在线精神分析:Paolo Migone访谈录

IF 0.9 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, PSYCHOANALYSIS
Giuseppe Salerno
{"title":"在线精神分析:Paolo Migone访谈录","authors":"Giuseppe Salerno","doi":"10.1080/0803706X.2021.1991593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Paolo Migone: Psychoanalysis via the Internet is certainly possible, and the theoretical premises are the same as those underlying “normal” psychoanalysis, that is, psychoanalysis not involving the Internet. I have used quotation marks for the adjective “normal” to imply that it is a theoretical error to think that there is a normal psychoanalysis, which is in fact a myth (recalling the myth of the “classical technique,” which exists mostly in books). Psychoanalysis is a general theory that is applied to infinite clinical situations: different settings, different weekly frequencies, groups, couples, families, emergencies, brief therapies, severe diagnoses, and so forth. In each of these cases, psychoanalysis must be adapted to the situation and needs of individual patients, at least according to ego psychology, the important psychoanalytic school, which began as early as the 1930s and spread mainly in the USA in the middle of the twentieth century. To make things clearer, I will give an example: if we, in order to remain “psychoanalysts,” will not modify our so-called “classical” technique with patients who need it to be modified or who cannot tolerate it, paradoxically we cease to be psychoanalysts, or rather we are bad psychoanalysts. The thought that psychoanalysis is just the one referred to as “classical” (outside the Internet, use of the couch, high weekly frequency, etc.) does not mean only impoverishing, but also misunderstanding it and showing a lack of comprehension of the theory of technique. It means using a stereotyped technique, learned in the wrong way. I will say more: to think that online and offline therapy are “different objects” means having a theory of technique that makes us make mistakes even in traditional therapy, that is, therapy not involving the Internet. It also shows a lack of understanding what “communication” is about. It is obvious that an online and an offline therapy are very different, but in the same way that two offline (i.e. “normal”) therapies can be extremely different from each other, and there can be more difference between two offline therapies than between an online therapy and an offline therapy. Thinking that diversity resides only in the communication methods means not knowing what the main variables at play in a therapy are. And it is equally obvious that a patient, for transference reasons (or a therapist, for countertransference reasons), may prefer Internet therapy (some patients may want to defend themself, without realizing it, from the “real” relationship, or rather from the fantasy they have of the real-life relationship, for example being afraid of dependency, etc.), and it would be the therapist’s mistake not to see and not to interpret this defense. However, it is equally obvious that a patient and a therapist can defend themselves from the fantasy they have of Internet therapy, and often this defense is not analyzed precisely because the therapist considers “normal” only a therapy not via the Internet (in the same way they may consider “normal” the classical technique, for example the use of the couch, and therefore do not consider cases in which a patient may use it defensively). The therapist is thus acting according to a prejudice, in which the clinical data are not interpreted but are given a priori, as in a sort of labeling theory, and therefore to a theory that we could define as “nonpsychoanalytic.”","PeriodicalId":43212,"journal":{"name":"International Forum of Psychoanalysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Online psychoanalysis: Interview with Paolo Migone\",\"authors\":\"Giuseppe Salerno\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0803706X.2021.1991593\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Paolo Migone: Psychoanalysis via the Internet is certainly possible, and the theoretical premises are the same as those underlying “normal” psychoanalysis, that is, psychoanalysis not involving the Internet. I have used quotation marks for the adjective “normal” to imply that it is a theoretical error to think that there is a normal psychoanalysis, which is in fact a myth (recalling the myth of the “classical technique,” which exists mostly in books). Psychoanalysis is a general theory that is applied to infinite clinical situations: different settings, different weekly frequencies, groups, couples, families, emergencies, brief therapies, severe diagnoses, and so forth. In each of these cases, psychoanalysis must be adapted to the situation and needs of individual patients, at least according to ego psychology, the important psychoanalytic school, which began as early as the 1930s and spread mainly in the USA in the middle of the twentieth century. To make things clearer, I will give an example: if we, in order to remain “psychoanalysts,” will not modify our so-called “classical” technique with patients who need it to be modified or who cannot tolerate it, paradoxically we cease to be psychoanalysts, or rather we are bad psychoanalysts. The thought that psychoanalysis is just the one referred to as “classical” (outside the Internet, use of the couch, high weekly frequency, etc.) does not mean only impoverishing, but also misunderstanding it and showing a lack of comprehension of the theory of technique. It means using a stereotyped technique, learned in the wrong way. I will say more: to think that online and offline therapy are “different objects” means having a theory of technique that makes us make mistakes even in traditional therapy, that is, therapy not involving the Internet. It also shows a lack of understanding what “communication” is about. It is obvious that an online and an offline therapy are very different, but in the same way that two offline (i.e. “normal”) therapies can be extremely different from each other, and there can be more difference between two offline therapies than between an online therapy and an offline therapy. Thinking that diversity resides only in the communication methods means not knowing what the main variables at play in a therapy are. And it is equally obvious that a patient, for transference reasons (or a therapist, for countertransference reasons), may prefer Internet therapy (some patients may want to defend themself, without realizing it, from the “real” relationship, or rather from the fantasy they have of the real-life relationship, for example being afraid of dependency, etc.), and it would be the therapist’s mistake not to see and not to interpret this defense. However, it is equally obvious that a patient and a therapist can defend themselves from the fantasy they have of Internet therapy, and often this defense is not analyzed precisely because the therapist considers “normal” only a therapy not via the Internet (in the same way they may consider “normal” the classical technique, for example the use of the couch, and therefore do not consider cases in which a patient may use it defensively). The therapist is thus acting according to a prejudice, in which the clinical data are not interpreted but are given a priori, as in a sort of labeling theory, and therefore to a theory that we could define as “nonpsychoanalytic.”\",\"PeriodicalId\":43212,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Forum of Psychoanalysis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Forum of Psychoanalysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0803706X.2021.1991593\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, PSYCHOANALYSIS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Forum of Psychoanalysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0803706X.2021.1991593","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, PSYCHOANALYSIS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Paolo Migone:通过互联网进行精神分析当然是可能的,其理论前提与“正常”精神分析的基础相同,即不涉及互联网的精神分析。我在形容词“正常”上加了引号,以暗示认为存在正常的精神分析是一个理论上的错误,这实际上是一个神话(回想起“经典技术”的神话,它主要存在于书中)。精神分析是一种适用于无限临床情况的一般理论:不同的环境,不同的每周频率,团体,夫妻,家庭,紧急情况,简短的治疗,严重的诊断,等等。在每一种情况下,精神分析都必须适应个体患者的情况和需求,至少根据自我心理学,一个重要的精神分析学派,早在20世纪30年代就开始了,并在20世纪中叶主要在美国传播。为了更清楚地说明问题,我将举一个例子:如果我们为了保持“精神分析学家”的身份,不修改我们所谓的“经典”技术,对那些需要修改或无法忍受的病人,矛盾的是,我们不再是精神分析学家,或者更确切地说,我们是糟糕的精神分析学家。认为精神分析只是所谓的“经典”(在互联网之外,使用沙发,每周高频率等),这不仅意味着贫穷,而且是误解它,表现出对技术理论的缺乏理解。它意味着使用一种以错误的方式学习的刻板的技术。我还要说:认为线上和线下治疗是“不同的对象”,意味着有一种技术理论,即使在传统的治疗中,即不涉及互联网的治疗中,我们也会犯错误。这也表明他们缺乏对“沟通”的理解。很明显,在线治疗和离线治疗是非常不同的,但同样地,两种离线(即“正常”)治疗可能彼此非常不同,两种离线治疗之间的差异可能比在线治疗和离线治疗之间的差异更大。认为多样性只存在于交流方法中意味着不知道治疗中起作用的主要变量是什么。同样明显的是,患者出于移情的原因(或者治疗师出于反移情的原因),可能更喜欢网络治疗(一些患者可能想要在没有意识到的情况下保护自己,不受“真实”关系的影响,或者更确切地说,不受他们对现实生活关系的幻想的影响,例如害怕依赖,等等),如果治疗师没有看到和解释这种防御,那将是他们的错误。然而,同样明显的是,患者和治疗师可以为自己辩护,不让他们对网络治疗抱有幻想,而且这种辩护往往没有得到准确的分析,因为治疗师只认为不通过互联网的治疗是“正常的”(同样地,他们可能认为经典技术是“正常的”,例如使用沙发,因此不考虑患者可能防御性地使用它的情况)。因此,治疗师是根据一种偏见行事的,在这种偏见中,临床数据不是被解释的,而是先验的,就像在一种标签理论中一样,因此,我们可以将其定义为“非精神分析”的理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Online psychoanalysis: Interview with Paolo Migone
Paolo Migone: Psychoanalysis via the Internet is certainly possible, and the theoretical premises are the same as those underlying “normal” psychoanalysis, that is, psychoanalysis not involving the Internet. I have used quotation marks for the adjective “normal” to imply that it is a theoretical error to think that there is a normal psychoanalysis, which is in fact a myth (recalling the myth of the “classical technique,” which exists mostly in books). Psychoanalysis is a general theory that is applied to infinite clinical situations: different settings, different weekly frequencies, groups, couples, families, emergencies, brief therapies, severe diagnoses, and so forth. In each of these cases, psychoanalysis must be adapted to the situation and needs of individual patients, at least according to ego psychology, the important psychoanalytic school, which began as early as the 1930s and spread mainly in the USA in the middle of the twentieth century. To make things clearer, I will give an example: if we, in order to remain “psychoanalysts,” will not modify our so-called “classical” technique with patients who need it to be modified or who cannot tolerate it, paradoxically we cease to be psychoanalysts, or rather we are bad psychoanalysts. The thought that psychoanalysis is just the one referred to as “classical” (outside the Internet, use of the couch, high weekly frequency, etc.) does not mean only impoverishing, but also misunderstanding it and showing a lack of comprehension of the theory of technique. It means using a stereotyped technique, learned in the wrong way. I will say more: to think that online and offline therapy are “different objects” means having a theory of technique that makes us make mistakes even in traditional therapy, that is, therapy not involving the Internet. It also shows a lack of understanding what “communication” is about. It is obvious that an online and an offline therapy are very different, but in the same way that two offline (i.e. “normal”) therapies can be extremely different from each other, and there can be more difference between two offline therapies than between an online therapy and an offline therapy. Thinking that diversity resides only in the communication methods means not knowing what the main variables at play in a therapy are. And it is equally obvious that a patient, for transference reasons (or a therapist, for countertransference reasons), may prefer Internet therapy (some patients may want to defend themself, without realizing it, from the “real” relationship, or rather from the fantasy they have of the real-life relationship, for example being afraid of dependency, etc.), and it would be the therapist’s mistake not to see and not to interpret this defense. However, it is equally obvious that a patient and a therapist can defend themselves from the fantasy they have of Internet therapy, and often this defense is not analyzed precisely because the therapist considers “normal” only a therapy not via the Internet (in the same way they may consider “normal” the classical technique, for example the use of the couch, and therefore do not consider cases in which a patient may use it defensively). The therapist is thus acting according to a prejudice, in which the clinical data are not interpreted but are given a priori, as in a sort of labeling theory, and therefore to a theory that we could define as “nonpsychoanalytic.”
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Forum of Psychoanalysis
International Forum of Psychoanalysis PSYCHOLOGY, PSYCHOANALYSIS-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
28.60%
发文量
22
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信