Nerina VERGARA
cartel As my work is based on Unit 2 Clinical Program of the matter 1 "A" called "normal and pathological" seemed appropriate to base the reason for my choice, that among the units had a variety to choose very important and rich yet to investigate my attraction was captured by two words: normal and pathological, that led me to question: What
normal? What disease? Is it possible from a psychoanalytic institute that is normal? Would an ethical position to define and classify people of normal and pathological? Where in that role and my fellow would be classified as being normal and pathological? What would be the benchmark to which we would have which lead to say that someone is not normal? If someone is not normal ... then is it pathological?
first occurs to me from nro resolution 2447 of the Ministry of Education and Culture 09.20.1985, which tells us that one of the justified concerns of the trade to be psychologists or psychology graduates is: "To study and explore the psychological fact in different evolutionary stages of the subject, covering normal and abnormal aspects. " [1]
incumbencies being of the 20 listed the first thought should work with these concepts since the clinic, as the matter is called, is a reflection on our practice, this item is a possible work indicated that the psychologist can do, is an area that lies ... in what way it is for me as a future psychologist studying the fact of evolutionary stages of the subject, covering normal and abnormal aspects? Cangilhem
tells us that "without the concepts of" normal "and pathological thought and incomprehensible medical activity" [2]
"We follow the same logic shared care and the health field? Can I wrap the health field from a different logic than that of medicine and still be effective?
"... the treatment is always presented as an attempt to restore normal. Against the positivist idea according to which the rule would be a statistical problem, Cangilhem insists that this view involves a treatment of living beings as if it were a system of laws rather than an "order of properties" specific. Order in both senses of the term, the essence of what is normal to be prescriptive, establish standards and be able to change the rules to be established, and the order of life, the requirement of being alive, of this demanding medical practice whose failures as their successes require the development of a biological science. It is restoring the normal state and its conceptualization. " [3]
know the identity of normal and pathological is affirmed for the benefit of the knowledge of normal. There is something important to emphasize that I found in Canguilhem and it points out that "it is normal that which is as it should be, this is normal, the more usual sense of the word, that which is found again in most cases of a particular species or what the average is whether either the character module measurable " [4] .
If we consider that we will work with subjectivity, with singularities, I think, therefore no point in having a standard, Quetelet's average man to adapt to reality, to be equal, to mold, removing the identities , the distinctive features of the subject, suffocated to a common denominator is not one yet is all. He who has no peculiarity, which is universal, as science seeks. What is the practice to do then?
It occurs to me to answer these questions, take a road. Thinking that "wherever it manifests the rule, we know with certainty who is on the floor of the culture. Symmetrically, it is easy the universal criterion of the nature "... and" ... all that is universal in man corresponds to the order of nature and is characterized by spontaneity, that everything that has to do with a norm belongs to culture and presents the attributes of the relative and the particular " [5]
We see here that the rule is specific to the culture, and can say with Freud that" the human being becomes neurotic because he can not withstand the extent of frustration which society imposed for the sake of their cultural ideals and hence it was concluded that removing or reducing these demands much would a return to the possibility of such " [6] .
Then the Man enters culture because in no other way could survive as "a man without culture is nothing, not even an animal, as it presented as less than an animal" [7] while this culture builds on a compulsion and an instinctual renunciation now makes in his life he lived an upset thanks to the standards it dictates.
Does the pattern established product that we have to have a standard that we are all equal one of the sources of discontent?
Consider that there are three sources from our toil, "the hierpotencia of nature, the fragility of our bodies and the inadequacy of the rules governing the inter-linkages among men in the family, the state and society " [8]
The first two are inevitable, along with Freud wonder how is it possible that these rules were built some time in order to protect man from nature and provide appropriate care to the body today become a major source of discontent? What was once to relieve the discomfort now is generating another kind of annoyance. Freud
already told us in "The Future of an Illusion" that awfully large number of human beings are unhappy with the culture and are unhappy in it " [9]
Is our culture which we now demand that we identical? What do we do?, "The military? Or do we listen to the trait of uniqueness arises and you place the subject?
In these times, "... man is forgotten in the foreclosure of the questioning of his being: What am I, then, in all this? the question does not even arise. Desubjetivan birth and death. The enigma of the desire of the Other: che voi?, Are crushed by technical concerns of self-preservation, promotion and performance numerical bureaucratic " [10]
Originates destruction of particularity by psychotropic drugs, advertisements invade us We offer the satisfaction of our desires immediately, knowing that it can never be carried out and knowing that we do not know what we are offering we closed the meaning of our great enigma neurotic imagination ... we offer subjective death.
Are we going to contribute to the death of the subject? Are we going to talk to silence them? Are we going to set you the sense that we believe has its existence? What we want to be for our patients: their parents, their mothers, their leaders, a friend ... or an analyst? Julien
warns that "in effect, modern man was sick for lack of teacher, lay claim to a cleric who can speak well" [11]
In practice it is also about supporting the transfer. This is the Good of analyzing search, knowing that we know nothing of it ... do not talk about the Good. Aims to address the cure and not the patient.
Are we going to meet the demand of modern man? Are we going to be a teacher, a leader of the?
Our Ethics implies: to offer a listening, and we know that if we
give substance to the fundamental rule of psychoanalysis, free association, because there's tactic will be free to talk to the patient. But it is not any ethics whatsoever, it is an ethic that requires treatment direction, that is to bring the subject to be missing, because that is how the rotation will repeat the invention. The analyst will not back down in his ethics, but quite possibly, if it is a perverse structure, not
back of his ethics, that subject is not going to be an analysand, will back him.
Psychoanalysis, Psychoanalytic Clinic Today. A great swing. The shift has to do with the direction of the treatment necessary and aims not just to understand.
I think that both Freud and Lacan have made a clinical neurosis, psychosis and perversion listening, questioning the obvious, crystallized ... perhaps that is not tested? What certainties crumble?
If we position ourselves as leaders, the work would be reversed. We would spend adding certainty to the subject, we would spend wildly, rounding increasingly self.
question by the normal and pathological made me go to different authors have defined these signifiers in different ways in different languages, from different theoretical positions, such as Comte, Durkheim, Quetelet, Canguilhem, Foucaoult Freud himself ... all made I fall into account the relativity of this concept and the attempt to capture a truth that does not exist, and in that attempt, the finished building themselves.
Now ... What is my right as a student of 5th year of Psychology? I could think that these concepts exist, are part of the culture, governing institutions, I crossed by them, but my work ethic does stop me with a certain distance from them, and know that these concepts make sense for other areas but not mine.
This is subverting the subject, listen to what is coming to tell us and give rise to their discomfort, not sitting with a book under the counter of the office and look sideways to see if what he says is within normal or if it was passed to the pathological group.
sexuality from the start we never can make a normal standard, since we entered the bath culture of language body is something that is lost, the famous phrase of Lacan says, "no sex." It was believed that it was normal relationship with someone of the opposite sex whose goal was to play in "Three Essays on Sexual Theory" Freud shows us that none of this is true.
".. It is necessary to consider the concepts of average and standard and two different concepts which drive reduction by cancellation of the originality of the former is useful to try, it seems that physiology has something better to do q q trying to objectively define normal: to recognize the original rules of life ... to determine exactly the content standards in life got q stabilized " [12]
" The living environment is also the work of living " [13] and" our world picture is always also a table of values \u200b\u200b" [14]
work the clinic is a reflection, it is lead to the question "Who am I today? From what happened to me yesterday, but advena. Freud as he leaves a legacy as a controversial ruling that says "this was where I should be coming" Who advents? Does the psychic instance as I like it and the superego? Or is the subject? Not for nothing have to psychoanalysts like Lacan that we make a difference and Moi je ... Is the je who must advent or the moi?
Taking Lacan's teaching and believe that the pronoun je is a unique first person relying always on the verb indicates the subject who speaks, who is designated to support the message, and uses the term to refer to moi I like psychic instance, I strongly believe that to be coming is the je as a subject of enunciation.
When we say that psychoanalytic treatment aims to be missing, what are we trying to say? Just
think that points to this, not buckling ways, "you're normal" is a check that gives an entity the subject, covers it with a blanket imagination and makes this subject and not question therefore is whether the Big Other and said it was normal .... that's not what is says. It addresses the truth of the subject, it aims to be asked, "So, if I am not why I was so sure I was ... I am?" To pop the subject's own distress when faced with nothing with non-response, with no certainty, but this will be an engine to build identities, places, desires, nothing is said, something that continues to not sign and therefore we will have are dealing in the clinic.
Well, so far I have come to be able to express in writing the path of one of the key worked with my poster. It is difficult to transmit the work made in an entire year, supported by the transfer, in just a few pages.
I am left with the feeling that not everything said since it is impossible, but with a motion that a remainder can be worked and that fuels my passion for this race and the vocation of wanting to help within the parameters of psychoanalytic theory and finding little by little my way of doing within it.
[1] nro Resolution 2447 of the Ministry of Education and Culture
20/09/1985 [2] Canguilhem, Georges. Normal and pathological. Twenty-first century. Mexico. 1885. introduction page 27
[3] Canguilhem, Georges. Normal and pathological. Twenty-first century. Mexico. 1885. introduction page 27
[4] Canguilhem, Georges. Normal and pathological. Twenty-first century. Mexico. 1885. p. 91
[5] Door, Joel. The father and their role in psychoanalysis can. 3rd ed-March 1998 p. 24
[6] Fred, Sigmund. The discontents of civilization. 2nd ed-the 9th repr. Buenos Aires. 2006 p. 86
Amorrortu [7] Door, Joel. The father and their role in psychoanalysis can. 3rd ed-March 1998 p. 25
[8] Fred, Sigmund. The discontents of civilization. 2nd ed-the 9th repr. Buenos Aires. 2006 p. 85
Amorrortu [9] Fred, Sigmund. The Future of an Illusion. 2nd ed-the 9th repr. Buenos Aires. 2006 p. 37
Amorrortu
[10] Julien, Philip. Psychosis, prevention, neurosis, the reading of Jacques Lacan. The 1st ed.-Buenos Aires: 2002 Amorrortu
page 29 [11] Julien, Philip. Psychosis, prevention, neurosis, the reading of Jacques Lacan. The 1st ed.-New York: 2002 p. 13
Amorrortu
[12] [12] Canguilhem, Georges. Normal and pathological. Twenty-first century. Mexico. 1885. p. 135
[13] Canguilhem, Georges. Normal and pathological. Twenty-first century. Mexico. 1885. p. 136
[14] Canguilhem, Georges. Normal and pathological. Twenty-first century. Mexico. 1885. p. 136
0 comments:
Post a Comment