Psychoanalysis: from clinical medicine to clinical anthropology

Abstract

Psychoanalysis has met highly emotional resistance since its very “inception” in the late 19th century. A year never passes without somebody proclaiming the death of psychoanalysis. Despite such tendency, psychoanalysis is far from its decline. It is gathering new endorsers rapidly and is enhancing its positions in new geographical and cultural contexts. This article explores the possible origins of such resistance in the Russian mental health field. The author suggests that it is caused first and foremost by disciplinary discrepancies one may observe by studying the discrepancies between medical and psychoanalytical semiotics as a foundational method of the disciplines. Such view allows to explicate some problematic issues and conflicts in the Russian mental healthcare community, as well as to suggest what holds it back from obtaining significant public influence.

Keywords

clinical psychoanalysis / medical semiotics / psychological anthropology / symbolization / psychoanalysis in Russia / Jacques Lacan

References

[1] Зислин И.М. Колобки и репки. Как психоаналитики превращаются в сказочников. Часть 1. Неврологич. вестн. 2020; 52 (1): 60–67. [Zislin I.M. How and why psychoanalysts become storytellers. Part 1. Neurology Bulletin. 2020; 52 (1): 60–67. (In Russ.)]

[2] Зислин И.М. Колобки и репки. Как психоаналитики превращаются в сказочников. Часть 2. Неврологич. вестн. 2020; 52 (2): 72–78. [Zislin I.M. How and why psychoanalysts become storytellers. Part 2. Neurology Bulletin. 2020; 52 (2): 72–78. (In Russ.)]

[3] Lemov R. X-rays of inner worlds: The mid-twentieth-century American projective test movement. J. Hist. Behav. Sci. 2011; 47 (3): 251–278.

[4] Bernard H.R., Gravlee C.C. Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology. New York, London: Rowman & Littlefield. 2014; 784 p.

[5] Levy R.I., Hollan D.W. Person-centered interviewing and observation. Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology. New York, London: Rowman & Littlefield. 2014; 313–342.

[6] Calabrese J.D. A different medicine: postcolonial healing in the Native American Church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2013; 256 p.

[7] MacCannell J.F. Figuring Lacan: Criticism and the cultural unconscious. London, Sydney: Croom Helm. 1986; 182 p.

[8] Kristeva J. Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art. New York: Columbia University Press. 1980; 305 p.

[9] Barthes R. S/Z. New York: Hill and Wang. 1974; 271 p.

[10] Лотман Ю.М. Внутри мыслящих миров. СПб.: Искусство. 2000; 416 c. [Lotman Y.M. Vnutri myslyashchikh mirov. SPb.: Iskusstvo. 2000; 416 p.]

[11] Gay V.P. Semiotics as metapsychology. The status of repression. Bull. Menninger Clin. 1982; 46 (6): 489–506.

[12] Gaufey G. Le. The Fight Against Psychopathology: why a case is not just a case (Conférence donnée à Londres le 12 février 2005 au CFAR). http://www.legaufey.fr/Textes/Attention_files/122.rtf (дата обращения: 22.11.2020).

[13] Lacan J. The four fundamental concepts of psycho-analysis. New York, London: WW Norton & Company. 1998; 304 p.

[14] Kirshner L. The translational metaphor in psychoanalysis. Int. J. Psychoanal. 2015; 96 (1): 65–81.

[15] Lacan J. Formations of the unconscious. Cambridge: Polity. 2017; 400 p.

[16] Kristeva J. Towards a semiology of paragrams. The Tel Quel Reader. Taylor & Francis. 1998; 25–49.

[17] Guattari F. Psychoanalysis and transversality: Texts and interviews 1955–1971. Semiotext (e). 2015; 384 p.

[18] Derrida J. Structure, sign, and play in the discourse of the human sciences. Writing and difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2017; 362 p.

[19] Deleuze G. Essays critical and clinical. Minniapolis: University of Minnesota press. 1997; 280 p.

[20] Caterina G., Gangle R. Iconicity and abduction. New York: Springer. 2016; 198 p.

[21] Ruffalo M. The psychoanalytic tradition in American psychiatry: The basics. https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/psychoanalytic-tradition-american-psychiatry-basics (access date: 22.11.2020).

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Martynov I.A.