Abstract:Since the beginning of the last century, when Freud introduced the couch in the psychoanalytic room, a number of "objects" have been removed or renovated, yet the couch has almost always remained in place, at least officially. This article has two distinct aims. The first is to offer a reconstruction of the psychoanalytic history of this element of the setting. The second is to rethink the couch, saving it from being reduced to a mere icon. Recent contributions coming from affective neurosciences, infant resea… Show more
“…Jung (1935) disliked the couch due to its impact on the relationship between therapist and client. Although the couch is still often used by psychoanalysts, it has largely fallen from mainstream favour in psychotherapy, with face to face seating more widely used as other modalities developed (Lingiardi & De Bei, 2011).…”
The term "therapeutic alliance" is widely used without a commonly agreed definition, but most definitions encompass several interpersonal processes such as empathy, rapport, agreement of shared goals and collaboration (Horvath, Del Re, Fluckiger, & Symonds, 2011).These processes act parallel to, and are theoretically independent of, specific modal treatment techniques (Green, 2006). Therapeutic alliance is causally related to better session-on-session symptomatic improvement (Falkenström, Granström, & Holmqvist, 2013) and
“…Jung (1935) disliked the couch due to its impact on the relationship between therapist and client. Although the couch is still often used by psychoanalysts, it has largely fallen from mainstream favour in psychotherapy, with face to face seating more widely used as other modalities developed (Lingiardi & De Bei, 2011).…”
The term "therapeutic alliance" is widely used without a commonly agreed definition, but most definitions encompass several interpersonal processes such as empathy, rapport, agreement of shared goals and collaboration (Horvath, Del Re, Fluckiger, & Symonds, 2011).These processes act parallel to, and are theoretically independent of, specific modal treatment techniques (Green, 2006). Therapeutic alliance is causally related to better session-on-session symptomatic improvement (Falkenström, Granström, & Holmqvist, 2013) and
“…Recent physiological research on mirror neurons has shown that the empathic processes are activated by embodied simulation and facial expressions (Gallese 2009, Iacoboni 2009). Since the couch prevents visual and nonverbal communications, it is a depriving factor for patients (Lingiardi & De Bei 2011). Therefore, Jung's and Groddeck's therapeutic arrangement has turned out to be scientifically sound.…”
Section: Jung's and Groddeck's Analytic Methodsmentioning
The philosophy of nature as Jung's background has been overlooked, despite its relevance for understanding the roots of analytical psychology. The German psychoanalyst Georg Groddeck shared such a background, so that a comparison is possible between his clinical view and Jung's. It is shown that natural philosophers Paracelsus, Johann von Goethe and Carl Gustav Carus had a major impact on Jung and Groddeck. Both of the latter followed Carus's theory of a creative, superindividual, and compensatory unconscious – continuing the Naturphilosophie tradition and rejecting reductionist biophysical medicine. Groddeck and Jung's holistic perspective led them to advocate natural healing, face‐to‐face dialectical analysis, and the uniqueness of each treatment. Thus, they were against using techniques, and instead established general methods for analytic therapy. Groddeck's thinking was closer to Jung's than to Freud's in both theory and practice. Therefore, two alternative strands should be considered within psychoanalysis: Freud's classical drive theory and Groddeck's underground two‐person psychology. Thereby, Jung's analytic descendants and the relational psychoanalysts who stemmed from Groddeck's ideas could be regarded as ‘cousins’ due to the similarities arising from their common origin in the philosophy of nature.
“…Vittorio Lingiardi, a Jungian analyst, and Francesco De Bei () have published an important and balanced article in which they review some recent findings from affective neuroscience, infant research and other psychotherapy research which bring into question the therapeutic effectiveness of the use of the couch and may even suggest that in certain cases it can be anti‐therapeutic. As they note: Contributions from neuroscience and infant research suggest the importance of mutual regulation in attachment relationships and describe the mind as inherently dyadic, social, and interactive (e.g., Siegel, ).…”
One of the problems facing psychoanalysts of all schools is that theory has evolved at a much faster pace than practice. Whereas there has been an explosion of theory, practice has remained, at least officially, static and unchanging. It is in this sense that Murray Jackson's 1961 paper is still relevant today. Despite the rise of the new relational and intersubjective paradigms, most psychoanalysts, and not a few Jungian analysts, still seem to feel that the couch is an essential component of the analytical setting and process. If the use of the couch is usually justified by the argument that it favours regression, facilitates analytical reverie and protects the patient from the influence of the analyst, over time many important psychoanalysts have come to challenge this position. Increasingly these analysts suggest that the use of the couch may actually be incompatible with the newer theoretical models. This contention is strengthened by some of the findings coming from the neurosciences and infant research. This underlines the necessity of empirical research to verify the clinical effectiveness of these different positions, couch or face-to-face, but it is exactly this type of research that is lacking.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
