Psychoanalytic Revival

[psycholytic]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Do you guys lately also experience a revival of Freudian and Neo-Freudian interest on the side of media, your program profs, school work, lectures, seminars or workplace ?

I found that after a while of an almost Freudian hatewave, people seem to revisit his theories and those of his successors with quite some interest.

 

[doctorpsych]

Do you guys lately also experience a revival of Freudian and Neo-Freudian interest on the side of media, your program profs, school work, lectures, seminars or workplace ?

I found that after a while of an almost Freudian hatewave, people seem to revisit his theories and those of his successors with quite some interest.

From what I hear there are only a few places that gives creedence to analytic/dynamic therapies, NYC, Boston and maybe Chicago... (in that order)... I think because there are analytic/dynamic institute there... my feel is that the rest of the country has been more progressive in adopting emperical approaches... the other thing is that the general population can not afford psychoanalytic/dynamic treatment... most analyst only accept cash, require to see pts 3x/week and charge, charge an arm and a leg for years... and yet there is no real solid evidence that it works all that well by itself (not combined with other types of treatment).

 

[psycholytic]

From what I hear there are only a few places that gives creedence to analytic/dynamic therapies, NYC, Boston and maybe Chicago... (in that order)... I think because there are analytic/dynamic institute there... my feel is that the rest of the country has been more progressive in adopting emperical approaches... the other thing is that the general population can not afford psychoanalytic/dynamic treatment... most analyst only accept cash, require to see pts 3x/week and charge, charge an arm and a leg for years... and yet there is no real solid evidence that it works all that well by itself (not combined with other types of treatment).

Yes, thats right. What I meant was that profs start talking about it more again than they used to.

 

[Logic Prevails]

From what I hear there are only a few places that gives creedence to analytic/dynamic therapies, NYC, Boston and maybe Chicago... (in that order)... I think because there are analytic/dynamic institute there... my feel is that the rest of the country has been more progressive in adopting emperical approaches... the other thing is that the general population can not afford psychoanalytic/dynamic treatment... most analyst only accept cash, require to see pts 3x/week and charge, charge an arm and a leg for years... and yet there is no real solid evidence that it works all that well by itself (not combined with other types of treatment).

Remember that there is a vast difference between psychoanalysis and psychodynamic approaches. The former is almost exclusively applied to freudean/neo-freudean approaches (think id/ego/psychosexual stages); the applied component is long term with the the main focus on personality functioning. Most people don't take psychoanalysis very seriously - except maybe NY (as you mentioned).

Psychodynamic theory has come a long way since Freud and seems to be a closer representation of object-relations and attachment theories. One could argue that Interpersonal Therapy is just a form of Psychodynamic psychotherapy.

There is empirical support for short term psychodynamic appoaches and yes, it is now being talked about again. Just to give an example, Transference Focused Psychotherapy (a short-term dynamic approach) is one few therapies supported in treating BPD (in one study, treatment with TFP showed evidence of more secure attachment following Tx - treatment with DBT did not). Neurobiological theories also seem to be integrating psychodynamic theories (i.e. Siegel, Schore)

Personally, I like newer Psychodynamic approaches, but hate how people always think of Freud when it's talked about - people seem to discredit it because they think it relates to anal stages and whatnot.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Personally, I like newer Psychodynamic approaches, but hate how people always think of Freud when it's talked about - people seem to discredit it because they think it relates to anal stages and whatnot.

Agreed.

I'm a big supporter of an Object Relations approach, and I think when people take the time to really learn what it is about, they can appreciate it more (though isn't that always the case? ). I actually just tracked down some Harry Stack Sullivan texts (not sure if they are 1st editions, since i'm still waiting on it).

-t

 

[psycholytic]

But what about true psychoanalysis?

There was an article in Time Magazine recently about Freudian revival. On its front cover you could see the man himself, and it stated "Freud is not dead"

Do you think he is dead or not?

 

[Wes]

My personality theory professor spent a decent amount of time on Freud, Jung, Horney, Fromm and few other neo-Freudian analysts last semester. I personally think Freud was a terrible scientist and substandard psychologist, but I'm glad we went over his work.

 

[psycholytic]

My personality theory professor spent a decent amount of time on Freud, Jung, Horney, Fromm and few other neo-Freudian analysts last semester. I personally think Freud was a terrible scientist and substandard psychologist, but I'm glad we went over his work.

Ah

"Substandard psychologist" falls into the Freudian hate category message that prof's like to transmit to students. Without Freud there would be no psychology, or at least not from that time on. How can he be sustandard to his own creation? He was a "terrible scientist" because he was entering new and unknown grounds. Not as part of any research, but CREATING a new field, called psychology. I find it bewildwering when prof's make Freud look like a complete loser, when in reality he was not. Of course, he pursued some strange studies; e.g. with Anna O., but overall, I think, he deserves credit for awakening our interest in the psyche.
I find it most incredible that a physician during the Victorian time had such great interest in the human psyche;---some did not even arrive at that stage in today's world, but rather only see the ailment as a body part to be "fixed".
I am by no means a Freudian (I prefer approaches such as behavioral [CBT]and Gestalt) nor would I exclusively apply psychoanalysis in therapy, but I also think it still has a place in clinical settings, then and now.

I would love to attend a session and observe a true Freudian at work. Therefore, I think that Freud is still alive. 🙂

 

[doctorpsych]

Remember that there is a vast difference between psychoanalysis and psychodynamic approaches. The former is almost exclusively applied to freudean/neo-freudean approaches (think id/ego/psychosexual stages); the applied component is long term with the the main focus on personality functioning. Most people don't take psychoanalysis very seriously - except maybe NY (as you mentioned).

Psychodynamic theory has come a long way since Freud and seems to be a closer representation of object-relations and attachment theories. One could argue that Interpersonal Therapy is just a form of Psychodynamic psychotherapy.

There is empirical support for short term psychodynamic appoaches and yes, it is now being talked about again. Just to give an example, Transference Focused Psychotherapy (a short-term dynamic approach) is one few therapies supported in treating BPD (in one study, treatment with TFP showed evidence of more secure attachment following Tx - treatment with DBT did not). Neurobiological theories also seem to be integrating psychodynamic theories (i.e. Siegel, Schore)

Personally, I like newer Psychodynamic approaches, but hate how people always think of Freud when it's talked about - people seem to discredit it because they think it relates to anal stages and whatnot.

I haven't been formally trained in dynamic based treatment with the exception of receiving some limited supervision from a analytic/dynamic supervisor... she would not tell me which orientation she was more toward (analytic vs. dynamic, thus I grouped her together), I am aware of the difference. I don't know if there is a resurgence of analytic freudian perspective, but I personally think that it's rather antiquated. The dynamic treatments does appear to be more 'fluid' in its attempts to be contemporary though but there are those who argue that some of these treatment such as IPT are spin offs from CBT...

What's transference focused psychotherapy? I thought that short term psychodynamic treatment de-emphasized transference? I'm not very well versed in this area.