Is training and knowledge of the theory a defence against being a “real” patient?by Anna Blundy / April 24, 2014 / Leave a comment
Published in May 2014 issue of Prospect Magazine
If you are training to be a psychotherapist you have to be in therapy yourself, once or twice a week. If you are training to become a psychoanalyst, you need to be in psycho-analysis five times a week, as I was for many years until I ran out of money. At somewhere around £50 a session, and for a required minimum of four years, this is a vast investment.
The idea of therapists in therapy isn’t just that you need to be fairly sane to see patients. If you go into a session as a therapist and your husband has just left you, you might project and feel that the patient is suffused with loss. You need to know what is whose. (If you have had a terrible experience with a rubbish therapist then it could be just that—or it could be that you are unable to bear the process and feel persecuted by the intimacy, or you could be seeing someone who is not, in fact, a trained psychotherapist.)
So there are a lot of people lying on the couch who have read Freud, Klein, Bion, Winnicott and friends and who want to argue about theory instead of thinking. When I started training I was stunned to find things my analyst had said to me right there in the reading. Once you’re entrenched in the literature of psychoanalysis it’s quite difficult not to refer to people as “the object,” to emotion as “affect,” to tiny babies as “envious,” to safety as “containment” and, if you’re really going for the Freud, to attachment as “cathexis.” These words slip out and baffle patients, the worst one being “narcissistic,” which analysts use to refer to a patient’s fantasy of complete self-sufficiency, but which lay people assume means “you think you’re good looking” and always gives offence (my analyst first said it about 20 years ago and I’m only just getting over it now).