ON WILD PSYCHOANALYSIS (221-223)
Sigmund Freud (1910)
Summary:
A few days ago we received a middle-aged lady in our office, accompanied by a friend in the role of protector. She complained of
states of distress. Despite her age, she remained quite well preserved and had not renounced her femininity.
The initial cause of her distress was the separation from her last husband, but she mentioned that her distress increased aft er
consulting a young doctor in her suburb. This doctor told her that the cause of her distress was her sexual deprivation and that she
had only three options to regain her health: return to her husband, take a lover, or satisfy herself. Since then, she believed that it
was incurable, because she did not want to return to her husband and her morals and religiosity prevented her from the other two
options.
He came to us because the doctor told him that it was a new discovery we had made; We just had to ask ourselves and we would
confirm that it was so. The older friend asked us to reassure the patient that the doctor was wrong. She herself had been a widow
for a long time and had suffered no anguish despite leading a decent life.
Our experience has taught us not to take for granted everything that patients say about their doctor, especially neurotics. The
physician of nervous patients often becomes the object of the patient's many hostile motions and assumes, by projection,
responsibility for the repressed desires of neurotics. It is sad but characteristic that such accusations find more credulity among
other doctors.
We have a right to expect that the lady has submitted a disfigured report of her doctor's manifestations. We would be doing h im
an injustice, whom we do not know personally, if we were to tie our remarks on "wild" psychoanalysis to his case. But in doin g so,
we may prevent others from inflicting harm on their patients.
Suppose the doctor said exactly what the patient reported. Anyone would criticize that a doctor should treat the subject of s exuality
with tact and consideration. In addition, this doctor would have misunderstood doctrines of psychoanalysis, showing his la ck of
understanding.
First, the scientific errors. The doctor's advice reflects a limited understanding of "sex life," reducing it to the need for intercourse
and orgasm. Psychoanalysis extends the concept of the sexual to include tender feelings and emotions derived from primitive
sexual motions, even if they are inhibited or transformed into non-sexual ones. This is called psychosexuality, considering the mood
factor of sexual life.
Anyone who does not share this view should not invoke the principles of psychoanalysis on sexuality. Simplifying the problem by
insisting only on the somatic factor implies taking full responsibility.
In addition, the doctor misunderstood another crucial aspect. While sexual dissatisfaction can cause neurotic conditions,
psychoanalysis teaches that symptoms arise from a conflict between libido and sexual repression. Sexual satisfaction is not a
universal solution, as many neurotics cannot obtain satisfaction because of their internal resistances. If they could, they wouldn't
need the doctor's advice to find satisfaction.
So what's the point of the advice that doctor supposedly gave to the patient?
Explanation and conclusion:
This case tells the story of a middle-aged woman who sought help from a doctor's office due to distress. After consulting a young
doctor in her suburb, who suggested that her distress was due to sexual deprivation, the patient felt hopeless believing that she
had only three options to regain her health: return to her husband, take a lover, or satisfy herself, none of which she was willing to
consider because of her moral and religious principles. The patient came to the clinic seeking confirmation of this d iagnosis, but
the friend accompanying her expressed doubts about the validity of the medical advice, based on her own experience as a widow
without similar distress.
The case goes on to reflect on the importance of not taking as true all of patients' accounts of their doctors, especially in the case
of neurotic patients, who may project their repressed desires onto their doctors. It suggests that the patient may have submitted
a distorted account of the doctor's words and questions the validity of the medical advice, which seems to ignore fundamental
aspects of psychoanalytic theory.
1
Made by MatyBuda
Sigmund Freud (1910)
Summary:
A few days ago we received a middle-aged lady in our office, accompanied by a friend in the role of protector. She complained of
states of distress. Despite her age, she remained quite well preserved and had not renounced her femininity.
The initial cause of her distress was the separation from her last husband, but she mentioned that her distress increased aft er
consulting a young doctor in her suburb. This doctor told her that the cause of her distress was her sexual deprivation and that she
had only three options to regain her health: return to her husband, take a lover, or satisfy herself. Since then, she believed that it
was incurable, because she did not want to return to her husband and her morals and religiosity prevented her from the other two
options.
He came to us because the doctor told him that it was a new discovery we had made; We just had to ask ourselves and we would
confirm that it was so. The older friend asked us to reassure the patient that the doctor was wrong. She herself had been a widow
for a long time and had suffered no anguish despite leading a decent life.
Our experience has taught us not to take for granted everything that patients say about their doctor, especially neurotics. The
physician of nervous patients often becomes the object of the patient's many hostile motions and assumes, by projection,
responsibility for the repressed desires of neurotics. It is sad but characteristic that such accusations find more credulity among
other doctors.
We have a right to expect that the lady has submitted a disfigured report of her doctor's manifestations. We would be doing h im
an injustice, whom we do not know personally, if we were to tie our remarks on "wild" psychoanalysis to his case. But in doin g so,
we may prevent others from inflicting harm on their patients.
Suppose the doctor said exactly what the patient reported. Anyone would criticize that a doctor should treat the subject of s exuality
with tact and consideration. In addition, this doctor would have misunderstood doctrines of psychoanalysis, showing his la ck of
understanding.
First, the scientific errors. The doctor's advice reflects a limited understanding of "sex life," reducing it to the need for intercourse
and orgasm. Psychoanalysis extends the concept of the sexual to include tender feelings and emotions derived from primitive
sexual motions, even if they are inhibited or transformed into non-sexual ones. This is called psychosexuality, considering the mood
factor of sexual life.
Anyone who does not share this view should not invoke the principles of psychoanalysis on sexuality. Simplifying the problem by
insisting only on the somatic factor implies taking full responsibility.
In addition, the doctor misunderstood another crucial aspect. While sexual dissatisfaction can cause neurotic conditions,
psychoanalysis teaches that symptoms arise from a conflict between libido and sexual repression. Sexual satisfaction is not a
universal solution, as many neurotics cannot obtain satisfaction because of their internal resistances. If they could, they wouldn't
need the doctor's advice to find satisfaction.
So what's the point of the advice that doctor supposedly gave to the patient?
Explanation and conclusion:
This case tells the story of a middle-aged woman who sought help from a doctor's office due to distress. After consulting a young
doctor in her suburb, who suggested that her distress was due to sexual deprivation, the patient felt hopeless believing that she
had only three options to regain her health: return to her husband, take a lover, or satisfy herself, none of which she was willing to
consider because of her moral and religious principles. The patient came to the clinic seeking confirmation of this d iagnosis, but
the friend accompanying her expressed doubts about the validity of the medical advice, based on her own experience as a widow
without similar distress.
The case goes on to reflect on the importance of not taking as true all of patients' accounts of their doctors, especially in the case
of neurotic patients, who may project their repressed desires onto their doctors. It suggests that the patient may have submitted
a distorted account of the doctor's words and questions the validity of the medical advice, which seems to ignore fundamental
aspects of psychoanalytic theory.
1
Made by MatyBuda
