How Principles from Liberation Psychology can be Applied to Psychoanalysis
Classic psychoanalytic practice in the United States has been universalist, emphasizing unconscious drives and early object relations as primary shapers of the personalities and psychodynamics of individuals. The cure is found within the individual, the analyst is a neutral blank slate, and sociocultural factors are considered secondary to internalized family dynamics (Guralnik, 2016). Throughout the history of psychoanalysis in America, both clients and clinicians have come from predominantly white, upper middle class backgrounds (Altman, 2015). In applying psychoanalytic theory to community mental health settings and working with clients from diverse backgrounds, we must be reflexive about the cultural position from which psychoanalysis emerged and consider the cultural and sociopolitical context in our practice. Traditional models of psychoanalysis focused only on the individual and their family system can be inadequate for clients who come from oppressed populations to make meaning of their lives.
Lacan argues that the individual, including both the client and the analyst, is social. Because oppression and alienation are deeply embedded both within society and the self, insights into the truth of that oppression and alienation should be important parts of psychoanalytic treatment. By diverting attention to individual factors that cause suffering rather than social factors, mainstream psychology is complicit with maintaining structures of power (Pavón-Cuéllar & González Equihua, 2013). Knowledge is socially constructed, and the analytic situation is fundamentally interpersonal and cultural (Walls, 2004). By not taking a political stance and not bringing the social context into the therapy room, psychotherapists are implicitly taking the position of upholding the oppressive systems of the dominant culture. Psychoanalytic writers who have attempted to engage the socio-political have found it difficult to enter mainstream psychoanalytic theory and practice (Guralnik, 2016). There is very little research on clinical technique for and the impact of bringing the sociocultural context into the therapy room beyond case studies offered by these theorists (Guralnik, 2018). In reviewing the literature on bringing the broader sociocultural dynamics into psychoanalytic therapy, I found three categories of clinically applicable techniques.
Intersubjectivity and Mutual Recognition
The first is the idea of intersubjectivity and mutual recognition, inspired by the work of Paulo Freire. According to Freire, the teacher-student dyad is a relationship where internalized socio-political dynamics are enacted. Usually, the teacher is in a position of authority and bestows knowledge upon the student. Presenting the relationship between student and teacher as a problem that is to be discussed through dialogue allows for the possible transformation of this reality. If the teacher acts with humility, vulnerability, empathy, and a willingness to be changed by the student, students have the space to express their desires, challenge their internal structures of power, and locate oppressors outside of themselves. Benjamin extends Freire’s ideas of intersubjectivity to the psychoanalytic dyad through the idea of mutual recognition, which is our human capacity to relate to each other as equal subjects with desire and agency. In forming a horizontal relationship with the client, the therapist shows that they can be changed and educated by the client’s subjective experience as equals (Gaztambide, 2017). Lawrence uses a “social dreaming” technique where the therapist associates to their client’s dream as if it were their own to emphasize intersubjectivity and highlight meanings that are both culturally shared and different within the psychoanalytic dyad (Stein, 2014).
Exploration of Social Issues Within the Relationship
The second technique is exploration of social issues in the transference-countertransference matrix. In addition to the analyst and the client, bringing in the “social third” makes room for the external realities of prejudice and power dynamics that mirror that of society. Each person in the dyad is positioned in their own sociocultural context and are influenced by the unconscious and implicit biases that come with it. Ferenczi argues that negative countertransference can be communicated unconsciously through the therapist’s behavior. People who are oppressed are often able to notice microaggressions that the people from the dominant culture are unaware of. Denying negative countertransferential reactions can be a form of gaslighting that invalidates the perspective of the person who is oppressed. Therapist awareness and disclosure of cultural misatunements and negative countertransference can allow for corrective experiences that validate the client’s reality (Gaztambide, 2012).
Exploration of Internalized Societal Relations
The third technique is the exploration of internalized societal relations. People make adaptive unconscious accommodations to maintain existing structures of power, the repression of political awareness, and important interpersonal relationships. Discussions of ideology and how clients experience sociocultural issues such as race, class, gender, and politics should be welcome in the psychoanalytic frame and seen as important elements in the construction of the social unconscious (Walls, 2004). Cultural values are often transmitted through important early relationships. With women experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV), discussions of how gender dynamics in society play out in early and current relationships may be especially fruitful, allowing clients to see dynamics like dissociating from anger and identifying with aggressors as protective, adaptive defenses that they developed early in life. It may even be helpful to raise political consciousness by discussing activism and joining social action networks that support other women also experiencing IPV (Stein, 2014). Contextualizing private pain within the wider social dynamics of oppression can result in less self-blame and internalized shame.
Conclusions
As psychoanalysis struggles to find its relevance in an ever-changing, more diverse world, clinicians should reflect on and evolve the techniques that are used in treatment, especially when working with marginalized groups that have experienced complex trauma. Psychoanalysis has the potential to be liberating and reduce suffering, but only if it values people at the margins, brings in the sociocultural context, and is rooted in anti-oppressive frameworks and practice.
References
Altman, N. (2015) Psychoanalysis in an Age of Accelerating Cultural Change. New York: Routledge.
Gaztambide, D. J. (2017). A “psychoanalysis for liberation”: Reading freire as an act of love. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, 22(2), 193–211. http://dx.doi.org.ciis.idm.oclc.org/10.1057/s41282-016-0033-9
Gaztambide, D.J. (2012). “A Psychotherapy for the People”: Freud, Ferenczi, and Psychoanalytic Work with the Underprivileged. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 48(2):141–165.
Guralnik, O. (2016). Sleeping Dogs: Psychoanalysis and the Socio-Political. Psychoanalytic Dialogues. 26. 655–663. 10.1080/10481885.2016.1235450.
Guralnik, O. (2018, May). A State of Mind: A Day with Orna Guralnik. Paper presented at the meeting of NCSPP, Berkeley, CA.
Pavón-Cuéllar, D., & González Equihua, E. E. (2013). Subversive psychoanalysis and its potential orientation toward a liberation psychology: From a lacanian reading of martín-baró to a committed use of jacques lacan. Theory & Psychology, 23(5), 639–656. http://dx.doi.org.ciis.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0959354313494274
Stein, A. (2014). Cupid’s Knife: Women’s Anger and Agency in Violent Relationships. New York: Routledge.
Walls, G.B. (2004). Toward a Critical Global Psychoanalysis. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 14(5):605–634.
