Showing posts with label Freud. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freud. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

The Psychogenesis of a Case of Homosexuality in a Woman

Freud’s (1920) case, the psychogenesis of a case of homosexuality in a woman, with reference to other relevant texts.


Freud’s 1920 case presents an examination of the psychogenesis of homosexuality in an 18 year old girl who pursued the adoration of a lady ten years her senior (p. 147). Early on, the young girl’s father meets the two of them together and casts an angry glance (p. 147). This instigated a suicide attempt by the young girl which had the secondary gain of making the parents ‘back off’, with the addition of an increased respect from the society lady (p. 147). In Freud’s case of hysteria (1905), Dora’s parents discover her suicide note but question her intent. Similarly, a secondary gain for Dora was not only making her father concerned and thus allowing her to grow closer to him, but it also may have been an attempt to keep her father away from Frau K. Both cases have the undertones of a suicide attempt being used to make the parents first take note of their daughter’s pain.

The girl’s libido, or manifestation of her ‘sexual instinct’ (Freud, 1916-1917, p. 313) was never directed towards young men (Freud, 1920, p. 147). Her father was outraged when he discovered her homosexual tendencies and if psychoanalysis failed, a speedy marriage would ensue (Freud, 1920, p. 148). Little Hans (Freud, 1909) was given threats of castration from his mother due to his fascination with his ‘widdler’. Not too dissimilar, the father of the young girl (1920) was threatening a castration between his daughter and the society-lady if her fascination did not cease. Freud remarks that during analysis the young girl didn’t hold back on what she said about the father (1920, p. 148). However, at this stage of development the father is only viewed as nothing more than a ‘troublesome rival’ (Freud, 1931, p. 2).

Freud (1920) adds that during her childhood the girl passed through the normal attitude of the feminine Oedipus complex (p. 150). The later comparison of her brother’s genitals did leave a strong impression on her (p. 150), in that she felt inferior or that she had ‘come off badly’ (Freud, 1924). The girl showed signs of a maternal instinct to a small boy when she was 13 years old (1920, p. 151). Later, during a revival of her infantile Oedipus complex, the girl began to desire an unconscious wish for a child with the father (p. 152). ‘Normal’ women and homosexuals may desire the phallus and rebel against the frustration of castration (Riviere, 1929, p. 310), thus the earlier genital comparisons with her brother had led her to want a child as a substitute for her inferior organ. Here Freud is making a reference to 'penis-envy' (1925). This ‘penis-child’ equation (1925) was denied when it was the mother, her unconscious rival, who bore the child – her third brother (Freud, 1920, p. 152).

Owing to this disappointment, the girl gave up her wish and discarded the father as love-object (p. 152). Instead, the mother became the love-object and Freud’s analysis of the girls dreams revealed the society lady to be a substitute (1920, p. 151). The recognition of the anatomical difference between the sexes can force girls away from masculinity to adopt the development of femininity (Freud, 1925). In contrast, this incident led the girl to become a homosexual ‘out of defiance against her father’ (Freud, 1920, p. 152), and to repudiate the feminine role in general (p. 152), in favour of what Freud later discussed as a ‘masculinity complex’ (1925).

Freud (1920) broke off the treatment with the girl when he recognized the transference of the girl’s hatred towards her father and men (p. 154). In a similar fashion, Freud’s treatment of Dora (1905) was cut short when she ended analysis abruptly, which Freud felt to be an act of betrayal or vengeance on Dora’s part (1905, p. 157). Advising for the treatment to be continued by a woman doctor, Freud adds, that the girl promised her father to give up seeing the society lady (1920, p. 154).

Monday, November 03, 2014

A Sunday Evening Musing on the Grip of Addiction.

For years addiction therapists and counsellors tended to be people who had been addicts themselves, these days, not so much. Drug and alcohol counsellors who have experienced addiction first-hand represent a dwindling slice of the addiction therapy community. Someone once told me that it isn't possible to become a drug addiction counsellor if you've never been addicted to drugs like heroin, cocaine and so forth. Or you wouldn't be a very good one at least. While they were no addict themselves it did get me thinking, and in a sense I could see the point through their naiveté.
 
I think that's probably like saying you can't help someone suffering from alcoholism because you aren't an alcoholic; or that you wouldn't be able to deal with suicide bereavement because you never tried taking your own life; or a paedophile needs to be reformed and rehabilitated by a former paedophile. I mean that may sound like a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, but their opinion is not too dissimilar.
 
I don't think that all addictions should have to be approached and individually tailored to the client presenting. William S. Burroughs remarked before, whether ''you sniff it, smoke it, eat it, or shove it up your ass, the result is the same - addiction''. Sure, a heroin addict is going to have a different set of circumstances when trying to avoid their substance, than say an alcoholic, who would be presented with far more opportunities to access and even come into contact with the substance they're trying to avoid. The 'availability hypothesis' states that the greater the availability of a drug in society, the more people are likely to use it and the more they're likely to run into problems with it (Thompson, 2012). The alcoholic's addiction is given extra traction by the innumerable ways society shoves it in their face. It's actively encouraged, under-priced, and sold aggressively. Sure what the hell are ye doing without a pint in yer hand?

''The essential process of addiction is the replacement of people with things. Addicts form primary relationships with objects and events, not with people. In a relationship with an object, the addict can always come first'' (Thompson, 2012).
 
But what's driving the addiction? It is at the end of the day a mixture between psychology and physiology. Psychologically, it's a cognitive battle. Respite only comes from changing your thinking and you won't be able to change anything if you don't change the thought patterns. But how does an addict attempt to change their biology? Physiologically, all addictions are going to have their roots in the major reward centres of the brain. The pleasure pathways. The networks that quash all the aversive psychological effort and scream far louder than most people can cope with.

Addicts go for pleasure even if it is detrimental to their lives. It is often the thoughts of withdrawal that poisons the outlook of an opiate addict. A psychological fear of an impending physiological nightmare. They can say they won't use anymore, but when the body starts to go into the initial phase of withdrawal, nothing will make sense to the person other than another hit to dampen the pain. It's cyclical. It's tragic. For some people, there really is no silver spoon but plastic spoons and dope; but heroin addicts should be treated like patients and not criminals foremost. You have to deal with person - not the crime of using heroin.

It's similar reward paths for tobacco. It has in fact been argued that giving up cigarettes is analogous to that of opiate withdrawal. But who gives a sh*t about the cigarette smokers, it's only a drug that kills over 5 million people annually worldwide. For heroin, a conservative estimate recorded 7,630 drug-induced deaths in EU member states and Norway in 2009, with the majority of these related to opiate use. It accounts for the greatest numbers of deaths related to drug use in Europe; Ireland having the highest rate of heroin use in Europe with just over 7 cases per 1000 population. There's no denying that these figures are a paltry sum in comparison to tobacco products. 
 
''None would argue that gambling is a vice, one in which most of us indulge from time to time without harm. But as with all vices, there is the problem of overindulgence, or addiction'' (O'Brien, 1995). Often in the mire of an addiction, people become detached from the things that had a lot of meaning for them. But there's always a choice point for people. I mean gamblers know over the long term that the house will always have the edge. But does that stop them from throwing down weekly wages on bets when the electricity's gonna be cut off at home? You can bet your arse it doesn't. Right there and then, reward circuitry, pleasure, the immediacy of positive feelings. The guilt hides out back and doesn't show up till later, if at all. Same physiology.

What about sex addiction? Is this just a fancy term for promiscuity? If I was arsed I'd have researched it more, but the closest I have for now is relating to a Freud remark in the early part of the 20th century, ''Masturbation is a shortcut between desire and satisfaction, allowing the subject to by-pass the external world''. Again, replacing people - the addict wins. And win they do! To be honest if you want a good representation of sex addiction then just watch Shame with Michael Fassbender.   

Then there's food addiction, I mean a lot of people nowadays have a private relationship with food, they'll hide their negative eating habits behind closed doors and comfort eat. This isn't anything new. It only takes a quick look up and down the high street to see who's wearing in public the unhealthy choices they're making in private. There's a modern plague of obesity happening in a world where 'cupcakes are the new cocaine' (Thompson, 2012). Again, it harks back to the same underlying physiological roots.

Drug use is human. It has been around since day one. It will never go away. We use addiction to resolve our problems. People are constantly chasing the semblance of happiness and we are pushed in the direction of addictive solutions (Loose, 2012). People are hooked on gadgets and technology. Billions are spent on trying to be beautiful. You're being force-fed the ''you're worth it'' type of attitude, and you god damn well better be hungry. It really is incessant. People are looking for an effect from their consumption; preferably something physical and immediate please.

Drug-use is an extremely effective way of dealing with suffering; it brings immediate relief. For some people, addiction is something that stabilises their structure, ''this is why I worked all day for old douchebag up in the insurance brokers shitbox, now I'm letting loose''. Back to reality. Sometimes however the hooks can go deep, and deeper yet again, before they know it, it's a full on marathon just to keep up. Addiction of any form is a struggle that shapes many peoples day to day lives and it's a difficult terrain to navigate. It's toxic. It's a sickness. But for a lot of people it's not about getting them to be extremely happy again or an attempt to cure. It's about getting them back to 'zero'.

I think in essence addiction is a very personal thing, not something that is the sole realm of ex-addicts. Indeed an ex heroin addict would be an excellent person to learn from in dealing with a heroin addiction. With addiction though, experts talk treatment, not cures. Edward de Bono remarked that an expert is ''someone who has succeeded in making decisions and judgements simpler through knowing what to pay attention to and what to ignore''. What can be learned from an addict is immeasurable; the patterns, the pitfalls; and the lies and excuses one will believe that stoke the furnace of addiction. So in that sense ex addicts are probably the real experts.

But there's just one little hair in the soup; the world isn't filled with ex-addicts.  So to say that addiction can't be dealt with from a qualified professional angle, is quite obtuse and frankly utter nonsense.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"...addiction implies in most cases the avoidance of the social bond with other people. It is for this reason that the term a-diction is appropriate as it indicates that addiction is largely a matter of avoiding speech, language, communication, symbolisation and representation"
                                                                                                                       ~ Rik Loose (from 'Addiction in Modern Times')

Friday, May 23, 2014

Hedgehog's Dilemma

The hedgehog's dilemma, or sometimes the porcupine dilemma, is an analogy about the challenges of human intimacy. It describes a situation in which a group of hedgehogs all seek to become close to one another in order to share heat during cold weather. They must remain apart, however, as they cannot avoid hurting one another with their sharp spines. Though they all share the intention of a close reciprocal relationship, this may not occur, for reasons they cannot avoid.
 
From 'Studies in Pessimism' (Schopenhauer, p. 142);
''A number of porcupines huddled together for warmth on a cold day in winter; but, as they began to prick one another with their quills, they were obliged to disperse. However the cold drove them together again, when just the same thing happened. At last, after many turns of huddling and dispersing, they discovered that they would be best off by remaining at a little distance from one another.
 
In the same way the need of society drives the human porcupines together, only to be mutually repelled by the many prickly and disagreeable qualities of their nature. The moderate distance which they at last discover to be the only tolerable condition of intercourse, is the code of politeness and fine manners; and those who transgress it are roughly told - in the English phrase - to keep their distance. By this arrangement the mutual need of warmth is only very moderately satisfied; but then people do not get pricked. A man who has some heat in himself prefers to remain outside, where he will neither prick other people nor get pricked himself.''
                            
Both Schopenhauer and Freud have used this situation to describe what they feel is the state of individuals in relation to others in society. The hedgehog's dilemma suggests that despite goodwill, human intimacy cannot occur without substantial mutual harm, and what results is cautious behaviour and weak relationships.
 
The dilemma is also used to justify or explain introversion and isolationism. The concept originates from Arthur Schopenhauer's 'Parerga and Paralipomena'. It then entered the realm of psychology after the tale was discovered and adopted by Freud in 1921.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Sometimes love can be a spiky situation.

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Neurotic Society

Who ever said rap music was all about the Bitches, Hoes and Cristal? Lauryn Hill's new track goes deep.



Freud never relied on notes during analysis...
but he sure liked those Benjamins
Sick psycho psychology
In desperate need of psychiatry
Exorcisms, sobriety
Forcing Social lobotomies
People stuck in dichotomies
Pseudo sicko anxieties
Serial criminals dressed in variety
Social transvestism
Subliminal dressed up as piety
Transference projections
Like Cartesian images
Robbing innocence
Stealing inheritance
Quiet victims with no defence
Betrayed over dollars and cents
Maladjusted and ignorant
Maladdiction and dissonance
Too much addiction no consciousness
Don't trust it
The cosmology's busted, broken
It returns to the dust
It stinks of corruption
Oppression, deceit
Abuse in repeat
This Neurotic, Godless society.

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Job Seeking Psychiatrists

This post is meant in good-spirits. Don't get offended. If we can't incorporate and utilise humour in our daily lives then we're already doomed. Live, love, and laugh a lot!

* ''I don't want you to think of me as your Psychiatrist. Instead, I want you to think of me as a mental patient who killed the Psychiatrist before you got here...''

* ''So you think you are a potato? . . . On the couch please...''

* ''Welcome to your first day of Freudian analysis. What seems to be the penis?...''

* ''You say that you are paranoid? But I have a report here that says you looked very relaxed in the bath this morning...''

* ''O.K, Word Associations. I'm going to say a word and I want you to say the first thing that pops into your breasts...''

* ''You seem to have emotional problems and a below average I.Q...I'm prescribing Jersey Shore...''

* ''If you don't think I'm a nosey b**tard, then why did you write that in your diary?''

* ''Yeah.....the voices in your head are not only real, but they're accurate too''

* ''It's time to take a good long look at yourself''... The narcissist agreed.

* ''You being followed here to this appointment is just a delusion, because I followed you and there was nobody following you...''

* ''Oh that's a classic dream...it means that you're a psycho...''
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

- Interpretations and Diagnoses' as above can lead to a life of licking stamps for dinner.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Horse S**T !!

Freud's theory (1909) regarding Hans' development of his horse phobia was due to his Oedipal conflicts, his castration anxieties, the father's prohibition and retaliation...yada yada yada...

A further, simpler, and much more contemporary explanation for Hans' phobia is that he was classically conditioned to fear horses. Hans, as a young boy, had witnessed a horse fall and collapse in the street.  Hans then generalised this fear to all horses. 

Psychoanalysis really 'grinds my gears' sometimes!!!