For which demographic is Psychoanalytic theory supposed to work best?
Rich/Poor, Women/Men, Left/Right, etc.? What archetype has the best chance for his problems to be suspended?
>>7690380
ppl with mommy issues
>>7690380
>archetype
>demographic
>>7690380
I really don't think that it depends of these factors. You could think one would have best transference with people from his/her own social group, but that's a lot more complicated than that
>>7690380
>For which demographic is Psychoanalytic theory supposed to work best?
it has nothing to do with them family
>>7690391
Are you denying the usefulness of those categorizations in expressing my question?
If you dismiss any notion that ANYbody might consider meaningless, then you'll end up with some young Wittgensteinian non-language and I can't ask my question - and there is something sad and banal about that.
But I think there are answers to it that help me.
>>7690429
I'm denying their relevance to the subject in question you self-centered narcissist.
>>7690380
bourgeois
>>7690380
charlatans no matter the demographic
>>7690437
>self-centered narcissist
why?
Anyway. Okay, there are 3 people who say that now - it shouldn't matter. But I don't see how that could be. The psychoanalytical theory make such a distinction between poles - such as father and mother, that when you confront a father or a mother with their issues and suggest a solution according to the theory, it's bound to have a very different character. Why wouldn't it matter what the problems are - surely the people in those demographic have different issues (different from demographic to demographic, but similar within the group - e.g. typical problems men would have, or losers, or rich narcissists).
>>7690448
I have no argument against "charlatans", what do I know. But the question stands if we change "heal" (as in treatment) to "help" or at least "change".
Wealthy, effeminate Frenchmen with a strong disposition towards the placebo effect.
>>7690465
>>7690413 here
There are quite a few elements to consider in your question. What comes to my mind are these :
1. "entry cost" in analysis and targeted audience, which may float around your opinion
2. "good" transference, which I think depends of other things
As for the first point, if you really want to go that way, you could take what >>7690438 said to a certain extend, there is a part of psychoanalysis which certainly comes from a particular social situation (intellectual bourgeoisie). Plus, there's a certain tendency to self-reflecting speech when you into intellectual classes, and a proximity in regard of psychoanalysis. If you add to this a high price for an analysis, that could restrain the analysis to certain audiences.
Though I don't think it matters a lot, at least when the psychoanalyst is a good one. Let's say someone isn't exactly rich : money may be a problem with some analysts, but you can also find free institutions or reasonable prices.
As for the habit of speaking of oneself : you may speak a lot about yourself without saying anything (anything important), it isn't what matters in analysis. The language in analysis is very different from everyday language, aptitude to self-reflection doesn't really improve this "other" language.
As I've said in my previous post, there are chances you may experience quicker/easier transference with people which are socially "closer" to you (we love what looks like us). So in "pure logic", a lot of analysts coming from a certain intellectual bourgeoisie (and you've got to moderate this, because an analyst may as well be coming from proletariat, even if it's not the most frequent situation), you could presume patients coming from intellectual class will go along well with these people. Though it's only "pure logic" and doesn't correspond to the experience. That absolutely doesn't implies anything regarding the well-being of the analysis, which depends of the effectiveness of the transference. Once you're in analysis, if there is at least a minimum of good touch between you and the analyst at the beginning, the transference game will follow and "auto-feed"...
The effectiveness of the transference depends of a world of things. To caricature, you could imagine a patient who goes along well with an analyst just because his/her perfume reminds him/her a loved one. This sounds cliché, but that's really the kind of things you're dealing with.
I have no idea which type of person it's supposed to work best for, but I do know that comparative research trials have showed that it's one of the least effective forms of psychotherapy. Whether it's scientifically valid or not, spending so much time focusing on the causes of a mental illness can be pretty distressing for a patient. People respond better to solution-oriented therapy such as CBT.
( >>7691342 here, too much text in one post)
I don't want to draw an a-sociological paradise, there are social determinants which affect one's chances to engage in psychoanalysis. But I think they vary greatly given the location, the country, local culture, etc. It would be difficult to generalize to the extend of "psychoanalysis theory" (by example, in my country there are free institutions which are specifically more invested by people which are not exactly wealthy. This doesn't tag along well with a wealthy people psychoanalysis thesis). That's for the practical/pragmatical side.
For the theory side, you could always find social determinations in the construction of psychoanalysis and its concepts, which indeed come from a given environment (intellectual bourgeoisie to (badly) put it in a nutshell). Plus, psychoanalysis could not have emerged in XVI century Europa, and it all depends of an historical situation which gave birth to a given subjectivity. This subjectivity emergence, and what a subject could mean, how it is mutating, etc. are large, difficult and (I think) very important questions on a sociological, philosophical and anthropological scale. But I believe it's not exactly where you wanted to go with your question so I won't go further on that field
All in all, that doesn't really presume of the analysis experience from people to people.
What's is in question in analysis is one's singularity, what is to "hear" in the subject's speaking. As for when you talk about different people's experience with their parents from region to region, that isn't a big deal. One comes in analysis to unfold his/her relations, and these one are always the most highly singular ones you could find.
It was mostly developed in clinical work with bourgeois female Jewish clients.
That's not to say it doesn't work well for others, but those are Freud's original clientele.
the "le petit charlatanisie" demographic
