Psychoanalytic interpretation. Common in the techniques of psychoanalysis, supportive therapy and psychoanalytic therapy. Free association method

Year of publication and journal number:

From the heart of mallow
mallow sprouted and bloomed with blood ...

Bogdan Gura

Introduction

The beginning of my research is a bit like working in an office: one association, emerging from a sea of ​​images, feelings and well-being, suddenly organizes all the others and makes me pay close attention to myself. No wonder: after all, this association at one time gave rise to the method itself, one might say, gave birth it in the scarlet pulsation of its many meanings.

Sexuality. Sexuality in its broadest sense, with the connection of all the ideas and shades that you can think of. Or at least just imagine.

The many meanings that sexuality acquires in culture, its impact on education, growth and development, the features and nuances that the awareness of sexuality adds to human dialogue, it seems, should inspire both ordinary people and specialists to study this topic and actively include it. into the contexts of their methods.

Nevertheless, if we turn to psychoanalytic discourse, we will see that in most psychoanalytic works, starting with Freud, sexual relations and the beginning of an intimate life (most often defloration) are considered on a par with violence, envy, trauma, and even equate to violence. Z. Freud builds his concept of female development on a rather complex relationship between a woman and male sexuality, in which, in his opinion, the desire of a little girl to have a penis plays a key role, which subsequently transforms into a desire to have a child. Various additions to this theory in the future basically only strengthen the trend of semantic convergence of rivalry, violence, as well as symbolic - and sometimes real - antagonism of the sexes.

At the same time, Freud does not indicate other reasons for such antagonism, except for biological ones. The conflict in his view becomes almost evolutionary (biologically) conditioned, and therefore - mandatory and inevitable, something initially given, like original sin in the religious dogma of Christian orthodoxy. We could assume that any more or less conceptually and socially developed system, including the system of treatment and explanation of neuroses, such as psychoanalysis, is simply obliged to have its own dogmas, outlining, so to speak, the "framework of faith" and being a platform for personal creation of the world (“in the beginning there was such and such, and therefore now everything happens like this”). This is a good explanation, but it does not help to understand why sexuality a priori, for a woman and a man, is associated in this concept with violence.

Recall that in the works of Freud and his followers, describing the relationship (real or supposed) of the child to the primary scene, there is also an emphasis on aggression to a greater extent than on love. But actually, why should a child, observing the primary scene and “not understanding the meaning of what is happening,” decide that violence, an aggressive act, and not a love union is taking place? Doesn't his mother hug him tightly, throw him up and lie with him on the bed, on the floor, in the yard? Doesn't he scream and squeal with delight? Why, then, when he hears his mother screaming in the bedroom or sees his parents entwined on the bed in an embrace, should he decide that "dad beats mom"?

Perhaps it will be easier for us to work with such interpretations if we remember that most of the works in question are written by male psychoanalysts. It is no secret to anyone, and this has been confirmed many times by both Freud and his followers, and by the very history of psychoanalysis, that psychoanalysis is, on the whole, a male creation, concentrated on male psychology. And the "readings" of sexuality, the primary scene and defloration, are deeper - readings of femininity in this sense become a kind of reflection of the female theme in the male soul, no more and no less. And I suppose that this has to do with a completely different issue than the one that lies on the surface - not so much with the experience of the primary scene, sexuality and even femininity, but with the awareness of sexuality and vitality man and woman, their interpretation from different points of view, accepted and approved in the culture associativity flows and - as a result - habitual human preferences.

This is exactly what I would like to talk about. To what extent such human preferences correspond to subjective and collective reality, how much they affect us and how they help - or hinder - us to build relationships and build bridges to each other.

Flower, fragrance and a confused gardener

In the works of male psychoanalysts, the topic of female sexuality and female cycles is discussed at the same time easily, let's say, willingly talking about it, and "embarrassed", and the shyness is subtle and guessed more by the barely audible tension of professional jargon than in a clear avoidance of any topics. or intentionally emphasizing them. Given the centuries-old culture of encrypted messages from a woman to a man and vice versa, the dominant system of communication and courtship in Western society, interaction between the sexes, this is quite understandable.
How understandable is the desire of the "boys" to talk about the "girls" in their absence. But let's hear what is being said.

A good example of a male point of view on female sexuality in psychoanalytic literature is the interpretation (namely, interpretation, not quotation) following Freud of the dream of his patient by Jungian psychoanalyst P. Kugler. In his book The Alchemy of Discourse, he considers the unconscious connections that he suggests exist between words in language and turns to Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams for illustration:

"... Freud describes the dream as biographical. Pink flowers on a branch and withered flowers are interpreted as a symbolic indication of her [dreamer - Y.P.] sexual innocence and fear of violence. Freud explains that a flowering branch (here we should recall the expression " maiden flowers" "The Maiden`s Blossoms" from Goethe's poem "The Maiden's Betrayal") symbolizes both sexual innocence and its opposite. This dream, expressing her joy that she managed to go through life, maintaining sexual innocence, allows you to see in some of its moments (for example, in fading flowers), the opposite series of ideas is the fear of the sexuality awakening in her.

According to Freud, the significance of interpretation lies in the unconscious association between violence and colors, red and faded (my italics - Y.P.) "(Kugler, 2005)

"At first, Freud's assumption that the image of flowers is symbolically associated with violence may seem strange, but upon closer examination of the words associated with this concept, we find that such associations are close to us: for example, the loss of virginity is called "defloration"; in Latin, the word deflorationem means "plucking flowers". Shakespeare's phrase "The pale maiden flower bled" is not surprising. One could say that this is said purely figuratively, but this is the point. Language is always used for literal (verbatim) and figurative descriptions While at the level of objective reality we perceive, the words "flowers" and "female genitalia" have completely different meanings, having considered the hidden archetypal meaning of both ideas, we will find in the language a hidden association between the words "flowers" and "violence against female genitalia ". (Kugler, 2005)

"I am quoting here in detail the aforementioned dream of my patient, in which I highlight everything that has a sexual meaning ...

She goes down (high origin) and climbs over some strange fences, or fences, woven from branches in the form of small squares. (A complex complex that unites two places; the attic of her father's house, where she played with her brother, the object of her later fantasies, and her uncle's yard, who often teased her). ... In her hands (like an angel has a stalk of a lily) she has a large bough, similar to a whole tree: it is densely dotted with red flowers, branchy and large. (innocence, menstruation, lady with camellias) For some reason she thinks about the flowers of the cherry tree, but no, the flowers look like terry camellias, which, however, do not grow on trees. While climbing, she first has one bough, then two, and then one again (corresponding to several persons, objects of her fantasy). By the time she gets to the bottom, the bottom flowers are almost all gone. Below, she sees a servant: he has the same bough in his hands, and he, as it were, “scratches” it, that is, with a piece of wood, he scrapes off thick tufts of hair with which he is overgrown, as if with moss. Other workers cut down some of these branches in the garden and threw them into the street where they lie; passers-by take them with them. She asks if she can take such a bitch. In the garden stands a young man (completely unfamiliar to her, a stranger); she approaches him and asks how to transplant such branches into her own garden. (Bitch, knot has long been a symbol of the penis). He hugs her, but she resists and asks him what right he has to do this to her. He says that he is quite right, that it is permissible. (Refers to precautions in marriage)" (Freud, 2009)

As you can see, in Freud, individual details and features of the composition and plot of a dream are viewed through the prism of sexual symbolism, mainly in the parallel "sexuality-traumaticity-aggression", but are not directly linked into a single semantic system. Kugler does otherwise, he considers not symbolic, but linguistic (fixed in the language at the level of grammar and phonetics) connections between colors, defloration and violence, which, in his opinion, do not have a place in conscious objective reality. But the result is the same - there is a connection between sexuality, violence, deprivation of virginity and female genitalia.

Here, perhaps, it is necessary to digress and turn to an alternative point of view, which will help us look at the subject of our study from a different angle.

To do this, let's try to remember how the flower symbol is considered and works in mythology. The dictionary of signs and symbols of V. V. Adamchik offers the following definition of a flower:

"The symbolism of flowers emphasizes their connection with the cycle of life and death. Flowers are a symbol of transience, brevity of being, spring, beauty, perfection, innocence, youth, soul. Certain aspects of the image are due to the presence of aroma; various additional connotations are associated with form and color. Flowers - the brightest manifestation of vitality, it is an image of the joys of life. In Hinduism, laying a bouquet of flowers on the altar aims to bring the "breath of life" to the deity. The image of a blooming flower can symbolize the realization of potential opportunities (an opening lotus flower as a self-disclosure of the world), spiritual evolution. In the story of Borges, Paracelsus creates a rose, which marks his achievement of the heights of alchemical art.

A flower can act as an image of the world, the center. Flowers represent the brevity of life and the transient nature of pleasure. In Buddhism, flowers are laid in front of the image of the Buddha as a sign of understanding the frailty of being...

Flowers are associated with love (because they bloom in spring) and beauty. In the artistic tradition, a woman is often likened to a flower... The bud acts as a metaphor for virgin beauty.

Different colors are assigned their own meaning; carnation represents passion, lily - purity. The most symbolically loaded flowers are the rose and lily in the Western tradition, the lotus and chrysanthemum in the Eastern tradition." (Adamchik, 2006)

It can be seen from this passage that the ancient symbolic tradition does indeed link images of the flower and femininity, as well as images of femininity and sexuality - however, flowers are at the same time metaphorically "tied" to the cycles of life and death, to the concepts of the center, self-disclosure, and also symbolize the feeling of that “everything passes” and “everything changes,” just as a flower changes, ceasing to be a bud and becoming an open cup. I will also add that the fabulous, folk, mythological - "female" tradition interprets the flower symbol as an indication of a woman and her natural cycles and abilities.

From this point of view, in Freud's example, there is a whole story of female fate: a bough, similar to a whole tree - belonging to the genus and its life bends, a separate life as part of a whole existence; fallen lower flowers - closer to the "trunk", to the older generation and the woman who has reached old age or the desire of the dreamer herself; cherry blossoms in spring - the time of youth, the dreamer's time, and terry scarlet camellias - the time of mature femininity that lies ahead of her; and finally, the desire to "replant the bough in one's garden" - that is, to take root, to procreate, to bear fruit and to fulfill one's life in all phases.

But Freud and Kugler choose a different interpretation. Kugler's explanation goes deeper, because it treats the whole complex of meanings as a kind of "chain of connections", but at the same time it leads astray. Why is this happening? The fact is that women's experience (as well as men's) seems to be completely incomprehensible from the point of view of the other sex. These two modes of existence cannot be compared, and one cannot even say that men and women want the same thing, but from different sides. This is not true. We are completely different. Not better or worse than each other, not older or younger, more potential or "mature". Just different. Therefore, when a man (even as brilliant as Freud) talks about the cycles of menstruation and the process of defloration, interpreting them, this is interesting from the point of view of theoretical constructions and hypotheses, the beauty of the structure, but does not work in practical application. The theme is deeper, and its conflicts and interweaving of meanings are older than we think.

Here is a table of words similar in pronunciation and spelling, and partly of the same root, which Kugler considers as an unconscious semantic chain from female genitals to sexuality, violence and defloration (Kugler, 2005):

The complex of words that Kugler considers, and with them the theme "flower", "blood", "carnal", "defloration", "violence", "incarnation" - this is not a direct narrative chain, but rather a nest in which one flows from the other and flows into the other, and it is not at all necessary that violence is there by right or even was there originally. The cycle of menstruation, bleeding, loss of virginity, initiation into a regular sexual life, carrying and bleeding with childbirth and the embodiment of a new life in an infant (in the afterbirth, as in a flower) is "recorded" in these metaphorical words and is not so much an association - since the association is like remembering and searching for what is hidden - how much is the internal, eternally living and self-renewing calendar of mankind. The calendar initially does not help to remember, it suggests how best to organize life in order to follow its rhythms. This calendar marks the natural phases a woman follows and prepares for throughout her life. (Estes, 2006) None of these phases can be "jumped over" or replaced by a nearby, suitable one. This is reminiscent of the growth of a flower, from which, most likely, the metaphor was taken: the grain falls into the ground and “flows out of it” like a sprout, then the first “spot” of the bud appears, and then it opens and “bleeds” with a flower, from which it will naturally arise fetus. Violence is not present in this system, although it probably joined later as a reflection of situations in which a woman or reproduction process was in danger.

Having considered such different points of view (conditionally - Freudian-Kuglerian and folklore-mythological), it is easy to see how important pairing features. An associative series or an associative chain in which "one follows the other" or one evokes in memory, in the imagination, the other, and semantic, metaphorical unity are different things. It is very important. This is the cornerstone of understanding. The contexts in which metaphorical unity is used are countless. They can relate to all aspects of life and express a huge range of conditions. But in a metaphorical unity, they are connected as a holistic awareness of the process. Returning to the metaphor of the calendar, we can say that it describes the structure of the year in natural and mental events (inseparable from each other). The metaphorical unity "cold, winter, cooling down, slowing down, vulnerability, falling asleep, completion of the cycle" contains, so to speak, an integral state, from which a specific meaning can be extracted at any moment. This is a kind of archetype of the language, "breaking through" below the actual language processes. So, a person can say "I'm cold" both in hot summer, standing in the freezer, and in severe winter, standing in the cold in a coat. This does not mean that summer "may be cold" and no one understands it that way. Cold in each case is different. But at the symbolic level of metaphorical unity, cold "belongs" to the winter group, a metaphorical group that describes and reminds the psyche of slow, cool, passive and accumulating processes).

Kugler and Freud use for interpretation other ways of conjugation than those that are embedded in the symbolism, which initially represents a unity that goes back to the ancient syncretic image of the world. This is a "feminine" way of understanding - interconnection through kinship and integrity of the basis. The masculine way involves a step-by-step sequential movement from one to another, where the next one becomes related. Which determines the result.

Intolerable woman

It is natural for the masculine consciousness to act and reason in masculine ways, and there is no problem here. The problem, as I said, arises when the feminine phases and processes are considered from a masculine point of view and in masculine terms. It is only one step from this to considering male development as the norm and female development as a strange offshoot of it.

What makes a male explorer or just a man take this step?

It seems to me that sometimes for masculine, especially Western consciousness (often striving to be "too" masculine), feminine processes and the connection between them have their own special meaning. Being radically different from the male cycles and phases, the female "growth circle" can be perceived by a man as alien, incomprehensible and - frightening. Especially if the situation is also complicated by the dominant position of women in the community (the era of matriarchy) or the abuse of power by women in the family (Yang-Eizendrat, 2005). Then a man or a male part of society may experience fear of a woman and what is called "femininity" in psychology. This is not directly related to the oppression of women or the infringement of their rights - rather, we are talking about the existence of such an attitude inside a man. to myself which makes the presence of a woman painful and difficult for him. Such a man may fantasize himself as something like a grasshopper on a flower, a small creature that can be easily swallowed up by a huge and all-powerful "rose" vagina. Yes, but what does violence have to do with it, if a man just feels helpless, afraid of femininity?

If a man is afraid of femininity, then he is also afraid of his own aggressiveness, inherent in him from birth and complementary to normal female softness. Then defloration (more broadly, the sexual act in general) appears to him as violence. This is easier, because then he can tell himself that violence is in his nature (it is impossible to biologically refuse a sexual act), and therefore the consent of a woman is not required. But consent is always required. Sex is not violence, but a gift, and it always remains so. Gifts are not subject to authority. They cannot be taken away, they cannot be begged for and deserved. Afraid of a woman, a man is afraid not to receive a gift from her, without which he cannot live and continue his family. Fearing not to receive, he seeks to take away. Therefore, a man who is afraid of a woman feels guilty - and projects it onto a woman. This is a complex that acts as a single system, non-linearly, involving both participants and creating bizarre external situations.

The myth that a woman is afraid of defloration has a real basis - most women really have such a fear, especially if there is no older and more experienced friend next to the girl entering the phase of active sexual life who could help her go through this stage consciously. But the point is not only this - but that fear is natural, it is part of the process, mixed with excitement and a sense of the importance of the moment. As there is no sea without a wave, so there is no entry into the new, unfamiliar, without fear. But fear is easily overcome next to the desired partner, and there is no problem here. The female body, the female body is designed in such a way that they initially have high stress thresholds, so the female body "knows" that defloration will not harm her and will not cause serious injury. Just when the flower opens, the bud bursts and dies. The woman knows that this is normal.

But the man doesn't know. In any case, a man brought up in a culture of a tough and distant woman, a man who lives far from the natural cycles of female sexuality. Therefore, he transfers his own fears associated with defloration, bleeding and painful sensations, and the hostility associated with this, to his partner. Then myths arise about defloration as a tragedy for a woman, as violence for which she wants to avenge, that it was undesirable for a husband in primitive tribes to become a "deflorator", and so on. Myths are the fruit of a whole culture of women running away and men hunting for love, hunting and never reaching it. This is a tragedy for both sexes, not just one. And in order to resolve it, a lot of conscious efforts are required on both sides.

Schematic of the Primary Scene, or When They Make Love

The history of the discussion of the primal scene in psychoanalysis (see, for example, Esman, 2002) clearly illustrates the influence of another discussion - is sexuality a universal phenomenon or does it "belong" to each sex separately? Based on the dynamics that I described above, it can be assumed that the crack in understanding lies in the violation in each personal internal balance between "give" and "take", following the natural course of things or building defensive forms of behavior if this is not possible.

Perhaps it is not worth dwelling on the fact that the individual reaction of both sexes to the primary scene and the reproduction of similar situations in analysis is very different from the generalized, "absolute" idea of ​​the primary scene as the "cause of something" or a pathogenic impression. The same applies to the taboo of sexuality, whether or not it is instilled in childhood. In other words, if two adults are so embarrassed about themselves and their sexual relations that they exclude their normal manifestations from the experience of the child in every possible way (do not kiss, do not hug in front of him, do not hug the child, do not caress him, do not stroke his head, limit bodily contacts) , then it is probably to be expected that the collision with the reality of sexuality will be a trauma for him, regardless of gender. As can be expected that sooner or later the door to the parents' bedroom will be open, just out of reactive need.

During the long development of psychoanalysis, many theories and assumptions have been put forward on the topic of normal female and male sexuality. I would ask the question this way: "What is considered "normal" sexuality and who specifically should it satisfy? The client? The psychoanalyst? Society?

Cases of greater or lesser excitement, desire or unwillingness to copulate, even impotence and frigidity are always inscribed in a context that can be difficult to understand even for the participants in the situation, and not just for the observer. If there are few fish in the river, or it has become shallow, or, conversely, it has risen, you need to know what time of year it is, how much water is usually in this river and how much during this period, how long ago the river rose for the last time and how it affects on the area in which it flows, and of course, how the area itself affects the river. This is a deep and very lengthy process, and therefore it is difficult, perhaps, to say that the client comes to us with a "violation" of sexuality, that this woman is frigid, and that man is sadistic. A person comes with something that disturbs him for some reason. But whether this is a violation and to what extent - for him personally - can be found out after a long and careful work.

There is another important, perhaps key point. If a person has no experience relations It's hard to talk about sexuality in general. Reactions, collisions and a certain mixture of sexual and erotic experiences in this case do not have an appropriate "cup" in which two could realize and examine themselves, evaluate their own and the other's actions, correct interaction and improve it. There is a simple play. But this is not a sexual violation - it is a violation of the ego and what is called object relations (Kernberg, 2004). Sexual acts are used here as an attempt to contain that which is beyond awareness and understanding. The general confusion of perception and impulsiveness of reactions dominate regardless of gender, and will not change before the relationship changes.

How to become sexless

Concentration on the discourse of one sex can reach a complete denial of the possibilities of growth and development of a person of the opposite sex. Let me emphasize that this is by no means always a deliberate denial of "alien" or a fixation on "one's own". I'm talking about how the structure of thinking speaks for a person where he speaks as if from himself or from his professional self.

For example, Peter Kutter, in Modern Psychoanalysis, states unequivocally that

"Self-awareness of a particular gender identity depends largely on unconscious fantasies about what is considered masculine or feminine. A boy in such a situation is in a better position, since he easily determines his gender by observing and touching his penis. A girl in this relationship is harder due to lack of visible signs of sex." (Italics mine. - Y.P.) (Kutter, 1997)

Paying tribute to Kutter, it must be said that many researchers in this topic "fall through" into the difference between the sexes and his point of view does not at all belong to the category of extreme ones. But in this case, it can serve as a good illustration of falling into the trap of masculinity.

What are "visible signs of sex" for a man may not be so for a woman, especially for a girl or a boy. The girl does not have a penis (as, by the way, in a full, functional and symbolic sense, the boy does not have one either; he only has to "develop" the penis in the process of growth), but she has a clitoris, and her organs are arranged in a special way, in a special configuration, in the very "flower" of femininity, which most cultures metaphorically narrate about. And the girl is well aware of this. She sees, feels, she is sensitive to ablutions and the administration of natural needs. She has the ability to touch her organs and - many researchers emphasize this - to feel the inner space in herself. (Laine, 2005) The theory of a girl fantasizing about a penis or envying it is based on the fact that she is "deprived" of it. But there is a small philosophical incident here: only those who have this something can fantasize about depriving something. The girl is not devoid of a penis, she is simply arranged differently. However, the boy has a penis, and the boy intuitively feels that this part of his body is important (because it is important to the father or, if the father is not present, enjoys emphasized attention or inattention mother), and therefore may worry about her deprivation.

The girl develops differently. Its biology, physiology and psychology are "tuned" to other functions, other rhythms and other messages sent to the world and received from the world. A woman has other symbols of activity and oppression of life processes, "boiling" and attenuation of passion, interest, attraction, sympathy. They could not be the same as those of a man, because then they would not be complementary to him (Gilligan, 1992).

Equally important in the discourse of women and men are not only direct statements, but also strange and sometimes unexpected play of light and shadow. Like reasoning about the norm and pathology, reflections and attempts to comprehend femininity and masculinity are full of explicit and implicit views "towards each other" and - assessments hiding in the lush bushes of definitions. For example, here is one of the descriptions included in the "feminine hysterical" continuum:

- Well compensated hysterical (hysterically organized) woman appears before us as bright, people-oriented, well adapted charismatic personality: active, unique, striving for masculine attributes of superiority(My italics - Y.P.) (Pavlova, 2007).

In this description it is worth paying attention to the fact that although the named type of female imago is generally positive, it looks quite interesting when considered in the context of hysterical organization and its compensation. One feels like asking a classic psychoanalytic question from the category “does this mean?”: “Does this mean that a bright, people-oriented, well-adapted charismatic woman is, firstly, a compensated hysteric and, secondly, strives for male ideals of superiority ?" From this point of view, it can be said that a "normal" person who has never had a psychotic break is a compensated psychotic. It is possible that this is the case and we will never know about the disorder, since it is not manifest. But more and more questions arise: is there a disease when it does not manifest itself, and what do we get by "looking deep" and looking for black cats in the darkness? But these questions are wider than my research. In this case, I am interested in the fact of conjugation - at the level of theory and practice of psychoanalysis - characterological and functional disorder(until the fourth edition, the concept of hysteria was included under different names and in different formulations in the DSM reference books as a diagnostic category) and female representation as a bright, charismatic and world-oriented personality.

This applies not only to bright women, who in such descriptions are implicitly accused of being hysterical and "pursuing male attributes of superiority", but also gentle, sensitive, thinking and acting intuitively, analogously, men. It is possible that the image of such a man will quickly become attached to the discourse of the schizoid, depressive or - again - hysterical type. And steel, discreetly dressed, moderately sensitive and unhurried, knowing the value of their desires and emotions, the norm will be their judge.

We return again to the dialogue between a man and a woman, to their intimate conversation about what matters most: "What do you see?" "What do you want?" "What do I see in you?" Such a conversation is possible only on the condition of overcoming that which lies in the shadows. Provided that not only ability to endure the presence of another, but also the ability to rejoice in him. It strikes me how often the ability to think psychoanalytically degenerates (this is especially evident in theoretical works) into a desire for incomplete and unfinished solutions. If the followers of the theory of object relations talk about the need to learn to endure hatred of the object, and then the presence of an integral object, in its entirety, then their followers already stop halfway and explicitly or in a "shadow" way assert that there is a need to learn to endure the presence of an object nearby with myself. It seems that the world consists entirely of borderline personalities, whose only task is to survive, endure and somehow contain the very fact of their survival. Our tasks are wider, they are deeper and much "terrible" than just the desire to survive. We have to learn that we are not alone. And those others, too.

Who are we talking about?

If the other exists, be it a man or a woman, he always and inevitably exists precisely as the other, complete and mysterious, never fully known. With respect to this other, a theory that explains well our own behavior, or the behavior and structure of our gender community, may be completely untenable. But we keep talking. We stubbornly build models based on "only male" or "only female" understanding, not noticing how in these models the natural meanings of life of both fade away. We need to defend ourselves more and more, because the “other” is about to come and begin to demand from us to live by his standards, to look through his eyes, to think with his thoughts. But we forget that all this - to live, and to feel, and to look, and to think - is very useful, natural and correct. But only when it give and accept, and not set as the only true slogan on the flagpole. This is not about the struggle for someone's rights - it happens that such a struggle is required, and the weaker participant in the conflict does not always need protection - but the question is more subtle: how much we, ourselves, at every moment of time and interaction with another person realize that he is different? Waking up in the morning and opening our eyes, feeling how a strange body turns next to us, differently tailored and emerging from sleep in a different way - what do we do? How do we welcome him? What do we offer with the new day? What do we talk about at breakfast, how do we understand the possibilities of its (and with it ours) saturation, mental and physical? It's easy to say to a man, "You lost the match and that's why you're angry" - it's much harder to try to understand what this loss meant to him and whether he can use it for future victories or whether he is crushed by a sense of his own inferiority. It's easy to say to a woman: "You're just annoyed because you're about to have your period" - it's much more difficult to ask her to teach her to share the important things that she comprehends precisely these days, through her high sensitivity. The words we say every day, the actions we allow to be, hurt or heal, depending on what we consciously or unconsciously put into them. And if you put in the question "Who are we talking about?" at the very core of interaction, I think the possibility talk by itself, to speak truly, to each other, and not to the side, will become stronger and richer.

Literature:

1. Adamchik B.B. Dictionary of symbols and signs. M, "AST", 2006.
2. Gilligan K. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. // Ethical thought: Scientific publicist. reading. 1991 / Common ed. A. A. Huseynova. M., Republic, 1992.
3. Kernberg O. Love relationships: norm and pathology. M., Klass, 2004.
4. Kutter P. Modern psychoanalysis. M., B.S.G.-Press, 1997.
5. Kugler P. Alchemy of discourse. Image, sound and mental. M, PER SE, 2005.
6. Laine A. Hatred in the relationship between a woman and a man //
7. Pavlova O.N. Hysterical semiotics of the feminine in the clinic of modern psychoanalysis. // Moscow Psychotherapeutic Journal, No. 2, 2007.
8. Freud Z. Interpretation of dreams. M., Azbuka-classic, 2009.
9. Esman A. H. Primary Scene: Review and Revision. //
10. Estes K.P. Running with the wolves. Female archetype in myths and legends. M, Sofia, 2006.
11. Young-Aizendrat P. Witches and Heroes. Feminist approach to Jungian psychotherapy of married couples. M, Cogito-Center, 2005.

Surely each of us has thought more than once about his life path, about what determines it. The concept of fate and belief in fate are probably familiar to every person. Fate is one of the most ancient universal concepts of our culture. The world-famous linguist A. Wierzbicka wrote: “People can not always do what they want, and they know about it. Their lives are shaped - at least to some extent - by forces beyond their control, and this seems to be a fact as obvious and universal as that they must die. Therefore, we have reason to believe that the concept of fate or something like that can be found in all cultures and that it finds expression in all languages ​​- just as it happens with the concept of death.

In its most general form, the content of the concept of fate is traditionally reduced to the following. The life of an individual, like the life of a social collective as a whole, is not absolutely free. It is subject to the action of certain forces that determine (determine) the course of life events. The action of these forces in all their magnitude is not known to man, and he cannot predict the course of his life path. Thus, in the concept of fate, first of all, the fact of the existence of determining forces and the dependence on their actions, both individual events and the whole life of a person, the moment of unfreedom, is stated. The concept of fate also emphasizes the moment of fundamental unknowability of predetermining forces for a person. By the combination of these two signs - the presence of forces that determine something, and the unknowability of these forces, their closeness to the human mind - and recognize fate.

In European culture, there are opposite interpretations of the concept of fate. Within the framework of one of them, fate is understood as an external force in relation to a person, as an absolute predestination that excludes free will. In another interpretation, fate is presented as a product of the conscious creation of it by a person. This is reflected in numerous proverbs, for example, “if you sow an act, you will reap a habit; if you sow a habit, you will reap a character; if you sow a character, you will reap a destiny.” This is also referred to in the well-known Marxist slogan: "Man is the creator and master of his own destiny." The idea of ​​fate is also associated with two different dimensions of human existence: biological and social. First of all, the concept of fate expresses the lack of freedom of a person before the limitations of his biological nature, ideas about fate are associated with birth and death. But, in addition to the objective lack of freedom of a person from his physical nature, there is also his dependence on social forces. This is the social environment in which a person is born, his professional and material status, political and religious worldview, upbringing, education, etc.

Psychotherapy and, in particular, psychoanalysis, argue that a person is to a certain extent a product of not only biological and social, but also mental determinations. Psychoanalysis has allowed us to take a fresh look at the driving forces behind our actions, at the reasons that prompt a person to do so and not otherwise. Unlike those who tried to find the cause of human behavior in the external environment that causes a response from the human body, Freud placed the force that determines the course of a person's life inside himself. In many ways, he turned the views on a person that existed before him, abandoning the usual idea that our thinking, desires and actions are arbitrary.

According to Freud, there are mental phenomena that are inaccessible to comprehension, but can not only influence our conscious ideas, actions and decisions, but even determine them. The conscious "I" is only the pinnacle of a powerful, unconscious mental life. The human psyche is to a greater or lesser extent governed by unconscious drives, impulses and desires. The iceberg analogy is often used to illustrate this point. If everything that is conscious is compared to the surface of the iceberg, then the unconscious will be associated with a much larger invisible mass of ice that is under water. It is this invisible mass that determines both the center of gravity and the course of the iceberg. Similarly, the unconscious is the core of our individuality. Unconscious psychic forces act on every person and to one degree or another predetermine many of his actions, which on the surface may seem to be the result of volitional decisions. A person may be convinced that he consciously decides which of the possible alternatives to choose. What he ultimately leans towards can be seen as the result of numerous factors, some of which are outside the realm of consciousness.

According to Freud, there are elements in the unconscious that have never been accessible to consciousness, respectively, they will never be conscious. In addition, there are contents that, due to their unacceptability, have been subjected to caesura and separated (displaced) from the field of consciousness. This material is not forgotten or lost, but it is never remembered. However, these contents indirectly affect consciousness. From a classical psychoanalytic point of view, repressed unconscious conflicts influence a person's behavior and well-being. The conflict in psychoanalysis is the existence in the inner world of a person of contradictory, sometimes opposite to each other, requirements. The conflict can be overt (for example, between a desire and a moral requirement) or hidden. The hidden conflict is distortedly expressed in a clear conflict - in symptoms, in behavioral disorders, in character difficulties, etc. In the classical psychoanalytic understanding, the participants in the conflict are sexual and aggressive drives that strive for satisfaction, and the demands of the outside world. Other basic human needs are now considered equally important. These are the needs for dependence, acceptance and attachment, on the one hand, and self-reliance, independence, autonomy, on the other hand, the need for power, control, self-expression. In order to resolve the conflicts between these needs, a person, often unconsciously, forms internal compromises. Some of them are quite adequate, others have a character that inhibits and restricts his freedom, leads to self-harm, to illness, and social failure. Symptoms, behavioral disorders, character difficulties are understood in psychoanalysis as similar "compromise formations".

The followers of Freud supplemented the theory of conflict with the theory of scarcity. In psychoanalysis, it is believed that the experience of all stages of life, including childhood problems, is present in a person's adult life and actively influences him. In many ways, we never get out of childhood. As to why we are unable to do this, there is no definitive answer. One possible reason is the long period of biological dependence of the human infant on the help of adults. It is also known that in addition to constitution and heredity, among the factors that have a decisive influence on development are our earliest experiences. This experience is present in us not so much in the form of memories of specific events and facts, but as certain stereotypes of thinking, behavior, emotional reactions, certain types of relationships with people.

Starting from childhood, our psyche can develop and strengthen only in relationships with other people, in communication, first with family members, then with peers. What is important is how the child's immediate environment, primarily the mother, builds relationships with him, how parents are able to fulfill their duties, whether they can satisfy the child's needs, whether this helps the child's growth or makes it difficult for him. The way a mother feeds a child, touches him, how she adapts to his rhythms, how she reacts to his needs, is remembered by the child not in the form of words, but as physical sensations. This is something on the basis of which the primary trust in the world and ideas about security, self-respect and faith in one's own strength, and the ability to have stable close relationships are then formed.

Lack or mistakes in caring for a child, traumatic experiences in the early stages of development (sudden abandonment or death of one or both parents, gross hostile or sexual actions towards a child, accidents, serious illnesses) can leave an imprint on his entire subsequent life, distorting or hindering or even hindering the development of the child. So a tree planted in fertile soil, receiving enough moisture, light and heat, will compare favorably with its fellow, grown in harsh conditions - on poor soils, in a cold or arid climate.

Psychoanalytic practice speaks of the persistent desire of "forgotten" unconscious conflicts to penetrate into the present. They can take the form of dreams and symptoms, and determine the most important decisions in a person's life. Unconscious motives can influence how a person chooses an object of love for himself, takes on a certain task, starts some kind of business. At the same time, the person himself does not realize that he is repeating his previous experience, but is convinced that his behavior and well-being are completely conditioned by the present moment. Traumatic experiences, even those related to the past, can dominate a person's psyche for years. This leads to the fact that, with fatal inevitability, he will again and again fall into similar unpleasant situations, face the same conflict relations. Some men, for example, repeatedly fall in love and marry the same type of woman, although they know from previous experience that such a marriage will end in disaster. Similarly, certain women seem incapable of choosing men other than those who will offend, insult and humiliate them. Other people unconsciously arrange their lives in such a way that every success is followed by an even greater failure.

Freud writes that one might think of such people "that they are haunted by fate, that their lives are controlled by diabolical forces." He poetically compares this uncontrolled unconscious process, which he called obsessive repetition, with the inevitable return of the restless spirit, "which will find peace only when the mystery is solved, and witchcraft no longer dominates the soul."

The relationship between the patient and the psychoanalyst also testifies to the persistent desire of the repressed conflict for actualization. At the basis of all transference phenomena lies the phenomenon of repetition. In psychoanalysis, transfer is usually understood as the process of reproducing stereotypes of thinking, behavior, emotional reactions, which leads to the establishment of a certain type of interpersonal relationship. At the same time, the patient's previously inherent feelings, fantasies, fears, methods of protection that took place in childhood and related to significant parental figures are transferred to the analyst. The observation of repetition in the transference, on the one hand, leads to a reconstruction of the origin of the disease, and on the other hand, to an emphasis on memories as a healing factor.

The model of the analytic process found its expression in Freud's triad of "recollection, reproduction, elaboration". Working through constantly takes place during treatment and is a psychic work through which the patient accepts certain repressed contents and thus frees himself from the power of the mechanisms of repetition. It allows "... to overcome the force that compels repetition, or, in other words, the attraction of unconscious prototypes that act on repressed drives." Working through, assisted by the analyst's interpretations, acts as a process capable of stopping the persistent repetition of unconscious formations, bringing them into connection with the patient's personality as a whole.

For example, if a patient behaves towards a male psychotherapist as if she were her father, outwardly submissive and respectful, but in a veiled form of hostility, the psychoanalyst can explain these feelings to the patient. He can draw her attention to the fact that it is not he, the therapist, who causes these feelings, but they arise in the patient herself and reflect the unconscious aspects of her relationship with her father.

The transference phenomenon is crucial in the psychotherapeutic process, since the transference translates past events into a new context that is conducive to their understanding. Psychotherapy helps to at least partially free oneself from the power of the mechanisms of repetition. In the course of psychotherapeutic treatment, the patient can achieve a better understanding of his formation, the main conflicts and obstacles along the way, make up for developmental deficiencies, and develop new, more adequate ways of interacting with the outside world. Such "self-knowledge" not only alleviates suffering, it changes the whole character of a person. The patient is now able to better solve emerging problems, to make flexible choices, and is less likely to fall under the control of old, inadequate ways of responding. This is experienced as liberation, spiritual liberation, previously closed paths and horizons are opened, ordinary life now brings more satisfaction. It can be said that psychotherapy enhances a person's ability to control their destiny and their happiness, although, of course, this is not a miracle cure for all problems.

Psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic therapy

S. G. Agrachev (1952 - 1998), psychologist-psychoanalyst, founder and first president of the Moscow Psychoanalytic Society. Kadyrov I.M., Associate Professor of Moscow State University, Candidate of Psychological Sciences, psychoanalyst, member of the International Psychoanalytic Association, President of the Moscow Psychoanalytic Society.

The history of psychotherapy as a scientific and practical discipline begins with the appearance in 1895 of the book of the Austrian doctors I. Breuer and 3. Freud "Essays on Hysteria" (Breuer, Freud, 1895), which proposed a new view of neurosis as an unconscious intrapsychic conflict and the foundations of the first psychotherapeutic method, psychoanalysis, were laid. Over the past century, this method, improved and modified, not only retained its significance as one of the main theoretical and practical tools of psychotherapists, but also directly or indirectly influenced the creation and development of most other psychotherapeutic schools, in particular, group analysis, gestalt therapy and systemic family therapy. Obviously, the influence of the psychoanalytic worldview on the diagnostic and therapeutic thinking of clinicians, on their ideas about the nature, course and treatment of various mental and psychosomatic disorders.

Since its inception, the concept of "psychoanalysis" has been very broad and has been used in several senses: as a theoretical direction in psychology, as a methodology for the study of the psyche, and as a psychotherapeutic method. In the framework of this monograph, we will primarily consider the clinical aspects of psychoanalysis.

The core of the classical psychoanalytic technique developed by Freud is the method of free association. It consists in the fact that the patient is invited to inform the psychoanalyst about all, without exception, thoughts, feelings, memories and fantasies that appear in him during the session (the so-called basic rule of psychoanalysis). For his part, the psychoanalyst interprets the mental products of the patient, the obstacles to the associative flow and the feelings that arise in the patient in relation to him. Interpretation is the main tool of psychoanalytic technique. This is a message to the patient of the psychoanalyst's assumptions regarding the connection of the patient's mental and behavioral manifestations accessible to consciousness with their possible unconscious determinants. Particular importance is attached to the analysis of the patient's dreams (Freud, 1913).

Freud used the concept of the unconscious in relation to those mental structures and processes that are inaccessible to awareness due to the work of repression (censorship). In addition to the areas of consciousness and the unconscious, he singled out another third, intermediate, sphere of the psyche - the preconscious. It contains those mental products which, although unconscious at one moment or another, are not repressed and can be realized without the help of analytical procedures.

In the course of psychoanalytic treatment, repression manifests itself as a resistance that creates obstacles to association and the psychoanalytic process as a whole. The term "resistance" refers to the opposition that occurs during psychoanalytic treatment to the transformation of unconscious processes into conscious ones (Rycroft, 1995). The patient's feelings towards the psychoanalyst are largely determined by transference. This is understood as the process and result of the transfer to the psychoanalyst of experiences, ideas, attitudes and behaviors, unconsciously addressed to significant figures from the patient's past experience (Freud, 1989; Greenson, I967; Rycroft, 1995). The transference of the patient evokes response feelings and reactions in the psychoanalyst, which Freud called countertransference (countertransference). He believed that countertransference reflects unresolved unconscious conflicts not only of the patient, but also of the psychoanalyst himself and, therefore, is one of the main inhibitory factors in the psychoanalytic process (Freud, 1910). The presence of an unconscious internal conflict of the individual's moral, ethical and intellectual norms and unacceptable drives leads to anxiety and guilt, as well as to the formation of a variety of neurotic symptoms and pathological character traits that make up the essence of neurosis (see Moore, Fine, 1968). The clinical method created by Freud is aimed at understanding and resolving this conflict with the help of free associations, which should lead to the elimination of neurotic manifestations in the patient.

The most important feature of the psychoanalytic process is the spontaneous emergence and development in the patient of the so-called transference neurosis, in which the psychoanalyst becomes a central figure in the structure of the patient's internal conflict (Moore, Fine, 1968). The patient alternately endows him with the properties and qualities of the opposite sides of this conflict, turning him either into a carrier of forbidden impulses, or into an exponent of moral requirements and prohibitions. The transference neurosis moves the patient's neurotic problematic into the "here and now" of the therapeutic session, which makes it obvious to both participants in the psychoanalytic process and allows the analyst's interpretations to achieve their goal. In interpreting transference, the psychoanalyst analyzes the "past in the present" (Malcolm, 1986), so these interpretations form the basis of psychoanalytic technique. They enable the patient to become aware of the distortion in his perception of the analytic situation and the therapeutic relationship, and lead to a successful resolution of the transference neurosis and neurotic conflict in general. During the session, the psychoanalyst listens to the patient, trying to evenly distribute his attention, without specifically directing it to one or another material. This allows him to impartially evaluate the information coming from the patient, correlate it with his own associations and theoretical considerations (Freud, 1912; Greenson, 1967). He tries to adhere to the position of "technical neutrality", that is, to be at an equal distance from the mental forces involved in the patient's internal conflict (Kernberg et al., 1989). The technical neutrality of the analyst is of great importance for the success of the work, because in its absence, transference interpretations lose their effectiveness. Neutrality in no way means indifference to the patient, it is a uniform interest in all aspects of his personality.

In summary, we can say that the classical psychoanalytic technique has three fundamental features; an attitude of technical neutrality, the use of spontaneous transference neurosis for therapeutic purposes, and the use of interpretation as the main therapeutic tool (Gill, 1954).

Psychoanalytic treatment requires a special organization of the therapeutic environment - time, space, as well as the relationship of the patient, analyst and other stakeholders. The set of rules for such an organization is called a setting in psychoanalysis.

In this section, we have tried to briefly outline the main theoretical and technical concepts of classical psychoanalysis. For a long time in the development of psychoanalytic theory and practice, many of them have been significantly rethought, changed and filled with new content. On many theoretical and practical issues among psychoanalysts and now there are different opinions. Below we will consider the various trends that exist in modern psychoanalysis, and dwell in more detail on the practical issues of psychoanalytic technique.

Techniques of classical psychoanalysis

The emergence of psychoanalysis as a special system of theoretical views was inextricably linked with the emergence of a special therapeutic technique that replaced hypnosis, which Freud practiced before he began to create his teaching. The analyzed patient was lying down on a couch, and the analyst was sitting at the head of the bed, out of his field of vision. It can be said that Freud inherited the couch from his experiments with hypnosis, however, in accordance with the theory he created, the position of both participants acquired a special meaning: it is easier for the patient to associate on the couch, since the influence of external stimuli weakens, the main of which is the analyst himself.

Much easier in such a situation is for the therapist, who can freely give himself up to the flow of his own associations, without caring about the expression of his face and about what effect it will have on the patient. As a result, it is easier for him to play the role of a kind of "neutral" screen on which the patient can project his feelings, thoughts and aspirations, most of which are actually addressed to significant figures from his present and, especially, his past. As noted above, the analyst interprets the patient's associations by trying to identify their unconscious sources. At the same time, he strives to remain neutral, not criticizing the patient, but helping him to become aware of his repressed impulses (Freud, 1923).

In order to maintain therapeutic neutrality and purity of the “screen” that the psychoanalyst should be for patients, Freud did not recommend that they have any contacts other than analytic during the therapeutic process, and warned of the difficulties that arise when the analyst undertakes to analyze a patient with whom he has a personal relationship. For the same purpose, the analyst must observe the so-called psychoanalytic incognito, that is, try to give the patient as little information as possible about himself and his life. He enjoys the right not to answer even the patient's direct questions, which does not mean a prohibition for the patient to ask them (such a prohibition would be contrary to the basic rule of psychoanalysis).

In the classical psychoanalytic technique, the basic rule was supplemented by the so-called abstinence rule, which established strict restrictions on the satisfaction of the needs that arise in the patient during the session and, to some extent, during the psychoanalytic process as a whole. Accordingly, Freud advised his patients to refrain during psychoanalytic treatment from making decisions that could seriously change their lives (marriage and dissolution, change of profession, etc.). One of the main provisions of psychoanalysis has been and is that the patient's unconscious tendencies, which are realized in actions ("play out"), are thereby deactualized, remain out of the field of view of analysis and retain their pathogenic effect.

Freud noted (1923) that working with the unconscious requires continuity, regularity and stability. From this position follow his recommendations regarding the spatial and temporal organization of the therapeutic environment.

Sessions should, if possible, be held in the same room, and it is desirable that each patient always arrive at the same time. Both parties should strictly adhere to the schedule of sessions, and lateness and absences are an example of unconsciously motivated acting out and, therefore, should be the subject of analysis. Freud believed that for successful work with the unconscious, constant contact is necessary, and therefore psychoanalysis sessions should be carried out every day, that is, five to six times a week.

The duration of the session is 45-50 minutes. Since its inception, psychoanalysis has been and remains a long-term therapy that can last from several months to several years.

Classical psychoanalysis in its mature form was based on the model of neurosis as a conflict between various structures of the psyche - I, Id and Super-I (Ego, Id and Super-Ego) (Freud, 1989). In this scheme, the id is an unconscious structure containing both innate instincts and repressed impulses and drives. The ego is understood as a part of the mental apparatus that developed from the id and acquired relative independence from it. The ego is characterized by self-awareness and serves to adapt the personality to the impulses coming from the id, as well as to the demands of the superego and external reality. The Super-Ego is a part of the Ego that has become isolated in the course of further mental development, which contains moral patterns and prohibitions and performs the functions of control over the Ego.

Structural intrapsychic conflict affects the dynamics of drives, leading to their suppression and, as a result, to the formation of neurotic symptoms. In accordance with this view, technical procedures have been developed to resolve this conflict. The Freudian model was based on work with neurotics, and its practical application was limited to the circle of relevant patients: their personality is sufficiently stable to withstand analytic procedures and the frustrations associated with them. Freud then carefully monitored that psychoanalytic procedures were not applied to persons suffering from severe disorders, especially psychoses, since they could do them no good, but only harm. The patient of classical psychoanalysis must be "sick enough to need treatment and healthy enough to endure it" (Thoma and Kachele, 1987).

General characteristics of the current state of psychoanalytic technique

In his research and practical work, Freud focused on the realm of the unconscious and the dynamics of drives. But the logic of the development of psychoanalysis led to the fact that even during the life of the founder of this doctrine, many of his followers went beyond the original tradition or significantly changed their point of view on many theoretical and practical problems. This has led to a significant expansion of the range of psychoanalytic patients and the range of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures used.

Gradually, psychoanalysts began to pay more and more attention to such a structure as the ego. The development of the theory of drives - the psychology of the id - in itself created the need for the development of the psychology of the ego. If the id is not capable of learning and does not move in unconscious time, then what kind of personality structure ensures the success of psychoanalysis and the patient's adaptation to the demands of life? This structure is obviously the ego (Pine, 1985).

Freud himself began the process of changing the emphasis in psychoanalysis on the structure of the personality - in his later works (see, for example, Freud, 1926) there is an increasing emphasis on the ego and the need to strengthen it. As a result of this line of development of psychoanalytic thought, the so-called Ego-Psychology (A. Freud, X. Hartmann, E. Jacobson) appeared, which primarily seeks to strengthen the Ego, which opposes the impulses of the Id, and the patient's adaptation to external reality.

Ego psychology owes much of its emergence to the work of the first child psychoanalysts (especially A. Freud), since childhood is characterized by the rapid development of ego functions and the problems of this personality structure come to the fore.

Ego psychology has given impetus to the development of the concept of defense mechanisms by which the ego defends itself against unacceptable unconscious strivings. The triggers for these mechanisms are anxiety and guilt. Neurotic defenses include repression, isolation, denial (in fantasy as well as in word and action), neurotic projection, etc. (Freud A., 1993). Although almost all defense mechanisms are unconscious and in one way or another hinder the healthy functioning of the individual, they are unequal in terms of their intensity, volume and specific manifestations in terms of their pathogenicity. Therefore, in the context of ego psychologists and the process of psychoanalysis, there is nothing more than the transition of the patient from more rigid, less adaptive defenses to more mature and flexible ones. It is hardly possible for the patient to completely abandon unconscious defenses, but it is possible to achieve the disappearance of symptoms and successful adaptation.

Within the framework of ego psychology, the theory and therapy of the so-called character neuroses has been developed. These personality disorders are characterized by a persistent rigidity of behavioral patterns that, although they lead to maladjustment, do not cause pronounced subjective discomfort, that is, they are Ego-synthonic. Character neuroses differ from symptomatic neuroses or psychoneuroses, which were mainly studied by Freud. The latter usually include obsessional neuroses (compulsive disorder), hysterical and phobic neuroses. They are characterized by ego-dystonic symptoms, which are subjectively experienced by the patient as alien to his "I".

Character neuroses are more severe personality disorders than symptomatic neuroses. If a neurotic symptom affects only a part of the personality, leaving areas free from conflicts in it, then with character neurosis, the personality as a whole suffers, especially ego functions - resistance to frustrations, regulation of drives and interpersonal relationships. The ego weakens and resorts to increasingly rigid and maladaptive defense mechanisms.

Obviously, dealing with disorders of this kind requires psychoanalysts to expand their understanding of their therapeutic tasks and to enrich their arsenal of technical methods. Since, in character neuroses, the primary task of therapy is to strengthen the ego of the patients, analysts' interpretations in these cases not only reveal the nature of pathogenic defense mechanisms, but also create conditions for strengthening more adaptive defenses. For example, the analyst can warn the patient about upcoming work with difficult material, thereby enabling the alarm function in advance and creating conditions for a softer and more adaptive manifestation of defenses.

Empathic support and illuminating interpretations by the analyst are more important in the treatment of character neuroses than in the treatment of symptomatic neuroses. This, of course, does not mean that the classical interpretation of the analytic material loses its significance in such cases. On the contrary, it was in line with Ego psychology that psychoanalytic technique received additional theoretical justification, was detailed and enriched. As noted above, interpretation is in all cases the basic psychoanalytic procedure. It is a complex process in which a number of steps can be distinguished (Greenson, 1967; Kernberg, 1984).

Kernberg distinguishes clarification, confrontation and interpretation proper in the process of interpretation. The first step in interpretation is clarification. It is an invitation to the patient to explore material that appears nebulous, mysterious, or contradictory. Clarification has two goals - to clarify certain data and to assess to what extent the patient is able to realize them. At this stage, the analyst turns to the conscious and preconscious levels of the psyche.

Technically, the clarification procedure looks something like this: the psychoanalyst selects one of the aspects of the patient's verbal or non-verbal behavior in the session, focuses his attention on it and offers it as material for association. As a result, new, hitherto unexplained phenomena come into the field of analysis. The object of clarification may be the transference, external reality, the past experience of the patient and his defense mechanisms. Kernberg (Kernberg et al., 1989) provides a number of examples of the clarification technique:

a) “I have noticed that whenever I move my chair, you glance at your watch anxiously. Do you have any thoughts on this?" (transfer clarification);

b) “I don’t quite understand what makes you refuse to continue the love game with your partner, just as soon as he smiles. What do you mean when you say it stops you? What do you feel about it?” (clarification of external reality);

c) “Do I understand correctly that all these violent skirmishes with your father arose only when you were going somewhere together?” (clarification of the patient's past experience);

d) “You keep repeating that any woman in your place would do the same as you, and that you do not see anything special in your feeling of disgust for men. Could you explain your point of view?” (clarification of the alleged defense mechanism).

The second step in the interpretation process is confrontation. It brings the patient to the realization of contradictory and inconsistent aspects of the associative material, draws his attention to facts that were not previously realized by him or were considered self-evident, but at the same time contradict his other ideas, views or actions.

In the process of confrontation, the analyst can relate the material of the current session to external events in the patient's life, thereby revealing the possible connection of the therapeutic relationship "here and now" with his other interpersonal relationships. The object of confrontation, as well as clarification, can be transference, external reality, the past experience of the patient and his defense. Here are examples of confrontation:

a) “You rejected without hesitation all the considerations expressed by me during today's session, and at the same time repeated several times that you did not receive anything from me today. What do you think about this?" (confrontation relating to transference);

b) “I was strongly impressed by your story that you shared the materials of your scientific work with the very person who was suspected of plagiarism” (confrontation related to external reality);

c) “You say that you felt anger towards your mother just at those moments when she initiated you into her secrets, thereby giving you preference. How do you explain it? (confrontation relating to the past experience of the patient);

d) “There is a feeling that the desire to find another woman appears in you every time you suddenly discover traits that you like in the character of your partner” (confrontation related to defenses).

Like the clarification stage, the confrontation addresses the conscious and preconscious levels of the patient's psyche, setting the stage for interpretation.

Interpretation completes a single interpretative cycle by linking the patient's conscious and preconscious material to putative unconscious determinants. Its goal is to achieve a therapeutic effect by bringing to the patient's consciousness his unconscious motives and defenses and thereby removing the inconsistency of the material reported by him. Interpretation is a psychoanalytic device, the most profound in its impact on the patient.

The analyst can interpret transference, external reality, the patient's past experiences and defenses, and link all of these observations to the patient's supposed unconscious past experiences (such interpretations are called genetic interpretations). Let's look at some examples:

1) “It seems to me that you are trying to provoke me into an argument with you in order to drive away sexual fantasies about me. What do you think about this?" (transfer interpretation);

2) “Feeling tired of your partner just when he is so happy with you reflects your attempt to devalue him in order to protect yourself from envy of his ability to love” (interpretation of external reality);

3) “The fear that you had in childhood, when a noise was heard from your parents’ bedroom, is probably due to the fact that you attributed the same aggressiveness to their sexual relations that was inherent in your erotic fantasies” (interpretation of the patient’s past experience);

4) “Perhaps your attempts to deny the presence of hidden attacks on you in the speech of your political opponent indicate how much you are afraid of the intensity of your own hatred for him” (interpretation of the defenses);

5) “Your characteristic rough treatment of women and your harsh style of behavior towards me, apparently, have the same meaning: to follow the deliberately masculine manners of the father in an attempt to resist the desire to entrust myself to my care and be in my sexual power. This reproduces your childhood desire to replace the mother for the father, submitting to him sexually ”(genetic interpretation).

The main principles of psychoanalytic interpretation include the following.

First of all, you should interpret the material that prevails in this session. The analyst, however, should only interpret when, in his opinion, the patient is unable to do so on his own.

First, the material that is closer to consciousness is interpreted, and then - deeper, less conscious. In accordance with this principle, the psychoanalyst first interprets the defenses and only then the content hidden behind them.

In interpreting the fact that the patient is not aware of anything, the analyst must include in his interpretation an indication of the possible motives for this defensive "unawareness". By offering the patient an explanation of why he resorts to such a defense, the analyst thereby helps him to accept this content that he rejected.

The interpretation must include a description of the conflictual nature of the patient's mental dynamics.

The psychoanalyst should only interpret under the following conditions:

a) he is able to more or less clearly formulate an assumption about what is behind the patient's statement;

b) he is sufficiently sure that if the patient agrees with this assumption, the level of self-consciousness of the latter will increase; if the interpretation turns out to be wrong, it will still serve to clarify the situation;

c) it seems unlikely that the patient will be able to come to this conclusion on his own, without the aid of the analyst's interpretations.

Until all three of these conditions are met, the psychoanalyst either remains silent or confines himself to using the techniques of clarification and confrontation. When they occur, they should be interpreted as soon as possible.

Interpretation is not only a means of achieving a therapeutic effect, but also allows you to evaluate the patient's reaction, namely: whether he is ready to listen to the analyst, whether he is able to benefit from his words and how he unconsciously perceives them - as punishment or encouragement, seduction or rejection, evidence magical power of the therapist, his gift or something of little value.

However, the process of interpretation, as a rule, does not end with the patient reaching a single insight - an emotionally experienced awareness of unconscious pathogenic material. Awareness, which is brought about by interpretation, is followed by elaboration - “analytical work that opens the way from insight to change” (Greenson, 1967). Often, significant resistance to personal and behavioral change must be overcome to make this journey. Technically, elaboration is a series of iterations of the interpretation of this resistance (Freud, 1914).

Successful psychoanalytic work requires that, in addition to the transference reactions in the patient's relation to the therapist, there must also be a relatively healthy, rational component that enables him to work productively in the analytic situation. In ego psychology, this component is understood as the relationship between the analyst's ego and the collaborating part of the patient's ego. R. Greenson calls this component a "working alliance" (Greenson, 1967).

The working alliance is manifested in the patient's willingness to follow the rules of psychoanalytic procedure and cooperate with the analyst. This does not mean the absence of transference reactions: in the course of the analytic process the patient is constantly oscillating, so to speak, between a state of working alliance and transference. The transfer provides material for analysis, and the working alliance allows it to be analyzed.

Another line of development of psychoanalysis, in addition to ego psychology, the so-called theory of object relations, also followed the general logic of the development of this doctrine, but in a slightly different vein. If the supporters of Ego psychology (as the name of this direction implies) shifted the focus of their interest from the Id to the Ego, then the representatives of the theory of object relations (M. Klein, W. Bion, W. Fairbairn, D. Winnicott, M. Balint, etc. ) in a sense took an even more radical step.

Not limited to the study of the dynamics of drives and the unconscious conflicts associated with it, they asked themselves the question: what happens when drives in reality or fantasy still find objects for themselves (which are primarily figures from the earliest childhood of the individual), what kind of relationship with are these “objects” established, how do they develop and structure the intra- and interpersonal world of a person?

The empirical basis for the development of this theory was observation of mother-child interactions during the first two years of his life, as well as clinical work with patients suffering from more serious disorders than those of classical analysts and ego psychologists. The founders of this trend suggested that the psychopathology of such patients is associated precisely with various forms of violations of early object relations. In various classifications, these disorders are defined as narcissistic and / or borderline (between neurosis and psychosis). In certain periods, psychotic decompensation is also possible in such patients.

Klein (Klein, 1957) and Fairbairn (Fairbairn, 1952) viewed the child's ego as seeking a relationship with the "primary object" - the mother. Faced with violations of these relations due to various reasons (such as early separation from the mother, certain diseases of the mother and child, etc.), he experiences an unbearable feeling of breaking the primary ties. This frustration entails the appearance of aggression, which in fantasies is experienced by the child as threatening his own life and the life of his mother.

In order to protect against this threat, the child splits off those aspects of his ego that accumulate this aggression and are therefore perceived by him as unacceptable. The primary object is split in the same way. The negative part stands out in it, significantly reinforced by the child's own aggressive fantasies, projected onto the object, or which is entirely a product of these fantasies. Such a projection is an attempt to get rid of one's aggressive tendencies accumulated in the split-off part of the Ego. Along with this, the child isolates a positive part in the primary object, which he clears of all negative manifestations and, thus, is crudely idealized.

As a result, the "positive" loving aspects of the child's ego continue to be in contact with the loving, caring aspects of the primary object, while its "negative" hostile sides remain in contact with those parts of this object that the child experiences in fantasies as hateful and persecuting.

Thus, the child's own ego, its primary object, and the relationship between them become fragmented, and in order to protect the child alternately passes from one type of relationship to another.

This type of functioning is provided by a number of defense mechanisms (we have already mentioned some of them) - splitting, primitive projection and introjection, projective identification, primitive idealization, denial, omnipotence fantasy and devaluation (see, for example: Rycroft, 1995). The early object relationship with the mother provides a matrix for structuring the child's intra- and interpersonal world.

This duality in perceiving oneself, surrounding individuals, and one's relationship with them is a normal mechanism for the child's mental development and is dictated by the need to "safely love and safely hate" (Ogden, 1990), that is, to separate positive and negative feelings, the mixing of which would create a situation for the child unbearable because of its too great cognitive and emotional complexity. Given stable and favorable object relations and normal cognitive and emotional development, by the age of about three years the child overcomes the splitting described and acquires the ability to experience ambivalent feelings directed to the whole object.

In the case of an unfavorable course of development, primitive defense mechanisms continue to actively function in the psyche of an adult individual and become a psychological ground for violations of the narcissistic, borderline, and also psychotic levels. It should be noted that it was the theory of object relations that made possible the psychoanalytic therapy of such mental disorders.

Undertaken within its framework, an in-depth analysis of the dynamics of the relationship of the individual with key objects provided a more complete understanding of the dynamics and the fundamental role of transference and countertransference relations in psychoanalytic practice. This new understanding was the result of the fact that, by expanding the circle of their patients, psychoanalysts discovered a fact of tremendous importance: the more deeply the patient's psyche is disturbed, the stronger the emotional influence he is able to exert on his psychotherapist.

Working with patients suffering from narcissistic and borderline disorders, psychoanalysts have come across the fact that one of the predominant defense mechanisms in these cases is projective identification. One could even say that for these patients, projective identification becomes the main way they communicate with key figures. Simplifying somewhat, this mechanism can be represented as two successive stages: 1) the patient has an unconscious fantasy about projecting onto another person aspects of his "I" that threaten his integrity, and that these impulses take possession of the personality of this person; 2) using a whole arsenal of communicative means, the patient unconsciously forces the analyst to think, feel and behave in accordance with this projection, that is, to partially identify with it (see, for example: Ogden, 1982).

This identification of the psychotherapist with aspects of the patient's personality projected onto him distinguishes projective identification from neurotic projection in theoretical terms and is a major source of countertransference difficulties when working with patients of this kind. But it is she who is the most important source of analytical information.

The discovery of these phenomena has led psychoanalysts to take a fresh look at the role and significance of countertransference in the psychoanalytic process (Heimann, 1950; Money-Kyrle, 1956; Joseph, 1987). First, the term has been used more broadly to refer to the totality of emotional experiences and unconsciously determined reactions that occur in the psychoanalyst in a therapeutic situation, and not just those that reflect his own psychopathology. Secondly, countertransference has ceased to be considered the "Cinderella of psychoanalysis" (Toma and Kachele, 1987) and has been recognized as an indispensable analytic tool.

By observing his feelings and fantasies, both during and between sessions, the analyst can directly sense what aspects of his inner world the patient is trying to project onto him, what defenses he is actualizing at one moment or another, and in what relationships he is unconsciously trying to involve. Thus, the analysis of countertransference organically supplemented the traditional analysis of transference, constituting a single whole with it (Joseph, 1985).

For example, a patient with sadomasochistic personality traits may give information about himself in such a way that the therapist is tempted to give accusatory interpretations, unconsciously identifying with the patient's sadistic personality traits and reinforcing his masochistic expectations. In such a situation, the analysis of countertransference becomes of great importance both for avoiding a possible therapeutic error and for understanding the deep structure of the patient's intra- and interpersonal world, in which the therapist himself is involved due to the dynamics of transference and countertransference.

The analyst's ability to understand his patient relies not only on theoretical knowledge, but also on the ability to identify with certain aspects of his personality, including infantile ones (Money-Kyrle, 1956). At the same time, he must constantly be aware of the dynamics of interaction between himself and the patient, identify the contribution of each of the partners to the dynamics of the therapeutic relationship.

It must be emphasized that the “rehabilitation” of countertransference in psychoanalysis does not at all mean a reduction in the requirements for the personality of the psychoanalyst, his ability to cope with his own difficult-to-control emotional and behavioral reactions, while maintaining goodwill and empathy for his patient. On the contrary, the inclusion of countertransference analysis in psychoanalytic practice has led to more attention being paid to such an indispensable component of the training of psychoanalysts as their own psychoanalysis.

The emergence and development of object relations theory led to a revision of the basic metaphor of psychoanalytic interaction. The role of the psychoanalyst is no longer reduced to that of a screen or mirror for the patient's unconscious projections. Rather, it serves as a kind of "container" (Bion, 1967) that intervenes and holds those experiences of the patient that the patient's consciousness cannot contain and therefore has to split off. Forms of psychopathology and types of psychoanalytic therapy

As already mentioned, the development of psychoanalytic theory and technique went hand in hand with the expansion of the circle of analytic patients. Working with more complex cases posed new challenges for analysts, and the theoretical models they created as a result made it possible to develop new diagnostic schemes and therapeutic approaches.

One of the diagnostic classifications widely recognized in modern psychoanalysis is O. Kernberg's structural diagnostic model (Kernberg, 1984). In accordance with it, the entire diagnostic range potentially available for certain forms of psychoanalytic psychotherapy is divided into three types of personality organization - neurotic, borderline and psychotic. The classification is based on three structural criteria: the degree of personal integration, the level of maturity of the prevailing defense mechanisms, and the adequacy of the assessment of reality. The neurotic personality, in contrast to the borderline and psychotic, is characterized by a relatively high degree of personal integration, that is, a hierarchical and differentiated perception of oneself and others. Neurotic defense mechanisms, the main of which is repression, are assessed as relatively mature, that is, allowing the individual to maintain an acceptable level of integrity of the individual and the adequacy of the assessment of reality. Kernberg defines reality assessment as the ability to differentiate "I" from "not-I", and internal stimuli from external ones, as well as the ability to evaluate one's own thoughts, affects and behavior in terms of generally accepted social norms. The diagnostic boundaries of neurotic personality organization, according to Kernberg, include the symptomatic and character neuroses discussed above.

The borderline organization of the personality, as well as the neurotic one, is characterized by a fairly adequate assessment of reality (differentiation of “I” and “not-I”), but along with this, the predominance of primitive (that is, based on splitting and projective identification) defense mechanisms. Accordingly, the borderline personality structure is less integrated. Clinically, this is expressed in a chronic experience of a feeling of emptiness, mutually exclusive ideas about oneself and others, as well as conflicting behavioral impulses that are difficult for the patient to comprehend and hierarchize. The structural concept of borderline personality organization corresponds to such diagnostic categories as various types of psychopathy, and a number of personality disorders that are classified according to the DSM and ICD as schizoid, paranoid, narcissistic, antisocial personality, etc.

A psychotic personality organization, like a borderline one, is characterized by a weak degree of personal integration and the predominance of primitive defense mechanisms. However, its distinguishing feature is the loss of an adequate assessment of reality, the clinical manifestations of which are productive psychopathological symptoms.

Psychoanalytic treatment can be carried out in various forms, which differ from each other in terms of therapeutic goals (depth of study of personal problems) and organization of the therapeutic process (frequency of sessions, use of the couch, nature and depth of interpretations, etc.). The choice of a specific form of treatment is determined both by the requirements of reality (for example, the availability of time and sufficient funds for the patient), and the type of psychopathology of the patient.

In the spectrum of psychoanalytic methods, one can first of all single out psychoanalysis proper and psychoanalytic psychotherapy. Modern psychoanalysis is a form of treatment that, of the entire spectrum of analytical methods, is as close as possible to the technique developed and applied by Freud. Psychoanalysis is mainly used to treat patients with neurotic personality organization. As we have said, this method involves the technical neutrality of the analyst, the use of transference neurosis for therapeutic purposes, and the use of interpretation as the main tool. Conducting psychoanalysis requires strict adherence to the setting, the main formal characteristics of which are the use of a couch and a high frequency of sessions (at least four times a week).

The concept of psychoanalytic therapy includes a continuum of analytic methods that are also based on psychoanalytic theory, but modified in one way or another compared to psychoanalysis in the proper sense of the word. Changes can be expressed in a decrease in the depth of interpretation (up to the complete exclusion of genetic interpretations), softening the requirement of technical neutrality (the use of emotional support techniques, advice, and sometimes the therapist’s direct influence on changing the patient’s life situation), reducing the number of sessions, refusing to use the couch and etc. At the same time, it should be noted that it is sometimes quite difficult to draw a clear line between psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic therapy. Currently, psychoanalytic psychotherapy has become widespread, primarily because it is organizationally much simpler than psychoanalysis, but it is inferior to it in terms of the depth of study of the patient's personal problems. The indications for psychoanalytic psychotherapy are not only external circumstances in relation to the healing process itself, but also the severity of the patient's mental state. Kernberg (Kernberg et al., 1989) distinguishes three forms of therapy depending on the depth of the disorder: psychoanalysis, expressive psychotherapy and supportive psychotherapy. Psychoanalysis is recognized as the most effective for patients with a neurotic personality organization, while expressive psychotherapy is indicated for borderline, and supportive - for psychotic personality organization.

Expressive psychotherapy in cases where the patient has a borderline personality structure, like psychoanalysis, involves the use of interpretations, analysis of the transference and maintenance of technical neutrality. However, it is not performed on the couch, but in a sitting position, face to face, two to three times a week. The free association rule is somewhat modified; the patient is invited to speak first of all about the actual problems and difficulties that he feels during the session. In contrast to psychoanalysis, in expressive psychotherapy the therapist's work focuses primarily on the here and now situation, and only at advanced stages of work can he move on to genetic interpretations.

Another important difference between expressive psychotherapy and psychoanalysis is that sometimes, due to the patient's pathological behavioral reactions, the psychotherapist is forced to temporarily abandon a neutral position and introduce different rules and conditions that limit the range of manifestation of these reactions. For example, when working with a patient who is addicted to alcohol or drugs, he can introduce a rule to cancel the session if the patient arrives in a state of intoxication. However, when the severity of the patient's condition decreases, the therapist must restore the position of neutrality using the technique of interpretation. In supportive psychotherapy with psychotic patients, the setting is approximately the same as in expressive psychotherapy. However, in this case, the psychotherapist not only does not seek to maintain technical neutrality, but, on the contrary, actively provides emotional support to the patient, gives recommendations and advice, and participates in organizing his living environment. Using the techniques of clarification and confrontation, the therapist avoids deep interpretations. Transference analysis is not performed in supportive psychotherapy.

Instead, the therapist seeks to emphasize the realistic components of the therapeutic relationship. In conclusion, the conduct of psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic therapy requires varied and complex skills on the part of the psychotherapist. To master them, not only a basic psychological or medical education is necessary, but also a long period of specialized training, including training in psychoanalytic theory, undergoing psychoanalysis or psychoanalytic therapy as a client, and sufficient experience working under the supervision of qualified colleagues.

Bibliography

RYCROFT CH. (1995) A Critical Dictionary of Psychoanalysis. - St. Petersburg: East European Institute of Psychoanalysis. FREUD, A. (1993) Psychology Self and defense mechanisms. - M.: Pedagogy-Press.

FREUD 3. (1913) Interpretation of dreams, - M .: Modern problems.

FREUD 3. (1923) Method and technique of psychoanalysis. - M.: Gosizdat.

FREUD 3. (1989) Psychology of the unconscious. - M.: Enlightenment.

BION W. (1967) Second thoughts. - N.Y.: Jason Aronson.

BREUER J., FREUD S. (1895) Studies on hysteria. -N. Y.: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co, 1936.

FAIRBAIRN W. (1952) Psychoanalytic studies of the personality. - London, N. Y.: Routledge, 1994.

FENICHELO. (1941) Problems of psychoanalytic technique//Psychoanalytic Quarterly.

FREUD S. (1910) The future prospects of psycho-analytic therapy II Freud S. SE.Vol.XI, 139-151.

FREUD S. (1912) Recommendations to physicians practicing psychoanalysis // Freud S. SE. Vol. XII, 109-120.

FREUD S. (1914) Recollecting, repeating and working through (further recommendations on the technique of psychoanalysis) // Freud S. SE. Vol. XII, 145-146. FREUD S. (1926) Inhibitions, symptoms and anxiety // Freud S. SE. Vol. XX, 75-174.

GILL M. (1954) Psychoanalysis and explorative psychotherapy // J. Amer. psychoanal. Assoc. 2, 771-797.

GREENSON R. R. (1967) The technique and practice of psychoanalysis. - N. Y: Intern. Univ. Press. Vol. one.

HEIMANN P. (1950) On counter-transference // Int. J. of Psycho-An. 31.8! -84.

JOSEPH B. (1985) Transference: the total situation // UFA. 66, 447-454.

JOSEPH B. (1987) Projectove identification: some clinical aspects // Sandier J. (Ed.) Projection, Identification, Projective Identification. - Madison, CT; Int. Univ. Press, 65-76.

KERNBERG O. (1984) Severe personality disorders: Psychotherapeutic strategies. - New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

KERNBERG O. et al. (1989) Psychodynamic psychotherapy of borderline patients. - N.Y.: Basic Books. KLEIN M. (1957) Envy and gratitude. A study of unconscious sources. - N.Y.: Basic Books.

MALCOLM R. R. (1 986) Interpretation: the past in the present // Int. Rev. psychoanal. 13,433-443. MONEY-KYRLE R. (1956) Normal countertransference and some of its deviations // UFA. 37, 360-366.

MOORE B. E., FINE B. D. (Eds.) (1968) A Glossary of psychoanalytic terms and concepts. - N. Y: The American Psychoanalytic Association.

OGDEN T. (1982) Projective identification and psychotherapeutic technique. - N.Y.: Jason Aronson.

OGDEN T. (1 990) The matrix of the mind. Object relations and psychoanalytic dialogue. - Northvale: Jason Aronson Inc.

PINE F. (1985) Developmental theory and clinical process. - New Haven, London: Yale Univ. Press.

REICH W. (1945) Character analysis: Principles and technique for psychoanalysts in practice and training.- N. Y: Orgone Institute Press.

THOMA H., KACHELE H. (1987) Psychoanalytic practice. - Berlin: Springer Verlag. Vol. 1, Principles.

For the preparation of this work, materials from the site http://www.terpsy.ru were used.

Full text

Of course, psychoanalysis was created primarily as a clinical practice aimed at therapeutic work with the patient. However, it is well known that Freud repeatedly emphasized the presence in psychoanalysis of not only a therapeutic, but also an exploratory function and spoke of the inextricable link between treatment and research. The prospect of scientific discovery, of comprehending the deepest aspects of mental life, which is inherent in the analytic work itself, seemed to Freud one of the most important and valuable features of the psychoanalysis he created.

Subsequently, the question of the scientific status of psychoanalysis became the subject of many discussions. Powerful philosophical arguments showing the inconsistency (or at least the logical problem) of the concepts and conceptual schemes introduced by Freud were put forward, in particular, by J.-P. Sartre and L. Wittgenstein [Rutkevich, 1997]. In the philosophical methodology of science, the notion of the non-falsifiability of psychoanalytic theories, i.e. about the impossibility of their independent empirical verification, which is a critical indicator for the methodologists of science of the impossibility of recognizing their scientific status [Popper, 2004].

At the same time, there are many attempts to comprehend the status of psychoanalysis in its connection not with the history and methodology of natural scientific knowledge, but in connection with the history of the humanities (the field of Humanities) and in the context of the philosophical tradition of substantiating the specifics of the knowledge obtained in them. In particular, the outstanding German philosopher J. Habermas accused Freud of "scientistic self-misunderstanding". From the point of view of Habermas, the founder of psychoanalysis believed that he was building knowledge on the model of the natural sciences, and in fact, the psychoanalysis he created is one of the versions of the "sciences of the Spirit", driven not by the technological interest of predicting and controlling objective processes, but by the humanitarian interest of understanding meanings. and emancipation. A deep understanding of psychoanalysis in the context of hermeneutics was proposed by P. Ricoeur [Ricœur, 2002].

In the perspective of substantiating the specifics of the humanities, psychoanalysis is freed from many sentences given to it by adherents of strict scientificity. Psychoanalysis is declared not so much a science as a means of interpretation. Of course, the requirement of validity is applied to interpretation - including validity by data, "clinical facts", text, etc. - but we are not talking about the strict application of Popper's principle of falsifiability in relation to it. The value of interpretation lies in unraveling the meaning, including the one that is hidden from the author himself. As Yu. Habermas notes, psychopathological states are nothing but a kind of alienation, in which the subject is cut off from his subjectivity, experiences himself as an object, separated in his symptoms from his own meanings (motives, desires) - and this is what what, according to Habermas, psychoanalysis is trying to fix.

Psychoanalytic understanding, in this context, is not a process of looking for mechanical causes, but a way of restoring the subject's disturbed identity with its own subjectivity. "The experience of reflection - the most important element of the culture of enlightenment - is exactly the action by which the subject frees himself from the state in which he is the object of the forces acting in him" . And through interpretation, the analysand is able to connect with lost or hidden meanings and reclaim them. With some degree of conditionality, we can say that this is a causal process, that psychoanalysis reveals the causes of pathological symptoms, but these reasons lie in the field of recreating the semantic fabric, and not in the field of identifying some special “psychic facts”. In general, it should be recognized that the hermeneutical version of psychoanalysis had a significant impact on the modern understanding of its status, although, in turn, it was subjected to rather harsh criticism - both from philosophers (see, for example, the designation of the main lines of such criticism in [Rutkevich, 2000 ]), and from the psychoanalysts themselves.

In psychology, the attitude towards psychoanalysis is also quite complex. On the one hand, psychoanalysis is recognized as one of the most important areas, psychoanalytic ideas are taught to psychology students in a number of educational disciplines (general psychology, history of psychology, personality psychology, etc.), training programs for specialists in the field of counseling psychology, as a rule, include separate courses in psychoanalysis. It can be said that many psychologists have recognized a number of provisions of modern psychodynamic theory - such as the very existence of unconscious motivational processes, the ambivalent nature of motivational dynamics, the role of childhood experiences in the formation of many personal dispositions, mental representations of "I" and "others" and the relationship between them. (“object relations”), analysis of the narcissistic component of personality, etc. [Dorfman, 2003; Sokolova and Chechelnitskaya, 2001; Westen, 1999].

On the other hand, however, psychoanalysis remains for psychology (at least for the mainstream of university psychology) a certain marginal area, and psychological faculties, even introducing students to it, treat it, rather, only as a historical phenomenon (see, to For example, a curious material on this topic :). More or less serious analysis in psychology is given to the ideas of the psychoanalytic school of "object relations". Other versions of psychoanalysis are sometimes perceived as a kind of artifacts or myths.

The described attitude towards psychoanalysis in psychology is largely due to the peculiarities of the latter's self-determination in a number of natural sciences and the humanities. It cannot be said that psychology to this day is completely guided by the methodological models of the natural sciences - after all, it has its own history and its own path of modern development, different, say, from the path of development of physics or biology. But it can be said with certainty that, until recently, psychology paid practically no attention to humanitarian methodologies. Therefore, in psychoanalysis, what turned out to be valuable for many humanitarian disciplines (in particular, the path of interpretive knowledge of a special kind proposed in psychoanalysis) did not receive any serious understanding and development in psychology.

A few years ago, on the pages of the journal "Counseling Psychology and Psychotherapy" I.M. Kadyrov [Kadyrov, 2010] raised a topical question about the epistemological status of the situation of a psychoanalytic session and tried to show that the psychoanalyst has his own foundation of “psychoanalytic clinical facts” – “subjective”, “mobile” and “ephemeral” and, nevertheless, very real , tangible and significant both for the internal "ecosystem" of each individual session, and for the patient's life outside the psychoanalytic office [Ibid. S. 11]. According to the author, such facts are the patient's psychological events, played out by him on the "stage" of his relationship with the analyst. For the field of psychology methodology, this may mean that psychoanalysis offers a very specific type of cognition, the factual side of which unfolds in a special world of interaction between the patient and the analyst, and the “clinical facts” obtained in this way are quite accessible to intersubjective verification - in a session with the patient and in a collegiate context. . Thanks to the invention of "unusual conditions of the analytical hour", psychoanalysis opens up the possibility of a deep study of the internal organization of the psyche [Ibid. P. 29], however, this methodological heuristic of psychoanalysis, perhaps, has not yet been adequately evaluated by scientific psychology.

I think that not only the discovery of the unique situation of the analytical session as a possible space for deep knowledge of the personality has remained “overboard” in the methodology of psychology. In psychoanalysis, a special cognitive attitude is realized, which can be attributed to one of the forms of the “modern way of thinking” (in the terminology of M.K. Mamardashvili). The use of projective methods in psychology, based, among other things, on psychoanalytic ideas, is connected only partly with this attitude [Sokolova, 1980; Sokolova, Chechelnitskaya, 1997], as well as some original variants of the author's clinical methods (as an example, we can cite the method of dialogical case analysis [Sokolova, Burlakova, 1997]). In general, it can be said that the methodological meaning of the mental attitude implied by psychoanalysis is not clear in psychology and the attitude itself is little actualized.

The purpose of this article is to reveal the features of the cognitive attitude implemented in the method of psychoanalytic interpretation, and to show how important it is for the psychological studies of personality.

In the proposed analysis, I focus on the logic of substantiating the psychoanalytic approach as a qualitative research strategy. Basically, I turn to the classical version of Freud's psychoanalysis, I also use some of the works of J. Lacan. The question of the difference between Lacan's version of psychoanalysis and Freud's line is not raised here, just as no special analysis of Lacan's ideas is given. However, my reading of Freud's work is conditioned by the optics offered by J. Lacan and subsequent [I would replace with "following him" if this is actually true?] French authors of the Lacanian type (J.-A. Miller [Miller, 2004; Miller , 2011], etc.). I believe that French authors (by the way, not only Lacanists proper, but also those who are usually referred to as “post-structuralist philosophy” – M. Foucault, J. Derrida, Y. Kristeva [Foucault, 2004; Derrida, 2000; Kristeva, 2010 ] and others, - with their speech they set some conditions for understanding Freud, gave a special tool for changing our apparatus of understanding - they changed the setting, or "assembly point", of this apparatus, in other words, they did something not even with Freud's texts themselves, but with those who read these texts Freud, who went through the history of his French reading, is the modern Freud, in the sense of “modern style of thinking” [Mamardashvili, 2010] .

Symptom Meaning and Symptomatic Interpretation

One of the well-known and frequently cited provisions of psychoanalysis is the assertion of the meaning of seemingly meaningless phenomena - erroneous actions, slips of the tongue, slips of the tongue, dreams, and finally - symptoms. This means that they are related to the experience of a person, are built into the content fabric of his mental organization and can be revealed only in this context. For example, Freud's patient is obsessed with a meaningless idea that can be qualified as a delusion of jealousy [Freud, 2000a, p. 12–19]. The psychiatrist will be puzzled by how exactly to determine the essence of the symptom, whether it can be attributed to a delusional idea, an obsessive thought, a hallucination or an illusion. Freud, on the other hand, offers to penetrate into the very content of the symptom and discovers that the patient's delusional idea about her husband's love for a young girl is the result of a shift, apparently, of her own unacceptable, unconscious and therefore "dead weight" falling in the unconscious in love with a young man - her husband his daughter. “The fantasy of her husband's infidelity was thus a cooling compress on her burning wound” [Ibid. P. 17] and in a certain sense freed her from internal self-reproaches. A personal history is hidden behind the symptom, which in a special way forms the symptom as an intentional, semantic formation. I emphasize once again that Freud does not qualify the type of symptom and does not give its causal - in a mechanical sense - explanation (i.e., does not reduce it to some traditionally understood law in the form: a crazy idea arises under such and such and such conditions) , but we are engaged in the interpretation of the meaning of the symptom, it shows, in the given example, that the patient's delusional idea is really meaningful, motivated and connected with the whole logic of her emotional experience. The symptom feeds on the power of some unconscious process, and in such a way that in a sense it is itself something desirable, a kind of consolation.

For Freud, the symptom stands out from the rest of the formations of the unconscious by its constancy. Although Freud himself, speaking of symptoms, has in mind, first of all, their clinical variants, in fact, his logic of discussing symptoms is such that the status of a “symptom” can be given to many features of speech, behavior, life manifestations - something that is not directly refers to the actual clinical phenomena: recurring themes in creativity, style and color preferences in clothing, habitual positions in communication, etc. What I mean is that Freud offers a special - "symptomatic" - way of understanding what we can directly observe. P. Ricoeur [Ricœur, 2002] speaks of the difference between the traditional “hermeneutics of understanding” and the psychoanalytic “hermeneutics of suspicion”, such a definition of psychoanalysis is close to J. Habermas’ reflections on psychoanalysis as an “emancipatory science”, as well as the view of psychoanalysis as a “deep hermeneutics » [Busygina, 2009a; Lorenzer, 1996].

If the symptoms - both in their clinical and broader sense - have meaning, then they are accessible and need to be interpreted, the idea of ​​the semantic nature of symptoms, in fact, brings psychoanalysis closer to the position of hermeneutics, however, at the same time, this semantic nature symptoms are of a special kind, which makes it inaccessible to the traditional hermeneutical reading, and gives the psychoanalysis that deals with it a special status. In a symptom, the meaning does not speak for itself, the surface on which the meaning is expressed and observed does not coincide with the one on which the very action of meaning formation takes place. In order to understand what we are dealing with, it is not enough to move within the hermeneutic circle defined by the structures of linguistic pre-understanding, there is always some kind of trap hidden behind this surface, so understanding the meaning always needs not just linking the whole and parts (although and in this too), but also in the deciphering of hidden meanings, unknown not only to the analyst, but also to the analysand himself. We “suspect” the presence of a “deep” Other (hence “deep hermeneutics” and “hermeneutics of suspicion”), a discourse of the unconscious that is both hidden and reveals itself in linguistic and behavioral expressions.

The position of "symptomatic reading" is that psychoanalysis opens the methodologies of psychology, especially those areas of psychology that are associated with the development of qualitative methods. A possible variant of its application in relation to an interview fragment in a number of other types of qualitative analysis (content-analytical and phenomenological methods) was proposed in my other work [Busygina, 2009b]. Here I will give an example of a curious symptomatic interpretation of the material of life, which is not related to the actual clinical symptomatology. The interpretation is given by J. Lacan, borrowing the material itself from one of his colleagues [Lacan, 2002, p. 294–296]. In this example, I am highlighting the specifics of how symptomatic interpretation works.

The heroine of Lacan's story is a skilled, highly professional woman, who is also a wonderful wife and mistress of the house. Everything is fine with her and in terms of sexual pleasure - wonderful to such an extent that this simply does not happen. “Such an accident is so rare that it cannot go unnoticed,” Lacan notes, inviting us to assume a methodological “suspicion position.” In professional situations, a woman often demonstrates “specific acts of seduction and self-sacrifice”: for example, in some situations she suddenly begins to belittle her strengths and knowledge, while deliberately emphasizing her female priorities, interests and weaknesses. How can a psychologist relate to the material described by Lacan? For example, you can read the features of behavior as an expression of specific personality traits, the totality of which creates something like a "personality profile", or as a manifestation of the features of the personality structure. In a phenomenological vein, the effort of understanding will be directed to the peculiarities of the woman's life experience, the "life world" she lives - in the context of her own self-understanding.

Lacan, on the other hand, proposes that the very behavior of a woman be read as a “symptom” - an external expression of processes whose meaning is hidden from herself. By her behavior, she seems to anticipate imaginary male aggression, which, in turn, can be motivated by the fact that in her ideas this woman, being a qualified professional and quite a significant subject in her business, seems to secretly take away from men the most important thing - the source and a symbol of their power. Her femininity takes the form of a kind of masquerade: showing her “phallic power” as a professional, she immediately “femininely” expresses doubts about her competence, expresses anxiety about what she is doing, pretends not to be very knowledgeable, etc., she as if he immediately says: look, I'm just a woman, and nothing more. With her game, she, as it were, appeases those from whom she can take away superiority. Moreover, her game is not conscious, but is part of her "life style" - she lives in this way.

It should be noted that it is precisely with symptomatic interpretation that the problem of hyperinterpretation is often associated - deliberate attempts by interpreters to read out secret meanings everywhere, even in the simplest things, the meaning of which is obvious. S. Frosch and P. Emerson rightly warn about the danger of hyperinterpretation that psychoanalytic interpretations bring with them. However, in the situation of a psychoanalytic session, the analyst is guided by the totality of what is happening in his relationship with the patient, he has access to a rich context of reactions, emotional responses, bodily manifestations of the patient and his own counter-transference experiences, and his interpretation is related to this whole context. It is more difficult to interpret in a research situation, since the researcher is usually deprived of all the richness of feedback that the practicing analyst has. And yet, despite the fact that the problem of the validity of an exploratory interpretation oriented towards a symptomatic reading is, in fact, still far from a final solution, validation strategies are available to the researcher based on working with data as a whole complex, when the interpretation is repeatedly is rechecked by correlating it with various pieces of data and, in case of its inconsistency with some fragment, amendments are made to it. In general, the symptomatic interpretation, provided that reflective-critical checks are built into it, is one of the powerful sources of heuristics.

Phenomenological mode of psychoanalysis

Quite often in psychology, psychoanalytic interpretation as an "objectifying", "reducing" interpretation is opposed to phenomenology as a way of comprehending subjectivity in its entirety without resorting to theoretical models and schemes. I think that this point of view is not entirely correct. In psychoanalysis and phenomenology there is some common dominant that distinguishes them from classical psychological methodologies. It can be assumed that psychoanalysis and phenomenology have a similar premise, they start from one point, but then their paths diverge. In order to understand what their characteristic “thinking trick” consists of, let us outline the thought movement familiar to scientific psychology by referring to several examples of research taken from different areas of psychology.

An important form of theoretical work in psychology is the creation of explanatory models. As a rule, the model does not give a description of the real experience itself, but introduces what should be experienced, according to the logic of the model. It is possible to evaluate the model by the predictive function it performs. An example of this kind of theoretical work is the explanation of the psychological crisis, which is given by the model of age periodization of development by D.B. Elkonin. According to this model, the crisis is a consequence of the contradictions accumulated in a certain life period, the main of which is the mismatch between the motivational-need (“personal”) and operational-technical (“intellectual”) spheres. The model not only outlines the possible causes of crises, but also shows the inevitability of crises (their normative nature). Let us pay attention to the fact that the crisis in the model is deductively deduced as its necessary link, and the model does not involve the study of its real logic, as if from within itself. It seems that having received an explanation of the crisis, we, however, have not received an understanding of what we have already explained. Some important piece of work was missed.

One of the widespread areas of empirical research in psychology (in which, by the way, some psychoanalytic ideas are used, in particular the ideas of the “object relations theory”) is the search for external determinants of mental development. For example, there are links between the insufficiently developed autonomy of the individual and the dysfunctional characteristics of the parental family (the simplest case is some kind of defect in the real father: his real absence, alcoholism, lack of proper paternal function, etc.). Although these studies are not about creating a holistic theoretical model, but only about empirical searches for possible determinants, the picture again turns out to be purely external: a factor related to the real microsocial space affects personal characteristics. At the same time, the inner subjective world is again missed. In addition, the dysfunctional factor of the real father explains little, because its consequences can be very different. In order to understand these consequences, it is necessary to go beyond the external description and try to grasp the meaning of how the image of the father is presented on the internal plane, and not only in the sphere of the subject’s own consciousness, but also in his personal history, how he is built into the very structure of experiences and sets a certain direction for the "life project" of the individual. Focusing attention on external factors, it is impossible to approach the core of this issue, for this it is necessary to reorient the view in a special way.

Another example of widespread empirical work is the study of "psychological causality", i.e. the search for psychological determinants that cause certain states or behavioral patterns (say, a relationship has been found between depressive states and such personal factors as perfectionism and hostility to people). In studies, the quantitative severity of pre-described constructs (depression, perfectionism) is fixed, and then a search is made for relationships between them - correlational or causal, depending on the type of research design. And again we run into some impossibility - the impossibility of a holistic view of the subjective world that interests us. “Depressiveness” or “perfectionism” have different meanings, depending on the component of which integral subjective space they are. And in order to understand them, it is necessary to reconstruct this semantic space, how to describe it from within. And for this, again, a different point of view and a different language are needed.

So, in all the examples I have described, the object of psychology - the mental world - is, as it were, observed from the outside, its logic is modeled deductively, objective connections between some of its characteristics are empirically tracked, the factors that determine its features are studied, etc. And everywhere we run into an obstacle, which ultimately leads to the incompleteness of our vision: drawing fragments of an objective picture of the spiritual world, we seem to be missing something, as if we are walking around a fenced, enchanted space, having no means to step inside. A living experience, like a living experiencer, remains outside our sight.

I think that phenomenology and psychoanalysis are close in spirit precisely because they allow us to approach the spiritual world in a different way, not through objective characteristics, allow us to penetrate into this thickness of subjectivity. The first step taken by E. Husserl in his phenomenological project [Husserl, 2005] is to stop the "automatism of understanding" - to "bracket" the known world. In my examples of psychological research, an attitude similar to that which is inherent in us in everyday life works. Usually we perceive something through the prism of habitual ideas about what it is, and in psychological research, perception and understanding are similarly mediated by ideas - having a connection with everyday life, but conceptually elaborated. Almost immediately there is an automatic connection of the conditionally "higher layers of consciousness" - the totality of knowledge with which the work is going on (conceptual definitions, clarifications, etc.). Husserl, on the other hand, proposes to slow down this action of the "higher strata" and try to grasp the spiritual life in its original, known reality. Phenomenology involves prolonged peering and listening into experience, followed by a descriptive reconstruction of that experience as it manifests itself.

And, in my opinion, Freud does the same from the very beginning - he also seems to “suspend” the judgment about experience, does not hurry to designate this experience, but gradually “unpacks” the semantic reality of a symptom or mental formation. Crisis experiences, depression, features of the microsocial climate, external objective connections, in this logic, for some time cease to be known, well-defined entities, but turn out to be presented in a special way - in the form of an indecomposable, syncretic, integral internal phenomenon. We can say that the phenomenon in psychoanalysis manifests itself within a certain chain of meaning. In one of Freud's studies [Freud, 1998], the phenomenon of a mysterious smile, which is endowed with the artistic images of Leonardo da Vinci, gets its meaning in the context of the interpretation of one Leonardo's fantasy, in which a kite flies up to him, a little boy, and several times touches his mouth with his tail, and also in the context of some biographical data about the artist. The smile in the paintings refers to the lost kisses of the mother and, moreover, in a strange way reveals to us the type of homosexual sensuality of the author (not behavior, but the type of sensuality), in which the individual is identified with the look of the mother and seeks himself in the objects of love (“narcissistic choice of the object ").

What is close to phenomenology in this thought movement of Freud? The focus is on the semantic component, on the very reality of the inner life, which manifests itself under certain conditions - on condition that the known judgment about experience stops and the subsequent attempt to explicate the manifested. Features of life, creative style, the figure of the mother - everything appears in the form of an internal semantic space that shows itself in a special way. However, the same example clearly shows the differences between the Freudian interpretation and the phenomenological study. In phenomenology, it is supposed to search for what is given with obviousness, at the level of apodictic truths. Freud, on the other hand, undertakes the interpretation of meaning, using symbolic interpretation, resorting to cultural knowledge, beliefs, and so on. In the kite fantasy, he refers to the legend, current in Leonardo's time, according to which all kites are female and conceive from the wind. In other words, Freud is not held in the phenomenological attitude, the core of which is era, but exposes a certain screen in front of him, onto which he projects the baggage of possible knowledge - but hidden knowledge, updated with some time delay. The same operation can be traced in the interpretation of dreams, especially women's dreams, which, in fact, reflect how the female theme is presented in culture (and in the male soul).

So, starting the movement of understanding from the same point as the phenomenologist, as if "suspending" the known designation of experience, Freud then embarks on a completely different path - not the path of describing the givenness of meaning to consciousness, but the path of deciphering the expressions of meaning in consciousness [Ricœur, 2002] . I mentioned the symbolic interpretation used by Freud, but it is certainly not the core of psychoanalytic interpretations. As already mentioned in the previous paragraph, Freud has intelligibility, i.e. the intelligibility of the meaning supplied by dreams, symptoms, fantasies, the peculiarities of repetitive artistic images cannot be achieved at the same level of discourse as these actions of meaning themselves. Consciousness is cut off from its own meaning by an obstacle - the barrier of the repressed. The phenomenologist, in the process of his own research, also encounters something that goes beyond the limits of consciousness, which is an irreflexive thickness of experience. But the phenomenologist does not go into this thickness. To go there, you need to get out of phenomenology and give a model of the unconscious, which will allow you to reach the meaning of the actions it performs. Freud offers two well-known topics of the psychic apparatus, describes the "economics of desire" and so on. The whole meta-psychology of Freud subsequently provoked severe criticism, Freud's models were changed, replaced, and so on.

It is important for me now to note where the thought process of hypostasizing models of the unconscious begins, in the difference of which, in fact, lies the main doctrinal difference between the existing versions of psychoanalysis: the psychoanalytic model follows phenomenology in its turn to subjectivity and rotates in a circle centered on the internal movements of experience . Undoubtedly, the hypostasis of models is the point of fundamental divergence between psychoanalysis and phenomenology, the model of the unconscious is something that cannot be deduced from phenomenological experience, but at the same time it is what makes it possible to interpret the thickness of the irreflexive, before which the phenomenologist stops. Phenomenology and psychoanalysis begin at the same point of suspension of external judgments of experience, but psychoanalysis proper begins where phenomenology ends.

Personality features as a "packaging" of psychobiographical history

Psychoanalysis opens up a special type of personality research, which in the humanities literature is often defined as “the archeology of the subject” [Ricœur, 2002], the method proposed by psychoanalysis is “genetic interpretation”, i.e. reconstruction of the past according to the traces left by mental processes [Rutkevich, 1997]. In the above example of the study of the life of Leonardo da Vinci, Freud fixes a number of mysterious traces: a specific research curiosity, characteristic not only for scientific, but also for Leonardo's artistic experiments, the paucity of sexual life, the features of artistic handwriting (the already mentioned smile of the Mona Lisa and other images of the artist), finally, another curious trace - either a dream, or a memory, or a late fantasy about a kite. "Traces-symptoms" provoke the re-creation of the semantic whole, which Freud produces by reconstructing the past: Freud describes the early years of Leonardo's life, spent by him with his own mother, from whom he was later, still in childhood, due to special circumstances, was separated. The life of early experiences leaves its mark in such a way that the subsequent psychic life is fixed on the moment of infantile sexuality associated with the figure of the mother. And the enigmatic smile on Leonardo’s canvases – an “archaeological trace” in his soul of his mother’s tender smile, and perhaps his own smile, associated with the highest and at the same time forbidden bliss – in any case, the lost figure of the mother in Freud’s reconstruction in a special way collects a semantic space around itself, in the light of which individual manifestations of the described life and fate become understandable.

The past that Freud is talking about is not an objective real past, i.e. not the past of objective facts accessible to external verification, but the past, internally processed, left its mark on subjectivity, melted into this subjectivity. There is an interpretation of what, in a certain sense, has already been interpreted - by means available to the childish, infantile organization. Behind the figure of the mother, strictly speaking, not reality is revealed, but a fantasy, i.e. what is already a kind of interpretation. The same can be said about the “primary scene”: the observation of the primary scene is a fantasy, reality “melted by subjectivity”. Leonardo's "homosexual sensuality" does not refer to the objective reality of the relationship with the mother as a signifier to the signified, but to some archeological figure of bliss, the "talking body". Behind the trail left by the mental process, it is impossible to detect something conventionally primary, analogous to a thing, since the primary mental processes themselves, to which, in particular, Freud appeals, in their status are not “raw” materiality, but intentional processes.

So, in psychoanalysis, we are talking about the reconstruction of a special past. And the reconstruction itself occurs through the use of a special tool - the techniques of "stage understanding" [Lorenzer, 1996]. In the relationship between the patient and the analyst, one can observe “life dramatizations”, which in therapeutic practice are called transference and countertransference: in the transference, a kind of “stage performance” of the patient takes place, “acting out” the patterns of relations and behavior characteristic of him in interaction with the analyst, and then follows “ stage interpretation" analytics.

The reconstruction of life scenes is also characteristic of psychoanalytic work with biography. The "archeology of the subject" is revealed through the reconstruction of the past by recreating the most important life scenes that determine the very structure of subjectivity. The reconstructed scenes of love and tenderness of the mother are built into the inner mental space of Leonardo, defining, in Freud's story, the features of the mental image of the artist.

In one of his interpretations, J. Lacan outlines André Gide's pathography [Lacan, 2002, p. 299-303], giving a vivid example of psychoanalytic "stage understanding". Lacan mentions Gide's specific homosexual fixation of desire, evidence of which he left on the pages of his diaries, the erotic nature of his reading and writing activities, the unusual relationship with his wife, and the special significance that Gide attached to correspondence with her. Revealing the meaning of these features (traces), Lacan reconstructs the psychobiographical scene, in the light of which a number of the above-mentioned characteristics of the life world of the individual acquire their psychological meaning. 13-year-old André Gide, who had a clear lack of communication with his mother (who, according to him, appeared in and out of his life, and during periods of her presence Andre felt lost and disoriented) faces something of a seduction from the outside his aunt. Once, having come to his cousin (aunt's daughter and his future wife), he finds his aunt there with her lover, and on the floor above - his cousin in tears, and at that moment, according to his own testimony, he experiences "a feeling of love, enthusiasm, sorrow, devotion" and decides to devote himself to "protecting this child" (cousin, his future wife, 15). Lacan describes the scene from the point of view of the inner life of the experience that left its mark (to live means to leave traces, in the words of W. Benjamin), reveals the meaning of the situation of seduction and subsequent betrayal, around which, ultimately, the core of the subjectivity of interest to Lacan takes shape. Lacan shows how, belatedly and atypically, André Gide appears in the scene with his aunt as the desired child (recall that his own mother often disappeared for years). Nothing could mitigate the trauma of seduction and betrayal, precisely because there was ground for seduction itself - an unconscious desire to be a desired child. In this situation, 13-year-old Andre, thanks to his cousin, identifies with the subject of desire, falling in love with someone who was once loved by his aunt (narcissistic fixation of desire on young men). And on the other hand, as a person, he can now take shape in other relationships - in relationships with his cousin-wife; as a man and a writer, he can completely dwell only in what he tells her (a special attitude attached to correspondence with his wife), an unwanted woman becomes for him the object of the highest love.

As can be seen, in psychoanalysis the semantic structure of life scenes is reconstructed, life events are not simply fixed, but the internal history of experience is revealed through events. It cannot be said that the causal relationship of events (scenes) and the observed mental appearance is traced. The events themselves exist in the context of a certain structure of subjectivity: history, as it were, reveals the meaning of this subjectivity, and at the same time we get the opportunity to understand history itself thanks to an understanding of the structure of subjectivity.

Techniques for recreating psychobiography through the "unwinding" of life scenes that constitute a personality bring psychoanalysis closer to literature. However, it can be assumed that psychoanalytic psychobiography gives rise to a special type of "psychological hermeneutics", which is practically not assimilated in the methodology of psychology. The methods of “genetic interpretation” discovered by psychoanalysis through the reconstruction of life scenes (and, above all, scenes associated with relationships with early objects) give psychologists one of the possible ways to go beyond unproductive explanations of behavior, relationships, etc. by referring to those or other properties in which aggressive behavior is explained by aggressiveness, the ability demonstrated by a person to endure a situation of uncertainty for a long time - tolerance for uncertainty, etc. A set of traits, a "profile" or "psychogram" of a personality is not something to which it is enough to refer to in order to understand anything in a personality. Freud discovers such a movement of thought, in which personality traits turn into a trace of history, cease to be a given, but appear as a “psychobiographical problem” in which history is “packed”. Life scenes, stories “unwinding” from individual personality traits “make it possible to comprehend the inner coherence of the life world as a project” [Lorenzer, 1996, p. 180]. M.K. Mamardashvili demonstrates how J.-P. Sartre, showing that the property of a person, which psychology often takes as the end point of an explanation, is nothing more than “a trace of past events, a product of fixing a certain dynamic” [Mamardashvili, 2010, p. 299]. If life scenes are “packed” in a certain property, through which a person, as it were, “understood the world and made it possible for himself” (ibid.), then you need to “turn around the problem: take what we find on the surface as material, spinning which we can go back to what happened” [Ibid. P. 300] - to a set of life scenes. To do this, you need to give the property a meaning, i.e. to consider it as a semantic formation - a symptom of something else.

Symbolic character of psychoanalytic language

In the work "Dissatisfaction with Culture" Z. Freud [Freud, 1992] offers a metaphorical analogy between the psychic world and some ancient city like Rome. The majestic city consists of many cultural layers, surprisingly coexisting with each other. More modern buildings find a place for themselves next to the traces of antiquity, the archaic takes on a different look, being included in a new architectural ensemble, and at the same time it seems to continue to live its own life, in turn determining what each new era brings with it. In the same way, the mental trace of the experienced continues to exist, being involved in complex connections with the newly experienced. And in this case, to understand the mental world means to find a language that would allow one to authentically describe experiences, including those that happened long ago, in the infantile period of life, but which left their mark that continues to exist.

As I tried to show above, psychoanalysis, along with phenomenology, "brackets" the external world, focusing on the experience itself. M.K. Mamardashvili very accurately says that psychoanalysis, like phenomenology, proceeds from the premise of self-sufficiency of experience [Mamardashvili, 2010, p. 298]. There is an experience, an experience that communicates something that is not in the objective perspective of the world. “The problem of meaning (meaning not in the ordinary sense of the word) arises when we try, analyzing sensation and experience, to analyze it, remaining within its own framework, or, say, without transcending it, i.e. not leaving the experience to some world known outside the experience itself, but remaining inside this experience and believing that the world is born within it for the first time” (ibid.). Oral sexuality, the Oedipus complex, the castration complex are all components of that metaphorical language that allows one to grasp the living reality of experience, being, as it were, inside it. And since this language does not describe the objective content of experience, which may be true or false, it is meaningless to raise the question of verifying psychoanalytic descriptions with the help of an external criterion. The “Oedipus complex” cannot be verified simply because it cannot be true or untrue (just as a cultural myth cannot be true or false), it describes a reality in relation to which only the question of its meaning and functions in the general organization of the psyche (as in relation to myth, only the question of its meaning and function in the organization of culture is possible).

A small child does not know what a “sex scene” is, does not know the relationship between parents, however, as Mamardashvili says, the child’s ignorance is by no means a void waiting to be filled, his misunderstanding is a productive misunderstanding, and what is experienced is irreversible [There same. pp. 328–329]. Just as the new Rome does not completely replace archaic Rome, but the various cultural layers of the city continue to coexist with each other, new, adult psychic formations do not eventually take the place of infantile experiences, simply replacing them with themselves. It cannot be said that instead of infantile ignorance of sexuality comes its adult knowledge - this place is already occupied by the irreversibly experienced, and the dynamics of childhood experiences is preserved behind the facade of the so-called correct adult life. The dynamics of past experiences is such that it had meaning for the experiencer himself, and this meaning was fixed, “packed” in the formations of the unconscious, with which Freud works, as if “unwinding” them back to the meaning of the experienced scenes. And the language of psychoanalysis is the language found by Freud to describe these meanings of the experienced. And this means that it cannot be read naturalistically - as a designation of some empirical entities or facts. In psychoanalysis, we are faced with a conceptual apparatus that has a "symbolic character" [Ibid. P. 353]: the language of psychoanalysis does not describe real events, but the processes of their mental processing and interpretation, and in this sense, the “oedipal complex” is not a representation of the real state of affairs, a fact, but an instrument of the inner work of experience, a “tool of interpretation” [Ibid. . pp. 344–348].

If the experience is irreversible and crystallizes in some formations of the unconscious, then simply talking about the experience, verbally responding to it is not enough. It has to be re-experienced in a special kind of transference situation. But to relive does not mean simply to repeat, it means to process something in a different structural dynamic in order to disengage the bonds that have been formed. Psychoanalysis turns to the past in order to change fate [Kristeva, 2010], in order to unravel the crystallized meanings of the patient's past experience and, perhaps, give him the possibility of a different future.

Let me draw some conclusions. I tried to show that in the psychoanalytic interpretation a special cognitive attitude is realized, the most characteristic features of which are the focus on meanings and the assumption of the self-sufficiency of experience, or experience. In its “style of thinking”, psychoanalysis is close to the phenomenological and hermeneutic approaches, at the same time it offers original methods of working with meanings that cannot be reduced to movement within the hermeneutic circle. Psychoanalytic psychobiography is an opportunity to capture the structure and dynamics of the deep layers of experience by means of symbolic language and thereby approach the description of that in the psyche that is inaccessible to classical objectivist methodologies.

The absence of an analysis of the methodological problems of psychoanalytic interpretation in the article is by no means an indication that, from my point of view, psychoanalysis is epistemologically flawless. Of course, this is not so. However, such an analysis is a separate task, taking into account the fact that a lot of criticism of psychoanalysis has long accumulated in the scientific literature and today a balanced analysis of the criticism itself is also needed. Here, it was important for me to outline the place of psychoanalysis in a number of humanitarian methodologies and to show, rather, not its problems, but its significance for the methodology of psychology. It should be recognized that the development of methods and methodologies in psychology mainly followed the path of development of psychological experimentation, building up the arsenal of standardized methods and complicating the methods of mathematical processing. However, in recent decades, psychology has become very actively involved in a number of interdisciplinary projects and areas of research, such as qualitative, visual, cultural, gender studies, studies of the body and corporality, etc. And it was in the context of such interdisciplinary projects that the demand for non-classical types of methodologies began to grow. , allowing to adequately grasp new, complex, conceptually indefinite objects. In this regard, I see as relevant a closer appeal of psychology not only to external methodologies created outside of it (as often happens in the framework of the direction of qualitative research in psychology, where, in particular, sociological methods are actively used), but also to methodologies that have been open in the context of her own history. Psychoanalytic interpretation and psychoanalytic study of a case, as well as a psychoanalytic session in its not only therapeutic, but also research incarnation, is the most striking example of this kind of methodologies.

With regard to criticism of the hermeneutic reflection of psychoanalysis, I would like to make a brief remark. Psychoanalysts [Kadyrov, 2010; Steiner, 1995] overly exaggerate the idea of ​​"infinite interpretation", allegedly inherent in the representatives of philosophical hermeneutics. Even authors who deal only with the problems of text interpretation and practically do not affect the reality of the psychoanalytic session think much more realistically and just limit the interpretation to the function of its "programmability by the text" . And in the most famous version of the hermeneutic interpretation of psychoanalysis, proposed by J. Habermas, it is directly stated that the validity of psychoanalytic understanding always depends on the situation of the clinical setting: the validity of the analyst's interpretive moves can only be discussed if "they are accepted as knowledge by the analysand himself. Since the empirical validity of interpretations is based not on the actions of controlled observation and subsequent communication in the research community, but on the promotion of the process of self-reflection of the analysand and his communication with the analyst. Psychoanalytic knowledge is validated by its ability to demonstrate in practice the effectiveness of interventions based on it; being recognized by the patient himself, it becomes for him a powerful source of expanding the horizons of self-understanding.

M.K. Mamardashvili proposes to call "modern" (as opposed to "classical") something that requires a radical restructuring of the structures of thinking for its understanding [Mamardashvili, 2010, p. 27]. For example, a work of classical art can be understood through the mental tools that we already have in life, while a work of modern art suggests that in order to understand it, we must do something with ourselves, rebuild our habitual skills. understanding [ibid]. Today it is practically impossible to read Freud based on some familiar ideas - with such reading, bewilderment arises: where did he ever see such children who want their mother, compete with their father, etc. In order to adequately perceive Freud, you need to find a suitable position - "to do something with yourself," in the words of Mamardashvili.

By the way, a psychologist performs the same mental action when he qualifies a person as an extrovert or introvert, “personally mature” or “immature”, having a high or low “personal potential”, etc.: both in the case of a psychiatric diagnosis, and in the case of psychological assessment, we are talking about determining the mental / psychological status within the framework of the already known, conditionally “objective” coordinate system.

Due to the lack of material, Freud, in the analysis of the case cited, is limited to stating the unconscious love experienced by the patient, which feeds the delusions of jealousy through displacement. Of course, one can imagine a variant of further interpretive movement, as if Freud's patient was now in front of us. For example, why does this seemingly happily married woman suddenly begin to experience falling in love with her daughter's husband? And why is relief achieved in this way - by projecting one's condition onto her husband? How does the patient experience her age, her sexuality, what happens in her relationship with her husband and what is her relationship with her daughter? It is important that in any case, behind the surface of the symptom, there is supposed to be a layer of some other meanings that can line up in the semblance of narrative plots. This semiosis, however, does not exist by itself, but is always closely connected with processes related to the "libidinal economy". J.-A. Miller [Miller, 2004; Miller, 2011] rightly notes that in Freud's reflections on the symptom, there are everywhere two lines - the line of meaning, which is the deployment of chains of signifiers, and the line of pleasure (jouissance): despite the phenomenology of suffering, a symptom is always nothing more than a kind of libidinal satisfaction .

M.K. Mamardashvili [Mamardashvili, 2010] very accurately outlines the meaning of explanation, paying attention to the English term – explain away, which literally means “to explain away”, “to get rid of by explaining” [Ibid. S. 318]. This is not about the uselessness of explanatory models, but about the fact that serious work must be done before explanation, otherwise the explanation will miss the very reality that it is intended to explain.

Methodologically, it does not matter whether simple mathematical indicators are used, such as calculating correlations, analysis of variance, etc., or complex mathematical methods are involved in the analysis, such as structural modeling, which makes it possible to test hypotheses about the presence of certain latent variables: in any case, we are talking about on the selection of point indicators and the search for links between them - in more simplified or pretending to form complex, complex models options. The direction of the mental movement is the same, only specific methodological methods differ.

As it turned out, Freud made a mistake with the name of the bird, and his entire interpretation is based, in fact, on a translation error, but in this context, the fact of this mistake does not really interest us.

For example, in one of her patient's dreams [Freud, 2000b, p. 335, 338-339, 343-344, 361-362] the theme of female sexuality, symbolized by white, red and then withered flowers, is easily associated with the theme of trauma, aggression, fear in Freud. This is the screen onto which something is projected, represented in Freud himself. From the cultural context, Freud chooses only what is close to the male gaze, and the female story receives a certain semantic content, in which the plucking and withering of flowers is unambiguously interpreted as a loss (of innocence, youth, etc.), in reality, in such images, if we take into account the general tone of the dream, another semantic dominant can be concluded - the experience of being included in some natural cycle, frightening and desirable at the same time.

An even more striking example is the reference not to the fact of weaning, but to the hostile maternal breast in the works of M. Klein. Or the following ironic remark by J. Lacan: a real father who washes dishes in his wife's apron is not enough to get schizophrenia, in other words, this father must also be represented in a special way in the mental plane. The facts of the past - weaning, the peculiarities of paternal behavior - are reconstructed in terms of their internal representation, as facts of internal infantile life.

Busygina N.P. Psychoanalytic interpretation as a research strategy // Counseling Psychology and Psychotherapy. 2012. No. 4. S. 60-84. Copy

Mamardashvili M.K.

Freud Z. Leonardo da Vinci. Childhood memories // Freud Z. Totem and taboo. SPb.–M.: Olimp, AST, 1998. S. 217–278.

Freud Z. Dissatisfaction with culture // Freud Z. Psychoanalysis. Religion. Culture. Moscow: Renaissance, 1992, pp. 65–134.

Freud Z. Interpretation of dreams / trans. with him. Minsk: Potpourri, 2000b.

Foucault M.(2004) Nietzsche, Freud, Marx / trans. from fr. E. Gorodetsky. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://knigo.com/f/FUKO/nfm.html

Eco, U. 1992. Interpretation and Overinterpretation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Freud is Widely Taught at Universities, except in the Psychology Department. The New York Times(2007. November 25). http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/weekinreview/25cohen.html?_r=4&ref=education&oref&oref=slogin&

Frosh, S., and Emerson P.D. 2005. Interpretation and Overinterpretation: Disputing the Meaning of Texts. Qualitative Research Vol. 5(3): 307–324.

According to the ideas of Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis (1856-1939), there are three levels in the structure of the human psyche: 1) the unconscious psyche - “IT” or “ID”, given to a person from birth, where innate instincts are concentrated that ensure the biological survival of a person; 2) the level of consciousness of "I", or "EGO", which is formed in a child only under the influence of interaction with people in society and develops during his life in society; 3) the level of "Super-I", or "Super-EGO" (the level of conscience), which is formed in the child in the process of overcoming the Oedipus complex at an early age (four to six years) and assimilation of moral, ethical foundations. The Oedipus complex is a contradictory psychological state of a child at the age of three to five years, consisting in increased affection, love and sexual attraction of the child to the parent of the opposite sex and hidden hostility, jealousy towards the parent of the same sex. That is, a boy, for example, is attracted to his mother, perceiving his father as a rival, causing hatred, fear, and admiration at the same time, the boy wants to be like his father, but also wants his death and therefore feels guilty, afraid of his father. Fearing punishment, the child overcomes the sexual attraction to the mother, overcomes the Oedipus complex (by the age of five or six), and the level of "Super-I", conscience, is formed in him. In the case of excessive love, guardianship of the boy by the mother in the case of an incomplete family, or in the case of coldness, alienation of the mother, the boy experiences difficulties in overcoming the Oedipus complex, as a result of which some psychological difficulties may appear in his later adult life (the “sissy boy” syndrome, increased the boy's dependence on his mother, as a result of which a man may experience difficulties in creating his own family, building relationships with women) or even deviations (Don Juan syndrome, a tendency to homosexuality, a tendency to incest).

Freud's psychoanalytic concept of development notes that every person is born with innate sexual instincts, this is an internal mental instance - "IT" is a hereditary factor in development, and the influence of the external environment, society determines the emergence of consciousness and "Super-I". The "I" is pressed by "IT" and "Super-I", heredity and the external environment are pressing, and environmental influences displace sexual desires - they are in antagonistic, contradictory relations with them. And society acts as a source of all kinds of trauma.

The "Super-I", or "Super-EGO" contains a system of values ​​and norms that are compatible with those accepted in a person's environment, allow him to distinguish what is good and what is bad, what is moral and immoral. Freud divided the "super-ego" into two subsystems: conscience and the "ego-ideal". Conscience includes the ability for critical self-assessment, the presence of moral prohibitions, and the emergence of guilt in a person when he did not do what he should have done. The “ego-ideal” is formed from what is approved and highly valued by parents and the person himself, it leads a person to set high standards for himself. The "super-ego" is considered fully formed when parental control is replaced by self-control.

Freud considered the family as the initial model of society. Interindividual relations are formed in the family (“child - mother”, “child - father”, “child - other child”), which are formative for future social relations. The formation of social relations in society depends, according to Freud, on the relationship of the child with his mother and father. The relationship with the mother constitutes a model of how an adult will relate to society: a mother for a child acts, on the one hand, as a source of all positive emotions for him, as an object of love, and on the other hand, the mother limits certain desires of the child and therefore can evoke hostile feelings towards oneself; similarly, a person treats society ambivalently: both loyally and hostilely.

The relationship of the child with the father is projected in the future on the relationship with the leader, with the authorities. People in difficult situations need a leader, just as in childhood they needed a father who can both protect and guide, indicate what to do and punish. If in childhood the child was dominated by outwardly open or internal conflict relations with parents, then in adulthood such a person will often be prone to conflict relationships with other people.

All manifestations of human activity (actions, thoughts, feelings, aspirations) are subject to powerful unconscious instinctive forces, especially sexual and aggressive instincts.

The consciousness and conscience of a person is the result of the impact on the child of the influence of the family as a basic element of society, but human behavior is no longer subordinated to consciousness, but to unconscious motives and forces, the essence of which a person can never fully know.

Under favorable circumstances, personality development ends with the onset of "psychological maturity", the main parameters of which are the ability of a person to love another person as such, and not for the sake of satisfying his own sexual needs, and the desire of a person to prove himself in productive work, in creating something new and useful for people. .

But not every person reaches the stage of “psychological maturity”, many people, for various reasons, seem to be “stuck”, fixed in the previous stages. Fixation is the inability to move from one psychosexual stage to another. It leads to an excessive expression of the needs characteristic of the stage at which the fixation occurred, to the specific formation of the character and type of personality, to the specific problems of adult life, i.e. early childhood experiences play a critical role in shaping the adult personality. Fixation can occur both as a result of frustration (when the child's psychosexual needs are suppressed by the parents and do not find optimal satisfaction), or as a result of overprotectiveness on the part of the parents, when they do not allow the child to control himself. The desire of the child to satisfy his desires at any cost on the principle of pleasure may underlie his antisocial behavior. Only when the child is able to act according to the principle of reality, take into account the requirements of the social environment, analyze and control his intentions and independently decide whether this or that impulse should be rejected or turned into action, the transition to adulthood becomes possible. But it should be borne in mind that progress towards the reality principle does not in itself guarantee that a person will follow social requirements.

According to Anna Freud, the daughter of 3. Freud and a follower of her father's ideas, almost all the normal elements of a child's life, such as greed, jealousy, self-interest, for example, push the child in the direction of asociality. And with the help of the protective mechanisms of the psyche, some instinctive desires of the child, not approved in society, are forced out of consciousness, others turn into their opposite (reactionary formations), are directed to other goals (sublimation), are shifted from themselves to other people (projection) - so difficult and painfully occurs the socialization of the child, his inclusion in the life of society. The development of memory, speech, thinking is a necessary condition for the development of personality and socialization of the child. Thus, rational thinking contributes to the understanding of the relationship between cause and effect, and adaptation to the requirements of society and the surrounding world ceases to be a simple submission - it becomes conscious and adequate. The formation of the reality principle and the development of thought processes are necessary components of the child's socialization.

On the basis of Freud's ideas arose object relations theory, which shows that the relationship of the child with the mother - the primary object - in the first two years of his life is decisive for the development of personality. If the relationship with the mother is violated (due to the illness of the mother and child, the distance of the mother, etc.), then there is a break in the primary ties, the appearance of aggression, which is experienced by the child as a threat to his life and the life of the mother, there is a splitting of the "I-EGO" of the child , splitting the image of the mother into a positive idealized part and a negative hostile part that hates and persecutes. As a result, the child's own EGO, his primary object - the mother and the relationship between them are fragmented, and in order to protect the child alternately passes from one type of relationship to another. Such a duality of perception of oneself, other people, one's relations with them is a stable mechanism for the mental development of such a person and becomes a psychological ground for the emergence of mental disorders of the narcissistic, borderline and even psychotic level.

Freud believed that the life instinct (Eros) and the energy of libido induce people not only to sexual love, but also to love for parents, for people, for cooperation and unity with people, for the unity of mankind. The death instinct (Thanatos) gives rise to the aggressiveness of people, hostility between them, between groups, peoples, because of this, conflicts and wars are inevitable. Therefore, the relationship between people includes both elements of cooperation, association, and hostility, aggressiveness, but it is important not to allow the instinct of aggressiveness to predominate, because this threatens the existence of mankind.

Freud's psychoanalytic theory proves that in the process of interaction between people, their childhood experience is reproduced, and people involuntarily apply those concepts that they learned in early childhood. Freud believed that people form and remain in social groups partly because they experience a sense of devotion and obedience to the leaders of the group, unwittingly identifying them with the powerful personalities that their fathers personified in childhood. In such situations, people seem to regress, returning to an earlier stage of development. If the interaction of people is initially unorganized and they do not have a clear plan of action, then this helps to strengthen the power of the group leader.

Freud's socio-psychological views are most fully formulated in his works such as "Totem and Taboo", "Group Psychology and Analysis of the EGO", "Civilization and its Diseases". Freudian theory is one of the main philosophical foundations of social psychology in the West.

Neo-Freudians put forward provisions on the dominant role of early childhood in the development of the character of an adult and family education for the selection of groups and leaders in society: reducing socio-psychological and social ties to deep, unconscious processes; the influence of relationships between parents and children on models of small and large groups, etc.; consideration of mental disorders as violations of interpersonal relationships. For example, in the work "Authoritarian Personality" led by T. Adorno, the idea of ​​Freudianism about the fatal predetermination of an adult's personality by childhood experience was used to identify the psychological prerequisites for the emergence of fascism.

Theories appeared that directly included the ideas of classical Freudianism into the orbit of social psychology - the theories of group processes by L. Bayon, W. Bennis and G. Shepard, L. Schutz.

The disadvantage of Freudianism is the exaggeration of the role of the sexual sphere in the life and psyche of a person; man is understood mainly as a biological sexual being who is in a state of continuous secret struggle with society, forcing him to suppress his sexual desires. Therefore, even his followers, neo-Freudians, starting from Freud's basic postulates about unconsciousness, went along the line of limiting the role of sexual drives in explaining the human psyche. The unconscious was only filled with new content: the place of unrealizable sexual desires was taken by the desire for power due to feelings of inferiority (A. Adler), the collective unconscious ("archetypes"), expressed in mythology, religious symbolism, art and inherited (K. Jung), the impossibility to achieve harmony with the social structure of society and the resulting feeling of loneliness (E. Fromm) and other psychoanalytic mechanisms of rejection of the individual from society.

Psychoanalysis, as it developed, was enriched with new ideas and approaches, various psychoanalytic concepts arose: Ego-psychology of E. Erickson; sociocultural theory of K. Horney; theory of E. Fromm; individual psychology of A. Adler; theory of E. Bern; analytical psychology of C. Jung.