The twist for Psychoanalysts, however, came from superego incorporation of \u201cdescriptive\u201d and \u201cneutral\u201d Progressive tautologies by their clients.<\/p>\n
Surely, the word \u201cpolluter\u201d denotes a polarity that appears to be \u201cdescriptive\u201d and \u201cobjective\u201d.\u00a0 At the same time, \u201cthe person accusing the polluter\u201d is \u201cbetter (morally superior)\u201d than \u201cthe polluter\u201d.\u00a0 But the stance of the accuser does not establish personal responsibility.\u00a0\u00a0 The accuser does not hold herself responsible for anything.\u00a0 She holds the \u201cpolluter\u201d responsible for \u201cpollution\u201d.<\/p>\n
Is that not clever?\u00a0 The accuser is morally superior and \u2013 at the same time \u2013 is not personally responsible for the consequences of her accusation.<\/p>\n
So, how does a Psychoanalyst ask the \u201cbetter person who is making accusations\u201d about her own \u201cself-destructive behaviors\u201d without falling into the same stance that the client held in relation to the \u201cpolluter\u201d?\u00a0 Her question commits the analyst to the patient\u2019s superego polarities.\u00a0 Her question imposes a psychoanalytic value judgment on the patient in the same fashion that the patient imposes an \u201cenvironmental\u201d value judgment on the \u201cpolluter\u201d.<\/p>\n
Consequently, the patient responds in the same way as a Christian would if the Psychoanalyst asked \u201cIsn\u2019t that sinful?\u201d.<\/p>\n
The analyst\u2019s question validates the client\u2019s superego structures.<\/p>\n
In short, for Progressives, the patient\u2019s superego structures anticipate analytic methods of psychiatry.\u00a0 The talking cure will not work on Progressives because the Psychoanalyst cannot distance herself from the patient\u2019s own superego.\u00a0 \u00a0Transference becomes a box that the analyst cannot escape.<\/p>\n
My guess is that Menninger was feeling this, along with other patterns that made clinical work difficult.\u00a0 Perhaps, he sensed that \u2013 if the client had some notion of personal responsibility \u2013 then Psychoanalysis would work better.\u00a0 Maybe, everything in the mental clinics (and prisons) would work better.<\/p>\n
Instead, Psychoanalysis has fallen out of vogue during the past 40 years.<\/p>\n
In 2012, Menninger would ask: Whatever became of Psychoanalysis?<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The twist for Psychoanalysts, however, came from superego incorporation of \u201cdescriptive\u201d and \u201cneutral\u201d Progressive tautologies by their clients. Surely, the word \u201cpolluter\u201d denotes a polarity that appears to be \u201cdescriptive\u201d and \u201cobjective\u201d.\u00a0 At the same time, \u201cthe person accusing the polluter\u201d is \u201cbetter (morally superior)\u201d than \u201cthe polluter\u201d.\u00a0 But the stance of the accuser does […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-532","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-the-science-of-original-sin"],"yoast_head":"\n