediation selection and interpretation of exercise between the events and society as a whole, are more determined by their interests than by their contribution to the common good, which is information. On this issue, we can not plead ignorance and absolve us, and in any case, be left to the ethical position of each do you do with it.
remember the devastating effect it had in late 2001 when it completed the process by which the state abdicated its role, relocating to the Policy as guiding the destiny of the company is generating, on the contrary the incorporation of young people as new social actors, who today claims arising from their students. Also the possibility of marriage for same-sex was made possible by a framework provided from politics.
Who writes these lines has clearly defined the place from which it does. Surely this will be read by other people located in different places ideological, some closer, others at odds, but I think to one and all we do is reclaim the intellectual honesty to abandon the position of the complaint, beginning to discuss and define the type of society towards which march, yes, but in a constructive spirit, stating also, why not, what are we willing to lose it, because shifting from neurotic misery to ordinary misfortune, is cost, both for the subject, as a society.
0 comments:
Post a Comment