Search

This discussion of a case report focuses on the ubiquity of polarized thinking in formulating therapeutic concepts. Binary thinking afflicts the two sides of the essentialist-social constructivist debate. Both views avoid the fact that we can never really know where biology stops and culture begins. The classical view of transference is another type of binary thinking that diminishes the ambiguity that arises if one considers both the analyst and patient's contributions. It is argued, instead, that transference is not something projected onto a blank screen, but rather something that occurs between a therapist and patient based on subjective factors unique to each of them.

This paper attempts to demonstrate the inextricability of the sociopolitical from the clinical practice of working with patients, by presenting a brief vignette of a session that took place immediately after I listened to a news broadcast. Because I view psychoanalytic theory and practice as inseparable from sociopolitical reality, I propose that psychoanalysis is an approach to living that is grounded in culture and values. I argue that by espousing a view of psychoanalysis as truth, we inadvertently contribute to naturalizing neoliberalism. I also attempt to broaden our view of neoliberal subjectivities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]