I find Alonso’s conceptualization of the foundations of psychoanalytic thinking very helpful. But, a lot has changed since she wrote her chapter on the basics of psychodynamic theory in 1989. 🧵
Since she wrote there have been significant shifts in thinking about the structures of the mind, what is motivating people, developmental theory, what constitutes problems in living (pathology),
what might be the source of change in people, how the therapy relationship works and the role of the therapist in the treatment, and the importance of and conceptualization of relationships among other things.
If I were to add to Alonso’s list of foundational aspects of psychoanalytic theory, I would definitely include the relational milieu.
While there is a lot of discussion and difference amongst theorists concerning many aspects of relationship,
I think it is probably safe to say that most psychoanalytic therapists agree that the connection between the patient and therapist is a significant part of the therapeutic process.
Similarly, the various relational systems the patient experiences in life inform and influence almost every aspect of the patient from emotions to development to patterns they experience and well beyond. #psychoanalysis#psychstudent#therapisttwitter#therapistsconnect
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In 2010, @JonathanShedler published an article in the flagship journal of the American Psychological Association, The American Psychologist. 🧵
At the time, it was controversial because his article argued that psychodynamic psychotherapy, long derided as irrelevant and ineffective, is empirically supported as effective.
One of my favorite parts of the article was his reference to the work of Blagys and Hilsenroth (2000) who identified by empirical means 7 techniques used by psychodynamic therapists that are different than those of other therapies. They are:
The last of Alonso’s foundations of psychodynamic theory is the idea that there is an assumption that our mind is in conflict. While we may not be aware of this conflict, parts of our minds are working against each other. 🧵
For instance, we may have needs for closeness while also having needs for separation. These conflicts are often not in our awareness and sometimes experienced as ambivalence or anxiety.
To resolve these conflicts, sometimes we use a defense mechanism (I posted definitions for about 30 of them back in May/June). And, sometimes the cost, in the form of symptoms, make the defenses used less than pleasant.
In the avoidant type of attachment insecurity, the child ignores the caregiver who inconsistently shows attunement. They literally avoid their caregiver. But, this does not mean they lack feelings. In some instances, children with this 1/5
2/5 style appear to approach their caregiver when they’ve been separated and then sometimes, at the last moment, attempt to ignore them. Adults with this type of insecurity often experience themselves and are experienced by others as independent.
3/5 They can appear confident and accomplished. When in relationships though, they sometimes struggle to find closeness and can get to a point in the connection where they feel compelled to distance themselves or break up.
There are 3 types of insecure attachment: ambivalent, avoidant, and disorganized. In the ambivalent type, the child feels conflicted about being in the presence of the caregiver. It is relatively common to see a child in this situation become angry when a 1/5
2/5 caregiver has left and then returns. It is also common to see that they may be passive or helpless. Adults often experience this insecurity as a sense of low self-worth. When a partner is not attuned to them, even if just occasionally, they can feel as
3/5 if they are not worthy of love and be self-blaming. They sometimes need persistent reassurance that they are loved and lovable. Fear of abandonment can sometimes be overwhelming and sometimes they will cling to the relationship to try to solve their fear.