It stood in the Swedish part of wikipedia that penséer or pansies are often used by humanistic and free thought organizations internationally as a symbol for the free thought. Because it looks like a human face and in August when the flower slouch it looks like a human being sitting in deep thoughts. Does it?
I have blogged about the article "Psykoanalysen - det 20:e århundradets bluff?" by Randi Rostrup in ”Impuls tidskrift för psykologi” nr 3/1997 (s. 72-88) or ”The Psychoanalysis – the 20th century’s big bluff” in Swedish earlier in the posting “Psykoanalys som indoktrinering…” or ”Psychoanalysis as indoctrination…”. Now I want to try writing about it in English too. I think these things are true what concern other forms of therapies too.
In this article it stands that (my amateur-translation to English from my translation to Swedish of a Norwegian text):
“I have been told that some people get problems with their reality testing, because nothing looks as it is any longer. When the relation with the therapist as a real person is made invalid, this implicates that no matter what a therapist says or does, this is without meaning, importance or significance. Every negative reaction on the therapist’s behaviour is interpreted as a projection. The client can’t trust his/her perceptions any longer. This corresponds to the form of reality distortion and nullifying (making invalid) of experiences as Axelsson (1997) points out is a strongly contributory cause to psychic problems. “
When you enter a therapist’s office aren’t you there to recover and hopefully heal – at least a tiny little bit?
“The strong dependency, which is a prerequisite for psychoanalytically oriented treatment, can give fertile soil for an extended use of power-exercise [power abuse]./…/
…a pattern which often is identical with what the client has experienced earlier in life. It is hardly a coincidence that what communication research defines as control strategies (Wieman & Giles 1996) correspond psychoanalytically accepted treatment techniques as silence and avoiding eye contact. In this way the client quickly learns what is acceptable saying, meaning and thinking and what isn’t and thus accepts the therapist’s interpretations and definitions for to avoid rejection reactions. For a psychoanalyst this will always be about making and maintaining the control with the intention to maintain the authority. This lies implicitly as a fundamental, basic premise when it is assumed that the client doesn’t know her/his own best and therefore with all means will try to manipulate the therapist. The dangerous, risky in this is that the therapist then can loose what for instance Gullestad (1996) refers to as the ’independent position’.”
Miller writes quite a lot about unconscious manipulation.
“When a client gets a ‘negative therapeutic reaction’ i.e. is dissatisfied with not getting the help he or she needs and therefore finishes the therapy, the psychoanalytical tradition always says that it is the client that it is something wrong with, not the therapist or the therapy. Axelsen (1996) maintains that therapists whom have dissociated themselves from victim blaming tendencies see the client’s negative reactions as the therapist’s responsibility because the therapist cannot master his/her part of the interplay in the therapeutic relation.
A psychoanalytical oriented therapy will therefore most often be a new form of education with a powerful stamp of what Alice Miller (1980) calls ‘the poisonous pedagogy’, a new variant of ‘identification with the aggressor.’ The goal for the treatment is to replace an old superego with a new one with the help of classical indoctrination techniques. If a patient becomes ‘insubordinate’ and insists on the right to her/his own reality and denies accepting the therapist’s interpretations, it isn’t unusual that the therapist acts his/her parents out and uses the same educational methods against his/her patient, as he/she him/herself was exposed to as a child (Miller 1981).Some of the psychoanalytical oriented therapists today use the term ‘resistance against therapy’ about those patients. ‘Sound resisting-power against indoctrination’ one would perhaps rather call it.”
So true!!
Miller calls what Helga was exposed to for brainwashing.
And once again:
“If one uncritically cling to old methods' alleged infallibility and blames the client for failures, you inevitably land in the same fairways (waters) as the sect-guru, who also promises entire liberation. Such promises only produce self-destructive dependence which stands in the way for the individual’s liberation.” (Alice Miller in “Paths of Life” in my amateur translation from the Swedish edition of this book)."
Inlägg
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar