I'm a medical doctor in Germany, at the end of my training in psychiatry. I did my psychotherapy training in CBT, and I'm now doing training in psychoanalysis as a second psychotherapy modality.

I work in a practice, my boss isn't a psychiatrist, rather a specialist in psychosomatic medicine (separate specialty here in Germany) and psychoanalyst.

He believes that true and lasting change can't be achieved while under the effects of medication. That you have to be living the true nature and burden of your existence in order to understand your condition and strive for change. And how medication blunts that ability and creates a fake feeling that the problem has been resolved. He obviously leans towards not prescribing medication.

I find it hard not to prescribe medication, specially in more severe cases. For example, one of our patients has a severe depressive episode and has lost 10kg of weight in a month. Or a patient that has daily panick attacks. My view of psychiatry is bio-psycho-social, and see the importance of medications.

I don't want to make the thread about this, but as a side note I've seen the same happen with something else. The same people share the notion that ADHD doesn't exist as to how current psychiatry conceptualizes it, and are against the use of stimulants to treat patients.

Regarding the view about medication, i've heard this from other psychosomatic physicians that do psychoanalysis. But perhaps it's my small bubble. So I wanted to ask what the general view is.

I’m interested in what intersubjectivity means and how it may be impacted by someone who has experienced relational trauma and how it might show up in the therapy room between analyst and analysand. More specifically - someone who does not believe they exist in other people’s minds and struggles with object permanence.

Hello! I am in need of some advice regarding how to proceed. I am interested in becoming a psychoanalyst. Currently, I have my bachelors degree and am working in social services. I am planning on applying to masters in psychological counseling / mental health counseling to attend next fall. I am keeping in mind that I want to take up training after I get licensed to practice. The thing is, my state does not have a psychoanalytic institute (USA). I am open to attending a masters program out of state that has a psychoanalytic Institute nearby. I am just not sure what the standard protocol is here, and I want to minimize costs. I’m also concerned about getting licensed in one state and then not being able to practice in a different state. What do most people do?

I'm looking for an institute that lear psychodynamic in their residence or post-residence for medical students, graduated md or graduated psychiatrists.

I've been studying different psychodynamic theories for the past year now, I've read a little bit from Freud, Jung, Adler, Karen Horney, Erich Fromm, D. Winnicott and Lacan.

I've been wondering if Harry Stack Sullivan is someone that is worth getting into. Is there anything that I need to know beforehand?

After reading Civilization and its Discontents and trying to read the Ego and the Id, I realized how hard it was to wrap my head around Freud's points. The way he expresses them is confusing. I couldn't follow. I don't know if it's due to translation or if he was writing to a specific audience that can follow him.

​​«Subversión del sujeto y dialéctica del deseo en el inconsciente freudiano» (1960)

​En este texto clave, Lacan fórmula la frase de manera explícita:

​«No hay metalenguaje que pueda decirse verdadero...» («Il n'y a pas de métalangage que se pueda decir verdadero»).

Qué significa esto? que implicaciones tiene esto para la clínica?

I want to become a counsellor/psychotherapist and eventually specialise in Jungian work. I’m looking for something vocational and inspiring: a small institute where practising therapists mentor you closely, observe your work and supervise you with real clients rather than a heavily academic programme.

Psychodynamic, existential or depth-oriented training would be ideal. Some CBT is fine, but I wouldn’t want it to be the main focus. Within two years, I’d want to qualify for a licence or recognised professional registration - or be very close, with clearly defined requirements remaining. It should also not cost an arm and a leg.

Online with a proper placement would be great, but I’m happy to relocate anywhere that accepts international students and supports a student visa.

Has anyone found something like this? I’d love to hear from people who took a less conventional route and found excellent mentors.

Does anyone have any reading recommendations having to do with premature termination due to an analyst's countertransference? I am especially looking for any literature that addresses the patient prematurely terminating due to their experience of the countertransference. I am well read on the classical cases (Dora of course, etc.) but I am looking for more contemporary texts (and especially any with case vignettes would be ideal!) This is for an assigned class presentation on countertransference dangers, so clinical examples are the most valuable.

Thank you!

In this context, I use critical theory to refer to feminism, queer theory, Marxism, decolonial theory, etc. One thing I’m definitely looking for is an accessible version of the main ideas in Juliet Mitchell’s Psychoanalysis and Feminism (and/or potentially her new work on Fratriarchy). Ideally, I’m looking for short chapters or nice summary articles, maybe 10 to 25 pages each. I’ve reread all chapters of Mitchell’s P&F and think each is too difficult for undergrads (specifically, those not at a top university) or can’t stand on its own.

Basically, I’d love to show how many fundamentals of psychoanalysis are still relevant, Freud wasn’t just a sexist patriarch, these ideas actually help explain roots of patriarchy, they also are not inherently cis-heteronormative and can explain homophobia and transphobia, etc. But I don’t want to / can’t afford to delve into dense, graduate-level (sometimes byzantine) Lacanian theory.

I admire Nancy McWilliams’ work but haven’t found anything short on this topic. I haven’t read Jessica Benjamin or Joan Copjec, but it seems they would be too difficult. Obviously Judith Butler’s stuff on melancholia is way too difficult. I just heard about Mari Ruti’s book on penis envy that seems promising, but again, I worry there isn’t one chapter that does the trick.

Is there something like an encyclopedia of psychoanalysis (and feminism or critical theory) that’s written at an undergrad level or some popular readers or intro textbooks?

Thanks!

I am reading The Norton Psychology Reader which contains the following excerpt from Freud's On the History of the Psycho-Analytic Movement:

"We have learnt from psycho-analysis that the essence of the process of repression lies, not in putting an end to, in annihilating, the idea which represents an instinct, but in preventing it from becoming conscious."

I assume that an idea in this context would be akin to an image, and that the content and form of that image communicates obliquely the end which the instinct, represented through that image, seeks. The image exposed to consciousness may lead to a revelation regarding the aims of the instinct, but an event or series of events had previously rendered that instinct problematic, so to prevent the form of communication that the problematic instinct takes - images - from reaching consciousness and therefore making more direct satisfaction of that problematic instinct possible, the "mind" utilizes the action of repression to prevent such a rising from occurring.

What is written above may be a superficial understanding, or even misunderstanding, of the sequence of steps involved in the process of repression, but what really stumps me is what Freud means by idea in the context of this passage, and possibly his use of the word in other contexts.

Can anyone offer a clear definition of what Freud means by an idea here?

Shared my criticism of the post-Freudians with my supervisor and he seemed genuinely offended lol. Love how this field brings out such passions in our doctrinal debates.

Fyi, I find post-Freudians, and the academics in general, very phenomenological and scientific, whereas Lacan and Freud are much more structural and philosophical.

My supervisor has me reading stuff by the post-Freudians/psychodynamic therapists and I have to say it's very heavy on phenomenology. Their goal is to describe their concepts with as much detail and variety as possible. It reminds me a lot of academia.

Lacan, and Freud, on the other hand, focus much more on the structures and principles underlying these diverse phenomena. Lacan especially almost never gives case studies but these papers are filled with them.

They both have their place I suppose but I find Lacan's writings much much more inspired.

What's now grouped under the umbrella of "ego psychology" was once called "classical Freudianism." Lacanians also, at times, adopt the position of representing the "true Freudians." I have some questions for Lacanians who oppose "ego psychology"--or, more broadly, the dominant theoretical & technical line in psychoanalysis across continental Europe and the US in the 40s-60s, which was theoretically grounded in Freud's structural model and technically focused on analysis of transference and resistance.

What exactly are the Freudian critiques--not the Lacanian ones--of that theoretical & technical line? The Lacanian critiques I've encountered all use his language and theoretical framework (and so can at times seem to assume their validity as a premise), and I also find many of them seem to argue against strawmen (e.g., the idea that classical analysts had for their patients the treatment aim of normative adaptation to society). I haven't come across critiques grounded in Freud himself--that is, critiques of the claim that midcentury ego psychology represents a conservative fidelity to Freud's thought & technique that lay out the ways it in fact significantly diverges from, misreads, or misrepresents Freud. What are the theoretical concepts and technical principles being argued against, and what is the Freudian case against them?

I would love for any Lacanians to try to respond in your own words, and I'd also welcome links to papers that engage with these questions. In either case, I'm interested only in arguments that narrowly draw on Freud himself for making the case against midcentury "ego psychology"/"classical Freudianism" and don't employ Lacan or Lacanian language or concepts in any way and that have concrete references for ideas or positions they're critiquing and don't build strawmen out of classical/ego psychological thought & technique.

hi everyone!
I'll skip the part about introducing myself and my background, I'll just say that I'm a psychologist and I'm getting my education in my country. I work within a different approach, but I'm EXTREMELY interested in psychoanalysis and the psychodynamic approach in general, and so I have a few questions - they might seem stupid to you, sorry, but I genuinely want to turn to experts for advice. I'll also warn you that English isn't my native language, so sorry if there are any mistakes here.^^

If we don't go into details and if we acknowledge HOW complexly everything is structured, what would you advise someone who is just starting their journey in psychoanalysis, in general? As if you were going back to the very beginning of your own journey: what would you recommend to that version of yourself?

I'm also very concerned about the question of literature — textbooks, manuals, guides, anything on psychoanalysis. Could you recommend must-reads at a basic level, something on various aspects, some SSS+-tier books? And in particular - I'm interested in clinical psychoanalysis/the psychodynamic approach, I would be incredibly grateful for pointers specifically in that direction, because I find it hard to find something on personality disorders/addictions/other clinical situations there.

And the last (but not least) question: I constantly hear that in psychoanalysis and the psychodynamic approach there are a great many different directions and schools, for example, "relationalists," the Lacanian school, and many, many others. Is there some kind of list of all possible directions/modalities/whatever this even is, so that I could choose something for myself? And I'd also be glad for book suggestions for these approaches, if you can recommend something worthwhile on this or that direction…

Thank you so much! You'll be helping me incredibly, good luck <З

Can Transference Focused Psychotherapy be effective for patients meeting twice a month? Or does it need to be multiple times a week to be intense enough?

Forgive me if this is a silly or redundant question but is there anything more specifically significant about dreaming of being in analysis or in a very clear or stated analytic situation (eg. experiencing a very abrupt moment of transference with someone who is identified as the analyst, experiencing oneself as being the analyst to another), especially if one has never been in or experienced actual analysis, only read about it and studied it? Wish-fulfillment, or something deeper?

pretty much title; looking for some reading on ADHD/ADD from a psychoanalytic view - approaches, ontologies, case examples, etc. not exclusive to any population or age group

Can anyone recommend psychoanalytic literature on how an analyst’s public visibility affects the analytic frame? I’m particularly interested in overlapping social circles and changes in anonymity over the course of a longstanding analysis.
I’d appreciate theoretical or clinical writing on these dynamics and their implications for transference, privacy, and boundaries.

I'm a third year psychology student and I spent all of summer getting into Lacanian theory, I've read books like "how to read Lacan", "introduction to the lacanian clinic", "signifier pointing at the moon", "The queerness of psychoanalysis" and so on...

But I'm having a difficult time in uni applying this lense to the given material cause the material's too reductionistic, methodical and too focused on psychopathology through the lense of books like the DSM-V

I believe diagnosis via a lacanian lense is possible because of Bruce fink's books, but he only talks about hysteria and obsessive compulsion and perversion... is there a way to understand personalities like let's say, narcissistic, schizoid, depressive, hypomanic by Lacan?

Opinion | Therapy Needs Therapy. Neuroscience Can Help. - The New York Times

I feel like this must have already been touched on but -

ADHD as a masculinity inspired disorder where desire is converted into duty and necessisity to cover over a sense of helplessness and dependency.

Like men hide their desire for women by hiding behind their acts. Saying as a man it's my duty to do such an such. Or that it's evolutionary science, it's my instinct that makes me pursue you.

Avoiding revealing their lack and desire.

ADHD as an exaggerated form of creating lots of mini emergencies. You're doign one task, and then your brain says that you actually need to do something else. And you just bounce from need to need.

Then this links to IBS and the connection with ADHD.

Since IBS is an inabiltiy to say i desire to exit this scenario thats converted into a bodily symptom of bowels acting up which then permits you to say "I need to leave"

Then also the relation with omnipotence and time.

Where desire reveals limits, lack. And forces you to exclude other decisions you can make. Which these things reveal you're not a god. and that you're helpless because you can't attend to everything.

I've written an article (though written by AI, I'm not a writer. But still these ideas). I can post it as a comment here if people would like, but on this psychoanalytic sub I guess people get the gist.

Anyway would love to hear your thoughts.

I really enjoyed a lecture of Jessica Benjamin's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FyqIRk6JLI&t=3937s), and am zeroing in on a small part of it (starts at 1:22:30) in the hope of gaining some insight.

Benjamin starts w/ a Fairbairn quote: “It is better to be a sinner in a world ruled by God, than a saint in a world ruled by the devil (moral defense).”  She goes on to say, “The preoccupation with keeping mother good and repairing the object translates into the need for a world safely ruled by God. This is where we get into all the trouble and this is where understandably the confusion around what is really reparation arises. Now remember that when this happens clinically what you see are people for whom goodness… their worthiness to even live, and their sanity are at stake. If they (the patient) have in some way alienated you (the analyst), then they are really in danger of being not worthy of living, and possibly really crazy. Experiencing that with someone is also extremely painful and difficult; it’s nothing to make light of.”

I know she’s in the Winnicottian territory of the need for the object’s survival of one’s aggression, the need to be able to depend on the object and know that the object won’t retaliate (by withdrawal or attack) or crumble if one ceases being actively preoccupied w/ constantly repairing the object within one’s own mind (alone, anxious, rather than a real interpersonal relationship and exchange; and this being relational theory’s critique of Klein). What I’m interested in is her description of what happens when this paranoid, obsequious preoccupation of needing to always be working on keeping the object good… when it sort of cracks; it strikes me as a sort of spell that suddenly lifts. When one, somehow, can see that the world is not ruled by God, that the thing that kept the object good in one’s eyes was maintained only by one’s own omnipotent and quasi-delusional mental activity… when one glimpses that the reparation going on was actually a pretense… I’m interested in the state of mind that follows from this. It sounds like that patient suddely drops into a no-man’s land, and they don’t know what the fuck is going on; hence the what sounds to me like severe depression and risk of psychosis. I’m interested in this state of mind, and why this situation she describes has such a devastating effect.

If you have any thoughts that would help me understand this a bit better!