Psychoanalysis, this nonsense – 07/08/2023 – Vera Iaconelli

Late 19th century scientists prided themselves on the correctness of their methods. Increasingly governed by reason and evidence, his research sought to move away from the intuition and superstitions typical of previous periods. Freud, a young neurologist at the time, was an enthusiast of Enlightenment ideals, which he never abandoned.

But in the middle of science there was a rock called hysteria. Known since antiquity, the painting had already received interpretations that ranged from the circulation of the uterus inside the female body to the influence of demons. The first hypothesis named the phenomenon: hystera, in Greek, means uterus. I suggest the book “Histeria”, by Silvia Alonso and the late Mário Fuks (Casa do Psicologista, 2005).

I like an example: the patient has a total paralysis of one arm, which is like a dead weight, insensitive to heat, perforation, without any reflex, but which “comes to life” without any explanation. An exasperating situation for a neurologist, who cannot understand the logic between this paralysis and what is known about the nervous system.

Although it is present in men, it was women who were famous for being hysterical, driving doctors crazy who did not know how to deal with symptoms that were as unusual as they were inconstant. I suggest the film “Augustine” (Alice Winocour, 2012), in which we see an astonished and tireless Charcot trying to cope with the incomprehensible demands of his patients.

Hence Freud’s courage in asking himself what logic would respond to this and other hysterical symptoms other than that of science known until then. Freud’s greatest achievement was to sustain with his genius the bewilderment in the face of not knowing. Breuer, the first to treat a case of hysteria with relative success, left his patient Bertha Pappenheim talking to herself when the young woman’s affections became too dense. I suggest “Studies on Hysteria” by Breuer and Freud (Companhia das Letras, 2016).

We say that hysterics founded psychoanalysis to the extent that Freud had the decency to listen to them instead of discrediting their suffering. In the process, he discovered the laws of the unconscious, its forms of expression, its treatment and a century-old field of research that changed the way we think about ourselves and culture.]

Jumping back in time, we saw Lacan take the ethics of listening and care proposed by Freud to the ultimate consequences. For him, the final destination of the method initiated by the Viennese would not be the eradication of the symptom itself, but the recognition of alienation by the subject himself. Alienation that the symptom denounces and maintains, that is, what we do not want to know about ourselves, but which carries our desire and our most primary identifications.

The end of an analysis is not the end of symptoms, nor is it the end of helplessness inherent in our existence. She is the radical recognition of this helplessness. And it is the assumption of a less painful way of dealing with it. The end of an analysis points to something that makes us brothers, because we cannot ignore that we are one among other humans, equally helpless. I suggest “Ways to Transform the World”, by Vladimir Safatle (Autêntica, 2020), one of the most accurate descriptions of this final moment and its political effects.

Our couches are full of doctors who know that healing is not just a matter of protocols and that both adherence to treatment and its results are crossed by the subjectivity of professionals and patients. I suggest the book “The Medical Order”, by Jean Clavreul (Brasiliense, 1980).

The theme of the scientific nature of psychoanalysis is old and fascinating, but not everything is up to par with this discussion. Finally, I suggest Paulo Beer’s book “Psychoanalysis and Science: a necessary debate” (Blucher, 2017).

PRESENT LINK: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release five free hits of any link per day. Just click the blue F below.