在疯狂的边缘

当涉及到精神分析和精神病学的历史在美国,套用卢斯Irigaray,绝不会让一个没有。而弗洛伊德派西奥多Reik大洋彼岸的推广奠定分析,布里尔,纽约精神分析学会的主席,国际精神分析协会正准备离婚。布里尔,怕精神分析被视为骗子的行为所以名誉扫地,试图保证唯一获准在美国实践精神分析医生。接着,联合:人道主义是努力把同一音标成员美国试图分开到美国本土。这是一个很有名的故事,告诉同性恋,黑尔Roazen等;输入Orna俄斐的书,在疯狂的边缘:精神病、精神分析和精神病学在战后的美国(劳特利奇,2015),提供急需的解释的精神分析在美国失去了光泽。这个思想史密切研究,通过阅读的重要期刊,两个专业,多年来在亲密的拥抱,跳舞开始的一步。以同样的方式,孩子的出生与发育障碍可以揭示一个乳沟曾经被认为是一个安全的婚姻关系,治疗精神病的争论导致了最终的分离两个长期以来的盟友:精神病学和心理分析。俄斐碎片一起混乱,以前的,精神分析是如何被边缘化的故事——精神病在其中发挥了什么样的作用,作用是关键。进一步把父比喻有点矛盾,当一个孩子患有精神痛苦的一个成员对男女可能会寻求理解,痛苦在遗传方面,而另一方可能检查的护理表明孩子:精神状态的故事影响了精神分析和non-psychiatrically精神分析的影响类似。虽然通常知道释放新的药物来治疗精神病的疼痛从1950年代末开始,和社区精神病学的出生在70年代,当然anti-psychodynamic的诊断及数据手册的释放在80年代发挥了作用在额外的参数分析治疗精神病,俄斐精神分析认为,因为美国精神分析学家丢掉了工作,考虑到他们长期接受精神病学,是适时的。如何放开精神病学的安全网——被认为是无可辩驳的,科学和生物学上,仍然是他们的生存问题。使用从职业/知识的社会学思想,认为俄斐分析师从事司法地盘之争,精神病的治疗带来了。职业主要由精神科医生,填充在精神病的时候被很大程度上被视作是一种大脑功能紊乱,而不是一个防御或残余pre-oedipal干扰,分析师必须决定哪一方他们。分析临床医生,试图保持相关,开始采用精神病学的语言,支持俄斐称之为“neosomatic革命”却发现通过这样做,他们扔掉(精神病)婴儿和洗澡水一起倒掉了。 Discursive shifts, be it in politics or a profession, have deep impacts--(when we hear analysts using the language of brain as opposed to mind we are in the presence of the data produced by that impact) and we see proof of this today: very, very few analysts treat psychosis. As in most every divorce that involves children, custody is not usually distributed evenly. Ophir tells the story of how analysts handed over their psychotic patients to psychiatrists during tense negotiations. Like many a spouse after a divorce, analysts worried about their ability to rebuild their (professional) lives. Ophir reminds us however that the children jettisoned do come back to haunt the parent that let them slip away. And just as that parent might say, "but I always loved you", the child only sees proof of neglect. Then, alas, that parent starts to lose sleep. S/he make mistakes, perhaps falls ill, even dies (broken-heartedly) from the internal stress--witness the shaky state of the field today and you can find an apt corollary. Indeed, most American psychoanalytic institutes graduate candidates who have never worked with psychotic individuals. Additionally they have been taught the language of dissociation, of external trauma, self-states, coupled with a healthy dose of dislike for the death instinct on the side--all of which work well when conceiving of the non-psychotic patient but perhaps less so with a person in one's office responding to command hallucinations, riddled with delusions. Writes Ophir of the psychoanalytic shunning of psychosis and its impact on the profession, "...the nature of the repressed is to return," and "the nature of what is split off and expelled is to become ever more persecutory. If psychoanalysis is to survive it must reconnect with the edges of experience ... with the death instinct and catastrophic inferno where many schizophrenic patients exist." It is not enough, according to Ophir, (and I wholly agree) to produce theories that elaborate upon the psychotic core or dissociated self-states in otherwise neurotic individuals--(as has become symptomatically common after the custody arrangement regarding the treatment of psychotic people was finalized)--while never treating persons actually suffering from psychosis. For psychoanalysis to remain relevant, Ophir suggests, it may be time to go back to family court to revisit the custody arrangement.

---

特雷西·d·摩根是NBIP的创始编辑和主机,一个精神分析学家在实践中在纽约培训也作为一个历史学家,她写了很多东西。