In the
latest edition Jun 21, 2018, of Psychoanalytic Psychology (APA) published
a remarkable article by Dries Dulsster
et. al. (University Ghent);
Lacanian
talking therapy considered closely: A qualitative study.”
The
researchers found that not therapeutic techniques nor the focus on the initial
symptoms (that brought the patients to analysis) proved to be important to what
the patients themselves reported as a significant
and beneficial change in their life.
“Allowing
patients speech to unfold” and the “attentive listening” of the analyst seemed the
motor of the process of “a surprising reframing”.
“Because of
this, they [the patients] also began to consider their speech and this helped
them to see themselves in a new light. It helped them to reflect on what they
really wanted.” (abstract, my underscore)
The “therapy
‘adapts’ itself to the patient” and not the other way around.
This seems
an important advice towards the idea of what psychotherapy may (or should) offer. Patients did get over
the crisis and most symptoms faded or were relinquished yet the result of the
analysis goes beyond the initial demand for curation.
Further research
is necessary yet these primary results already corroborate the efficacy of the practice
of psychoanalysis (and probably most speech-oriented psychotherapy).
http://psycnet.apa.org/search/display?id=14d7be67-e64b-4a69-86ce-c65430725f69&recordId=1&tab=PA&page=1&display=25&sort=PublicationYearMSSort%20desc,AuthorSort%20asc&sr=1
