Changes

In recent years, it’s often been said that [[psychoanalysis ]] is dead. New advances in the brain sciences have finally put it where it belongs, alongside [[religion|religious ]] [[confession|confessors ]] and [[dream|dream-readers ]] in the lumber-room of pre-scientific obscurantist searches for hidden [[meaning]]. As [[Todd Dufresne ]] put it, no figure in the history of [[human ]] thought was more wrong about all the fundamentals – with the exception of [[Marx]], some would add. ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' was followed last year by the ''[[Black Book of Psychoanalysis]]'', which listed all the theoretical mistakes and instances of [[clinical ]] fraud perpetrated by [[Freud ]] and his followers. In this way, at least, the profound [[solidarity ]] of [[Marxism ]] and psychoanalysis is now there for all to see.

A century ago, [[Freud ]] included [[psychoanalysis ]] as one of what he described as the three ‘narcissistic illnesses’'[[narcissistic illnesses]]'. First, [[Copernicus ]] demonstrated that the [[Earth ]] moves around the [[Sun]], thereby depriving humans [[human]]s of their central place in the [[universe]]. Then [[Darwin ]] demonstrated that we are the product of [[evolution]], thereby depriving us of our privileged place among living beings[[being]]s. Finally, by making clear the predominant role of the [[unconscious ]] in [[psyche|psychic processes]] [[process]]es, Freud showed that the [[ego ]] is not [[master ]] even in its own house. Today, [[science|scientific ]] breakthroughs seem to bring further [[humiliation]]: the [[mind ]] is merely a [[machine ]] for data-processing, our sense of [[freedom ]] and [[autonomy ]] merely a ‘user’s illusion’'user’s illusion'. In comparison, the conclusions of psychoanalysis seem rather [[conservative]].

Is psychoanalysis outdated? It certainly appears to be. It is outdated scientifically, in that the [[cognitivism|cognitivist]]-[[neurobiology|neurobiologist ]] model of the [[human ]] [[mind ]] has superseded the Freudian [[model]]; it is outdated in the [[psychiatry|psychiatric ]] [[clinic]], where [[treatment|psychoanalytic treatment ]] is losing ground to [[drug treatment ]] and [[behavioural therapy]]; and it is outdated in [[society ]] more broadly, where the notion of [[social norms ]] which [[repression|repress ]] the individual’s [[individual]]’s [[sexuality|sexual drives ]] [[drive]]s doesn’t hold up in the face of today’s [[hedonism]]. But we should not be too hasty. Perhaps we should instead insist that the time of psychoanalysis has only just arrived.

One of the consistent themes of today’s [[conservative ]] [[cultural critique ]] is that, in our [[permissiveness|permissive ]] era, [[children ]] lack firm limits [[limit]]s and prohibitions[[prohibition]]s. This [[frustration|frustrates ]] them, driving them from one [[excess ]] to another. Only a firm boundary set up by some [[symbolic ]] [[authority ]] can [[guarantee ]] [[stability ]] and [[satisfaction ]] – the satisfaction that comes of [[transgression|violating ]] the [[prohibition]]. In order to make clear the way [[negation ]] functions in the [[unconscious]], [[Freud ]] cited the comment one of his patients [[patient]]s made after recounting a [[dream ]] about an unknown [[woman]]: ‘Whoever "Whoever this woman in my dream is, I know she is not my mother.’ " A clear proof, for Freud, that the woman was his [[mother]]. What better way to characterise the typical [[patient ]] of today than to imagine his reaction to the same dream: ‘Whoever "Whoever this woman in my dream is, I’m sure she has something to do with my mother!’"

Traditionally, [[psychoanalysis ]] has been expected to enable the patient to overcome the obstacles preventing his or her access to [[norality|normal ]] [[sexuality|sexual ]] [[satisfaction]]: if you are not able to get it, visit an [[analyst ]] and he will help you to lose your inhibitions[[inhibition]]s. Now that we are bombarded from all sides by the [[injunction to ‘EnjoyEnjoy]]!’, psychoanalysis should perhaps be regarded differently, as the only [[discourse ]] in which you are allowed ''not'' to enjoy: not ‘not allowed to enjoy’, but relieved of the pressure to enjoy.

Nowhere is this paradoxical [[paradox]]ical change in the role of psychoanalytic [[interpretation ]] clearer than in the case of dreams. The conventional understanding of Freud’s theory of dreams is that a dream is the [[fantasy|phantasmic ]] realisation of some censored [[censor]]ed [[unconscious ]] [[desire]], which is as a rule of a [[sexuality|sexual ]] nature. At the beginning of ''[[The Interpretation of Dreams]]'', Freud provides a detailed interpretation of his own dream about ‘Irma’s injection’"[[Irma’s injection]]. " The interpretation is surprisingly reminiscent of an old [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] [[joke]]: ‘Did "Did [[Rabinovitch ]] win a new car on the state lottery?’ ‘In " "In principle, yes, he did. Only it was not a car but a bicycle, it was not new but old, and he did not win it, it was stolen from him!’ " Is a dream the manifestation [[manifest]]ation of the dreamer’s unconscious sexual desire? In principle, yes. Yet in the dream Freud chose to demonstrate his theory of dreams, his desire is neither sexual nor unconscious, and, moreover, it’s it's not his own.

The dream begins with a conversation between Freud and his [[patient ]] [[Irma ]] about the failure of her [[treatment ]] because of an infection caused by an injection. In the course of the conversation, Freud approaches her and looks deep into her mouth. He is confronted with the unpleasant sight of scabs and curly structures like nasal bones. At this point, the [[horror ]] suddenly changes to [[comedy]]. Three doctors, friends of Freud, among them one called Otto, appear and begin to enumerate, in ridiculous pseudo-professional [[jargon]], possible (and mutually exclusive) causes of Irma’s infection. If anyone had been to blame, it transpires in the dream, it is Otto, because he gave Irma the injection: ‘Injections "Injections ought not to be made so thoughtlessly,’ " the doctors conclude, ‘and "and probably the syringe had not been clean.’ " So, the ‘latent thought’ '[[latent thought]]' articulated in the dream is neither sexual nor unconscious, but Freud’s fully [[conscious ]] wish to absolve himself of [[responsibility ]] for the failure of Irma’s treatment. How does this fit with the thesis that dreams manifest [[unconscious ]] [[sexuality|sexual desires]] [[desire]]s?

A crucial refinement is necessary here. The unconscious desire which animates the [[dream ]] is not merely the dream’s [[latent thought]], which is translated into its [[explicit ]] content, but another [[unconscious ]] [[wish]], which inscribes itself in the dream through the ''[[Traumarbeit]]'' (‘[[dream-work]]’), the [[process ]] whereby the latent thought is [[distortion|distorted ]] into the dream’s explicit form. Here lies the [[paradox ]] of the dream-work: we want to get rid of a pressing, disturbing thought of which we are fully conscious, so we distort it, translating it into the [[hieroglyph ]] of the dream. However, it is through this distortion that another, much more fundamental [[desire ]] encodes itself in the dream, and this desire is unconscious and sexual.

What is the ultimate meaning of Freud’s dream? In his own analysis, Freud focuses on the dream-thought, on his ‘superficial’ 'superficial' [[wish ]] to be blameless in his [[treatment ]] of [[Irma]]. However, in the details of his [[interpretation ]] there are hints of deeper motivations. The dream-encounter with Irma reminds Freud of several other women. The [[oral ]] examination recalls another [[patient]], a governess, who had appeared a ‘picture 'picture of youthful beauty’ beauty' until he looked into her mouth. Irma’s position by a window reminds him of a meeting with an ‘intimate 'intimate woman friend’ friend' of Irma’s of whom he ‘had 'had a very high opinion’opinion'; thinking about her now, Freud has ‘every 'every reason to suppose that this other lady, too, was a hysteric’[[hysteric]]'. The scabs and nasal bones remind him of his own use of cocaine to reduce nasal swelling, and of a [[female ]] patient who, following his example, had developed an ‘extensive 'extensive necrosis of the nasal mucous membrane’membrane'. His consultation with one of the doctors brings to mind an occasion on which Freud’s Freud's treatment of a woman patient gave rise to a ‘severe 'severe toxic state’state', to which she subsequently ‘succumbed’'succumbed'; the patient had the same name as his eldest daughter, [[Mathilde]]. The [[unconscious ]] [[desire ]] of the [[dream ]] is Freud’s [[wish ]] to be the ‘primordial father’ 'primordial father' who possesses all the [[women ]] [[Irma ]] embodies in the [[dream]].

However, the dream presents a further enigma: ''whose'' desire does it [[manifest]]? Recent commentaries clearly establish that the true motivation behind the dream was Freud’s Freud's desire to absolve [[Fliess]], his close friend and collaborator, of [[responsibility ]] and [[guilt]]. It was Fliess who botched Irma’s Irma's nose operation, and the dream’s dream's desire is not to exculpate Freud himself, but his friend, who was, at this point, Freud’s ‘subject '[[subject supposed to know’know]]', the [[object ]] of his [[transference]]. The dream dramatises his wish to show that Fliess wasn’t wasn't responsible for the medical failure, that he wasn’t lacking in [[knowledge]]. The dream does manifest Freud’s desire – but only insofar as his desire is already the Other’s [[Other]]'s (Fliess’s) [[desire]].

Why do we dream? Freud’s answer is deceptively simple: the ultimate function of the dream is to enable the dreamer to stay asleep. This is usually interpreted as bearing on the kinds of dream we have when some external disturbance – noise, for example – threatens to wake us. In such a situation, the sleeper immediately begins to imagine a situation which incorporates this external stimulus and thereby is able to continue sleeping for a while longer; when the external stimulus becomes too strong, he finally wakes up. Are things really so straightforward? In another famous example from ''[[The Interpretation of Dreams]]'', an exhausted [[father]], whose young son has just died, falls asleep and dreams that the [[child ]] is standing by his bed in flames, whispering the horrifying reproach: ‘Father"[[Father, can’t you see I’m burning?’ ]]" Soon afterwards, the father wakes to discover that a fallen candle has set fire to his dead son’s shroud. He had smelled the smoke while asleep, and incorporated the [[image ]] of his burning son into his dream to prolong his sleep. Had the father woken up because the external stimulus became too strong to be contained within the dream-scenario? Or was it the obverse, that the father constructed the dream in order to prolong his sleep, but what he encountered in the dream was much more unbearable even than [[external reality]], so that he woke up to escape into that [[reality]].

In both dreams, there is a [[traumatic encounter ]] (the sight of Irma’s Irma's throat, the [[vision ]] of the burning son); but in the second dream, the dreamer wakes at this point, while in the first, the [[horror ]] gives way to the arrival of the doctors. The parallel offers us the key to understanding Freud’s theory of dreams. Just as the father’s awakening from the second dream has the same function as the sudden change of tone in the first, so our ordinary [[reality ]] enables us to evade an encounter with true [[trauma]].

[[Adorno ]] said that the [[Nazi ]] motto ‘Deutschland"Deutschland, erwache!’ " actually meant its opposite: if you responded to this call, you could continue to [[sleep ]] and dream (i.e. to avoid engagement with the [[real ]] of [[social antagonism]]). In the first stanza of [[Primo Levi’s Levi]]’s [[poetry|poem ‘Reveille’ ]] "[[Reveille]]" the [[concentration camp ]] survivor recalls being in the camp, asleep, dreaming intense dreams about returning home, eating, telling his relatives his story, when, suddenly, he is woken up by the [[Polish ]] kapo’s command ‘Wstawac"Wstawac!’ " (‘Get "Get up!’"). In the second stanza, he is at home after the [[war]], well fed, having told his story to his [[family]], when, suddenly, he imagines hearing again the shout, ‘Wstawac"Wstawac!’ " The [[reversal ]] of the [[relationship ]] between [[dream ]] and [[reality ]] from the first stanza to the second is crucial. Their content is formally the same – the pleasant domestic scene is interrupted by the [[injunction ]] ‘Get up!’ – but in the first, the dream is cruelly interrupted by the wake-up call, while in the second, reality is interrupted by the imagined command. We might imagine the second example from The ''[[Interpretation of Dreams]]'' as belonging to the [[Holocaust ]] survivor who, unable to save his son from the crematorium, is haunted afterwards by his reproach: ‘Vater"Vater, siehst du nicht dass ich verbrenne?’"

In our ‘society "[[society of the spectacle’spectacle]]", in which what we experience as everyday reality more and more takes the form of the [[lie ]] made real, Freud’s [[Freud]]’s insights show their true value. Consider the interactive computer [[games ]] some of us play compulsively[[compulsive]]ly, games which enable a [[neurotic ]] weakling to adopt the screen persona of a macho [[aggressivity|aggressor]], beating up other [[men ]] and [[violence|violently ]] enjoying [[women]]. It’s all too easy to assume that this weakling takes refuge in [[cyberspace ]] in order to escape from a dull, [[impotence|impotent ]] [[reality]]. But perhaps the games are more telling than that. What if, in playing them, I articulate the [[perversion|perverse ]] core of my [[personality ]] which, because of [[ethics|ethico]]-[[social norms|social constraints]], I am not able to act out in real life? Isn’t my [[virtual ]] persona in a way ‘more "[[more real than reality’reality]]"? Isn’t it precisely because I am aware that this is ‘just 'just a game’ game' that in it I can do what I would never be able to in the real world? In this precise sense, as [[Lacan ]] put it, [[the Truth has the structure of a fiction]]: what appears in the guise of dreaming, or even daydreaming, is sometimes the [[truth ]] on whose [[repression ]] [[social reality ]] itself is founded. Therein resides the ultimate lesson of ''[[The Interpretation of Dreams]]'': [[reality ]] is for those who cannot sustain the [[dream]].