Search

The aim of this paper is to trouble the epistemological differences between the psychiatric medicine and the psychoanalysis and since the psychiatry makes use of his medical power-knowledge to regulate the "truths" of the science on the abnormal behaviour and the pathological psyque. The article makes use of some emblematic registers to summarize a line of action of the psychiatry for maintenance of his majority condition like práxis of psychological intervention near the society. Initially, some epistemological distinctions will be put, in order to establish the theoretical and practical differences between the psychological, psychoanalytic and psychiatric clinics, which they integrate what Foucault called a function-psi. The objective is to become evident that the scientific community diversities and the impacts on the knowledge of the human psyque that are imposed like knowing for the clinic they are expressions of an epistemological plurality with ruptures on the method and biomedicine cognitive presupposes. The argument will be placed on the psychoanalysis through Freud's position about the psychoanalyst's formation in defending the lay analysis. From these discussions will be analyzed a paper published in a medical journal in 1965 where some psychiatrists are interviewed about the legislation of the psychologist profession in Brazil. As in relation to psychoanalysis, at Freud's age, as in relation to psychology when it was regulated, the attitudes are similar , since it is considered dangerous the clinical activity in the psy field by non-physician professionals, who are called lays. The updating discussion appear in the debate continuity about the health area regulation by medicine, on the medicine regulation way proposed in two bills being that the last remains more than six years in the National Congress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A few years ago, the evidence raised by the neurosciences and the proliferation of psychopathological categories have contributed to the legitimacy and the multiplication of speeches filled with promises of cure for mental suffering. In this context - where psychopathology is approached from a predominantly biological understanding and the proliferation of diagnostic categories is accompanied by the predominance of a syndromic approach to mental illness - the emphasis on biological therapy operates as a promise of exclusion of the malaise of life. This is a process of naturalization of psychological distress in which the proliferation of diagnostic categories is proportional to the diversity of mental suffering that can be medicated. In this paper, we present some concepts, forged by Freud, as anxiety, helplessness and death drive, as indicators of the possibility of intervening in psychological distress through different perspectives of those who promise the exclusion of evil from life. If evil is a sign of disorder sponsored by the drive that could not enroll in the psychic apparatus, then psychoanalysis includes evil at the heart of the psychic life itself. The latter only is constituted and transformed by the possibility of creating new meanings, new forms of satisfaction for the vital impulse, insistent on excellence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From the interface between psychoanalysis and culture, this paper aims to raise some considerations about the contemporary debate of the psychoanalytic notion of sexual difference introduced by shifts in the field of sexuality and the challenges they impose on the psychoanalytic area. From the background of the new cartography of sexuality, uses, as main reference, the dialogue between Judith Butler and Slavoj Žižek on the status of the notion of sexual difference in psychoanalysis, in order to consider to what extent psychoanalysis bases the constitution of the difference on the binary model and the hierarchical gender division, contributing to the normative maintenance of the sex-gender system or, to what extent the psychoanalytic theory offers a shift from the dimorphic model of sexual difference to a distinct way of thinking the difference, contributing to the understanding of otherness while meaning indetermination and contingency. In this way, explores the interpretations of Butler about some fundamental concepts of Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis, as the Oedipus complex, and the Žižek's considerations about the reading of Butler. This study final aim is to enhance the dialogue between contemporary authors in order to conduct further psychoanalytic readings, demonstrating the possibility of the psychoanalytic theory of reconsidering and resubmitting in face of new socio-historical questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we propose a refection on contemporary practices in mental health in Brazil. The discussion is based on a study organized as part of a curricular internship in psychology devel-oped at a Psychosocial Attention Center (CAPS). The Center is responsible for the assistance of adult patients with severe mental suffering. This article begins with a short panorama of CAPS since its instauration. We, then, present our experience in of these centers in order to describe the vicissitudes of psychology clinic and the discussions elicited by them. This experience, in turn, has allowed a critical perspective in relation to work in mental health, especially as regards to unreflect aspects that become habitual by repetition. This critical perspective highlights nodal points to consider in the discussion of Brazilian Psychiatric Reform and the insertion of the psy-chologist, such as: the not yet overcome dichotomy between clinic and politics that promote dis-connected interventions; psychologists' lack of theoretical and technical resources when facing severe and persistent suffering - which reproduces a clinical model that must be overcome; the bureaucracy that prevents or hinders new solutions, as well as an unsuspected employment of the asylum paradigm in services that were created to substitute the hospital-centered assistance model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The second half of the 20th century is the time of the institutionalization of suffering at work, and especially of mental suffering. However, more than a psychological category, suffering appears to have become a new key for the discussion of work, its meaning, its worth, and its purpose in the understanding of subjectivity, as well as for how social ties are structured and how one lives in society. If, on the one hand, there seems to be no doubt left that suffering at work, as a form of malaise, is an analytical category that drives the actions of several actors that study and intervene in this field, on the other hand the presence of debate on the nature, reasons and implications of this taking of sides before the subject and work appears to have become less commonplace. The purpose of this paper is to offer a contribution in this direction. We argue that the rhetoric of suffering positions the subject as a vulnerable being that needs constant input and support to act, while work itself is conceived of as a threat. The article discusses the possibilities created by a shift from the subject of suffering to the subject of action, and from work as a disease factor to work as a creative activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]