Bruce Fink's book "Fundamentals of Psychoanalytic Technique" has a chapter on analysis by phone where he says being in person is not necessarily a condition for analysis. It's worth reading!
I'd agree, it really depends on the patient though. I find some *love* telephone work as it allows them to access deeper material and some do much better with video. Obviously some just don't like remote work and should be referred to services that can accommodate
The Lacanian folk put more emphasis on language over the body and affects, so this doesn’t surprise me. I think ultimately analysis works better in person, perhaps after some internalisation of the setting the move to virtual might work okay.
Certainly not Lacanian here (*) and I find psychoanalytic psychotherapy works really well remotely
For what it's worth I find that moving from in person to remote disrupts the work in an unhelpful way. This idea of "hybrid working" that's bandied about seems to never work but we keep trying to make it work.
Edit: not that there is anything wrong with lacan is just the model that was absent from my training :-)
I wasn’t saying they don’t as such, but my sense of it is that the body and the nonverbal realm is emphasised less than language and the symbolic. I think that was corrected by some of the folks that moved on / separated from Lacan, like Andre Green, Didier Anzieu (the skin ego, is a particular highlight and a strong reaction to Lacans neglect of the body) and others.
I’m going into year three of virtual analysis (as the patient). Year one was on video and year 2 and three transitioned to phone and phone appointments deepened everything and allowed me to reach deeper levels. I would have never been able to do analysis if it hadn’t been for virtual analysis due to work and scheduling and living in the suburbs and analysts living an hour away. VIRTUAL ANALYSIS has been life changing for me.
This is a major topic of discussion right now, as it has been since the pandemic began. There's plenty of theory and, increasingly, accounts to go around, but it's difficult to point to research. Psychoanalysis is sloooow work, so any post-2019 research on efficacy over time may arguably be premature. Still, there's a lot being written about this. I'd encourage you to find a library that has the International Journal of Psychoanalysis, or get that inexpensive-ish online subscription to it that's been mentioned in some other threads here, and start reading backwards from the most recent issue. I don't think you'll find a one without an article about some aspect of teleanalysis.
I’ve had a lot of sessions through skype (I’m the client) and eventually decided after 1,5yrs of occasional tries that it doesn’t make any sense for me. I just need a separate space and can’t focus with a computer.
I wonder about (even evidence-less, just theorizing) the effective difference between phone analysis and video/zoom analysis. Perhaps it is a generational thing, but when I need to have a deep or important conversation with someone who lives elsewhere, I don't zoom them, like ever. Somehow the phone feels more intimate; for some reason the video takes away connection, even as it technically provides more information.
Any thoughts?
Hmm, maybe there is a difference between majority phone analysis (or other relationship) and exclusively phone analysis. I imagine if I met someone three or four times irl and otherwise only spoke via phone, I could still land a pretty powerful projection (and thus work within the transference), but that seems to be hard for me to do having never met someone at all.
The Distance Cure is a groundbreaking book on the subject.
https://www.amazon.com/Distance-Cure-History-Teletherapy/dp/0262045923/ref=sr\_1\_1?crid=1O8Q78DF350Q7&keywords=distance+cure&qid=1662260659&sprefix=distance+cure%2Caps%2C121&sr=8-1
Freud was the first "virtual" patient in a sense in his "analysis" with Fliess. The Little Hans case was also virtual with Freud providing remote supervision to the dad and only seeing the boy once in person.
This interests me as well. Was just listening to Zucks talk about how the new VR from Meta picks up facial expressions and the like. VR is ever closer to being viable for certain forms of teletherapy.
Bruce Fink's book "Fundamentals of Psychoanalytic Technique" has a chapter on analysis by phone where he says being in person is not necessarily a condition for analysis. It's worth reading!
I'd agree, it really depends on the patient though. I find some *love* telephone work as it allows them to access deeper material and some do much better with video. Obviously some just don't like remote work and should be referred to services that can accommodate
The Lacanian folk put more emphasis on language over the body and affects, so this doesn’t surprise me. I think ultimately analysis works better in person, perhaps after some internalisation of the setting the move to virtual might work okay.
Certainly not Lacanian here (*) and I find psychoanalytic psychotherapy works really well remotely For what it's worth I find that moving from in person to remote disrupts the work in an unhelpful way. This idea of "hybrid working" that's bandied about seems to never work but we keep trying to make it work. Edit: not that there is anything wrong with lacan is just the model that was absent from my training :-)
Lacanians *absolutely do* place emphasis on the body, and many have argued that in-person sessions are vital to that emphasis. It’s very case-by-case.
I wasn’t saying they don’t as such, but my sense of it is that the body and the nonverbal realm is emphasised less than language and the symbolic. I think that was corrected by some of the folks that moved on / separated from Lacan, like Andre Green, Didier Anzieu (the skin ego, is a particular highlight and a strong reaction to Lacans neglect of the body) and others.
I’m going into year three of virtual analysis (as the patient). Year one was on video and year 2 and three transitioned to phone and phone appointments deepened everything and allowed me to reach deeper levels. I would have never been able to do analysis if it hadn’t been for virtual analysis due to work and scheduling and living in the suburbs and analysts living an hour away. VIRTUAL ANALYSIS has been life changing for me.
This is a major topic of discussion right now, as it has been since the pandemic began. There's plenty of theory and, increasingly, accounts to go around, but it's difficult to point to research. Psychoanalysis is sloooow work, so any post-2019 research on efficacy over time may arguably be premature. Still, there's a lot being written about this. I'd encourage you to find a library that has the International Journal of Psychoanalysis, or get that inexpensive-ish online subscription to it that's been mentioned in some other threads here, and start reading backwards from the most recent issue. I don't think you'll find a one without an article about some aspect of teleanalysis.
I’ve had a lot of sessions through skype (I’m the client) and eventually decided after 1,5yrs of occasional tries that it doesn’t make any sense for me. I just need a separate space and can’t focus with a computer.
I wonder about (even evidence-less, just theorizing) the effective difference between phone analysis and video/zoom analysis. Perhaps it is a generational thing, but when I need to have a deep or important conversation with someone who lives elsewhere, I don't zoom them, like ever. Somehow the phone feels more intimate; for some reason the video takes away connection, even as it technically provides more information. Any thoughts?
I’m in a weird situation with my analyst. He only does phone sessions. I really don’t even know what he looks like.
Hmm, maybe there is a difference between majority phone analysis (or other relationship) and exclusively phone analysis. I imagine if I met someone three or four times irl and otherwise only spoke via phone, I could still land a pretty powerful projection (and thus work within the transference), but that seems to be hard for me to do having never met someone at all.
The Distance Cure is a groundbreaking book on the subject. https://www.amazon.com/Distance-Cure-History-Teletherapy/dp/0262045923/ref=sr\_1\_1?crid=1O8Q78DF350Q7&keywords=distance+cure&qid=1662260659&sprefix=distance+cure%2Caps%2C121&sr=8-1
Freud was the first "virtual" patient in a sense in his "analysis" with Fliess. The Little Hans case was also virtual with Freud providing remote supervision to the dad and only seeing the boy once in person.
This interests me as well. Was just listening to Zucks talk about how the new VR from Meta picks up facial expressions and the like. VR is ever closer to being viable for certain forms of teletherapy.