>I've been reading Pedro's paper on CHAT and psychotherapy, to understand
>better
>the critique of psychoanalysis, and have a few thoughts, questions -
>
>Freud's theory was specifically social, in that the ways libido drives
>manifest
>are constructed by the social contexts where people live - language,
>speech,
>symbols (tools) were all significant structures of the ways
>these behaviors might manifest -
>
I disagree Diane, I think it was more biological, based on a hydraulic sort
of model with the id, ego and sup ego (internalized social voices?) going
at it, in other word, it was not social enough when contrasted, for example
with Adler, his colleague....
>as well, by these behaviors of the psychic structure's (external)
>manifestations being socially organized, they were absolutely cultural,
>and Freud's own exile from
>Germany was a part of his own interests in collective psychosis, or what
>I might call ideology -
Tell us more about this exile, must have missed it....
>
>so, I have trouble seeing how psychoanalysis is not materialistic, in that
>the manifestations of psychic drives, such as desire, are
>socially-culturally enacted
>through the common language of a person's context ...
>
>in treating mental health problems such as schizophrenia and paranoia, I
>think
>there are better methods available than analysis,
>but as an interpretive tool, I am still not convinced analysis cannot meet
>the needs of
>CHAT theory - since all inner-processes emerge in kinds of behavior,
>whether in
>denial or repression, and since all these processes are unavoidably
>organized within and by the socio-cultural context that provides the
>person with the tools
>with which to express herself -
I think the above is precisely what attracted luria and LSV initially, but
in spite of initially being hailed as less idealistic, cinflicts with
establishing a freudian marxism in that ontext became an issue...
In Understanding Vugotsky, The Role of Psychoanalysis (van der Veer &
Valsiner) contains separate critiques (Jurinets, Bakhtin, and
lsv's...Reich-Sapir later.. which did psychoanalysis in, at least as a
world view (vs method/tool)... The other links are in the 1st part of the
Vygotsky Reader...
(it may be preferable to rely on those critiques more directly than via my
interpretation of van der Veer and Valsiner's interpretations which i truly
respect
If you first read LSV's and luria's intro to beyond the Pleasure
principle, your points would be very much validated....then...in that time
frame (1920's)..but later (1930's) we find the critiques and the very
rationale for a Second psychology (Cahan & White, 1992)
>
>what concerns me is the context of psychotherapy, where, for example,
>women suffer depression at a much higher rate than men, and women's
>depression is
>strongly connected to patriarchal structures that oppress, and are
>internalized;
>anorexia-nervosa has been explicitly connected to relations of girls with
>their fathers, and the greater emotional and verbal abuse that takes place
>from the father,
>the greater the likelihood of the girl developing an eating disorder -
>
>this points to specific gender issues that Western society condones
>inadvertently
>within its denial of a patriarchal structure - so, when attempting to
>normalize a client
>in a psychotherapeutic context, is there not a risk of denying the ways
>cultures
>structure and define gender norms?
Precisely Diane, this is where I think CHAT has the most to offer
(someday) because in understanding mind, it requires consideration of not
only the bio but the socio-genetic in understanding the ontogenesis of
"disorders" such as the above. From my angle, it seems that chat is the
most promising/complete world view (as loose as it still is) that would
look at the social construction of many psychopathologies from those soc.
influences (see Ratner's work on madness...xmca discussions on adhd, the
popularity & subsequent demise of tobacco in north america etc)
Freud would give sex primacy in explaining eating disorders for instance
(anorexia prevents, defends against /delays having to deal with sexual
relations, signals regression or attempt to return to the safety of
childhood when confronting the quintessestial task of adol.....
and miss a lot of the social learning we see at the macro level and
disturbed family relations net of sex...
>
>again, i think psychoanalysis benefits these questions because it deals
>specifically with sexuality, and in a society where sexuality is so
>complex, certainly any CHAT paradigm needs to consider sex/gender in its
>applications -
totally agree here
I see CHAT as not denying the method(s) inherent in psychoanalysis, gestalt
and other beg-cog theories but as meta theory that is capable of
integrating those psychologies because of its emphasis on historical
analysis (dev) and cultural analysis (tool/methods)..simultaneously, not
to mention the AT part or contribution
>finally, i find psychoanalysis, concerned so explicitly with language,
>pliable in
>the working of interpretation and in the ways i might use these ideas for
>understanding a complex situation, or institutional effect on gender - I
>am not sure that Freud is a literal methodology, so much as a schematic of
>symbolic possibilities - while Vygotsky might have read Freud a certain
>way, as conflicting
>with Marxist materialism and dialectics, the current uses of
>psychoanalysis
>are far more elaborated -
I would think so....can you elaborate some on these current users/uses please?
>i found your writing quite fascinating, (she said ingratiatingly)
(well thank you and ditto)
but
>wonder if you could address some of these issues of interpretation and
>sexuality/gender?
perhaps we could all try, its overdue and i think CHAT most definitely can
>or do you think CHAT has the capacity to do so?
>
capacity yes, does it have a track record? no
why? because again, at that time, before the revolution, it was not as
pressing as it is now..
and speaking about pressing, I better get to nate's post, which has me
searching for my old notes....
So, Diane, the issues you raise I believe are critically important,( and
well beyond my paper but).... nevertheless.. point to a "fertile" area for
us all....now (Vera are you out there?)
pedro
Pedro R. Portes, Ph.D
Professor of Educational
& Counseling Psychology
(502 852-0630/ fax 0629)
http://www.louisville.edu/~prport01
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 01 2000 - 01:01:18 PDT