Multiplicity of the therapeutic action
First I
would like to state that although I am a fully trained analyst, I do not need
to look to traditional psychoanalytic theories to decide what to say and what
not to say in the clinical setting. My last supervisor in the United States,
Dr. Eric Kulick, clearly stated almost twenty years ago, that there is only one
rule in psychoanalysis, which is “to be ethical, whatever
you do”. This statement has been
encouraging me and guiding me in my clinical work since that time. However, no
matter how this statement sounds clear and simple, it put us in a deep dilemma
as analysts: what if for some patients psychoanalysis is not the best choice of
treatment?
I consider
that this potentially self-damaging attitude as an analyst is still most
valuable and most needed in this era of multiplicity, as it means that we are
constantly reflecting on ourselves as to whether or not we are using analytic method
when needed and not when not needed. As some of my mentors stated, knowing
psychoanalysis is to know when not to use it.
One thing which really impresses me recently
is that there seems to be a general trend that many psychoanalytic schools have
in common these days. The other day, I read a book titled “Changing Minds in Therapy” written by Margaret Wilkinson, a well-known Jungian psychologist. She
is a member of SAP (the Society of Analytical Psychology) of Jung Institute. (There
is the Japanese translation of this book by Drs. Takashi Hirose and Norihumi Kishimoto.)
What strikes me in this book is that almost any subjects which are frequently discussed
in current psychoanalysis, such as trauma, attachment, dissociation etc. are
put in the context of recent neuroscience. This trends obviously synchronizes with
recent neuro-psychoanalysis and attachment studies informed by various neurobiological
research. More and more modern psychoanalysts are interested in (or obliged to
take in) views and findings in neuroscience which discloses facts and evidence
of their studies.
