Abstract

RUIZ-MORENO, ESTEBAN. Three critics about psychoanalysis. Psicol. caribe [online]. 2019, vol.36, n.3, pp.419-442. ISSN 0123-417X.  https://doi.org/10.14482/psdc.36.3.150.1.

From various scenarios have appeared some criticisms of psychoanalysis, as a clinical device, for many years. These diatribes, which pose from common places such as mental health, different forms of conception of the psychism, academic circles, university areas, research or science, various media and even popular opinion (doxa), they could be summarized concretely in three: why is a psychoanalysis necessary if it is long, expensive and not effective? But are these criticisms credible? Or, on the contrary, do they appear as un-proven myths about psychoanalysis and its way of operating? To give a plausible answer, in the first instance, the contributions of Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan, as well as of some contemporary authors, will make it possible to elucidate the problems that arise around the duration that a psychoanalysis can have, what status have the money in the analytical device and how the term of therapeutic effects can be understood; Secondly, the issues raised here are reflected in the context of some specific historical moments, such as the current primacy of capitalist discourse and the advent of democratic societies.

Keywords : critics; duration; money; therapeutic effects; psychoanalysis.

        · abstract in Spanish     · text in Spanish     · Spanish ( pdf )