““In conflict, especially in war when we have massive conflict, each side believes that truth and right are on their side. It is very difficult to reason with each side because each side believes that right and truth are on their side.“
Ronald Doctor, MD
London
Episode Description:
We begin by describing the current widespread craving for social homogeneity – the ‘other’ is deemed not only as foreign but foul and dangerous. Violence towards those who are different is tolerated if not valorized as purifying. Psychoanalysis has something to offer those who shout in order to not hear themselves. In addition to speaking with colleagues, we suggest the value of applying aspects of our work ‘off the couch’ to reach those who don’t seek listening but can benefit from it. Ronald’s work in Balint groups provides a model of outreach that perhaps can apply to the social/political arena as well. We conclude with welcoming ideas from listeners about how best to apply our skills to the wider world in which we live.
Our Guest:
Ronald Doctor, MD is a Consultant Psychiatrist in Medical Psychotherapy and Forensic Psychotherapy, West London NHS Trust, and a Psychoanalyst in private practice. He is a Fellow of the British Psychoanalytical Society, Senior Member of the British Psychotherapy Foundation, Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Chair of the IPA Committee of Psychoanalysis and Law, and Board member of the International Association for Forensic Psychotherapy. He has edited two books: Dangerous Patients: A Psychodynamic Approach to Risk Assessment and Management (2003) and Murder; a Psychotherapeutic Investigation (2008) and published History, murder and the fear of death, International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytical Studies (2015) 12.2 152-160.
A fascinating discussion is worth comment.
I do believe that you need to write more about this issue, it might not
be a taboo subject but generally folks don’t talk about such
topics. To the next! Many thanks!!
Thank you! This brilliant conversation was full of witty assumptions and sincere revelations. But I have a feeling that after 100 episodes we are still marking time, discussing what is the reason for the otherness, in what exactly do people differ from each other from the social, political and purely psychoanalytic points of view, Am I wrong? What does our theory say about this, and not just experience and practice? Is it only a PSD, PTSD position, geopolitical situation, traumas or a countertransfer?
I will be more frank: P.A. is this still a scientific study of the “world of man’s soul”, as Freud had put it, or is it a purely philosophical attempt to describe what is happening in the human consciousness and the unconsciousness? I’m sorry, but many listeners involuntarily ask themselves the question: is it possible to make not fiction, psychiatric, judicial or even political literature out of P.A. at all, but a real science? What could Ronald Doctor, Merav Roth and Harriet Wolfe say about it with their experience and out-of-the-box thinking? With my deep respect to all of you,
Alexander
Thank you Aleksander and Joshua for very interesting and thought provoking comments and I am going to try to reply, by mentioning Anna Grimshaw on Hamlet, in response to your questions. What gave Shakespeare the power to give Hamlet’s endurance through time, was that in Hamlet he had isolated the psychological line which characterized the collective change from the medieval world to the world of free individualization. This was nothing less than the freedom of the individual mind. “I think therefore I am.” Spinoza, Newton, etc. laid the scientific foundations of the modern world by inquiry, analysis and conjecture, which they considered to be free. This was Hamlet, the embodiment of the conflict between social duty and freedom of thought. Hamlet questioned everything, he speculated on philosophy, on science, on religion, on love and friendship, and much more. Shakespeare practiced this new freedom of thought and expression in a milieu of theatre, costumes and stage. Has Psychoanalysis come near to this description? When science or psychoanalysis closes down discussion and argument, we have lost our free thought and individualization.
Dear Ronald, thank you for your comments. Your arguments are irrefutable and unanswerable. With all due respect, I still have to humbly suggest that psychoanalysis is not yet a science. Otherwise, it would have a subject of study about which we could argue and freely express our opinions. You say “mind”, but what is it? Maybe it’s better to use the word “soul”? Or are we no longer free in the ways of thinking and speaking? Someone will say: senses, instincts, drives, affects – but then we are obliged to list how many of them a person has, to what extent they are conscious or unconscious. I’m not talking about diagnoses or medical “photographs” of clinicians and neurophysiologists. I mean psychoanalytic portraits that could pinpoint individuality, as brilliant artists do. Otherwise, we will turn into licensed troubleshooters, and not “secular ministers of souls”, as Freud dreamed of. And then how to help people? “Who would fardels bear, to grunt and sweat under a weary life”, as Shakespeare said? Or always laugh it off, as Groucho Marx did: “What is mind, no matter, what is matter, never mind.”
Dear Aleksander, thank you so much for your comments; you are insisting that psychoanalysis is not a science where we can argue and freely express our opinions. Who says we cannot argue and freely express ourselves, that is the point that I was trying to make, that in PA it is the one “science,” you can freely speak your mind, in fact it is positively encouraged in psychoanalysis for both patient and analyst to free associate.
According to The Times on the 17th Dec 2021, there was letter in the Lancet, one of the world most respected scientific medical journals in the world, in which it took more that a year to acknowledge the conflict of interest of a very eminent scientist who had argued in the letter that it was a conspiracy theory to suggest that the coronavirus originated in a laboratory, whereas, according to the scientists, it originated in wildlife. Now the Editor of the Lancet has admitted it was unacceptable that it took 16 months to publish a conflict of interest statement on the part of the scientists, in which it was acknowledged that the scientist in question had links to Chinese institutions.
The letter was signed by 27 virologists, a very respected cohort of scientists, and was widely seen as shutting down debate. Is this the Science of free expression of opinion and debate? It seems that even science cannot avoid the personal preferences, bias and prejudices that affects all.
Dear Ronald, I understand you very well, probably the same answer would be given to those of your colleagues who spoke in podcasts about quarrels, excluded disciples and original thinkers, and that PA organizations are deadly to innovations because the original PA is already lost (Gilbert Kliman). Please clarify for me, if possible, just one last question: “Do you agree, that PA deals with human senses, free wills, drives and affects, united by something heavenly single? Are those singularities totally minds, or they “are souls”? ))
Merry Christmas and a lot of success in the coming New Year!
I think it’s an interesting question whether psychoanalysis is a science or not. If psychoanalysis is not a science, then what exactly are scientists doing when they make themselves feel better about themselves — by practicing science?
I think where you are going with this is good. If you want to eliminate the concept of an other, you have to eliminate yourself. What that means is that you have to eliminate your individuality. When you do that, there is no other to contend with. This isn’t psychoanalysis. It’s eastern philosophy…
Thank you very much Graciela for your kind words, I am pleased that you enjoyed this podcast as I found talking with Harvey an enriching and enjoyable experience.
Excellent interview. I’ve enjoyed every one ofthem. Please continue with this podcast’s project. Each one results inspiring!