Monday, September 22, 2008

The Truth of the Subject is the Truth of the Unconscious: Hysteria

The Truth of the Subject is the Truth of the Unconscious: Hysteria

For my first official blog I will simplify a quote from Dr. Eugenie Georgaca’s 1st excellent presentation on Lacan.

(Which you can find here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy5lyRZSkPg)

Lacan can often appear overly difficult and enigmatic, but if one understands Lacan then one also understands Freud; Freud’s theory is very much elucidated by Lacan’s unique conceptualizations and writing. For now, however, we will focus on Freud in order to give credence to Lacan’s claim about the unconscious.

I will begin by discussing Dr. Georgaca’s first claim: the truth of the subject is the truth of the unconscious (subject, i.e. – the patient). This may sound enigmatic and a bit “out there” at first sight, but I will demonstrate how reasonable this claim actually is.

Let us apply this claim about the unconscious to a form of psychopathology: hysteria (aka conversion disorder). For those of you who are not familiar with hysteria, please see Freud and Breuer’s Studies on Hysteria (or search for hysteria or conversion disorder on Google). Hysteria is a type of psychological disorder in which a person will show a peculiar physical symptom which persists without having a physical, organic basis. Hysterical symptoms commonly include paralysis of the hands, temporary blindness, deafness/ringing in one’s ear, a horse voice/inability to speak, etc… So what causes hysterical symptoms?

Repression is the root-cause of all hysterical symptoms. When we (our “ego”) experience an event, memory, or idea as traumatic/distressing, this event is often “pushed out” (i.e., repressed) of our conscious awareness and enters an area of the mind known as “the unconscious.” All repressed memories are wholly unconscious, but they do not remain stagnant: they push for recognition and exert their force in the form of these, seemingly nonsensical, hysterical symptoms. Hysterical symptoms are what we refer to in psychoanalysis as “The return of the repressed.” Since the trauma cannot present itself directly (in the form of language, emotion, context, and meaning) due to its distressing and/or incomprehensible nature, it finds indirect pathways through which it can find an “energetic release” and/or “substitute satisfaction.”

For a great presentation on repression please see Mark Solm’s recent neuropsychoanalytic presentation entitled “What is Repression” - www.veoh.com/videos/v6319112tnjW7EJH (veoh accounts are free, and well worth it!)

In Studies on Hysteria Freud states, “Hysterics suffer mainly from reminisces” (p. 7). Basically, a particular event/memory continues to haunt these individuals, not in the direct form of memories and/or flashbacks, but in the indirect form of physical symptoms which symbolically represent the disagreeable/traumatic occurrence. For example, if one’s hand is hysterically paralyzed, then it may be due to touching something that one shouldn’t have touched perhaps; if one cannot see (hysterical blindness), then is there something one wishes to avoid seeing?

There are many other examples of hysterical symptoms such as these in the medical/psychological literature, but the point I want to make is that the origin of these symptoms is unconscious. The patient has no conscious awareness as to why he/she possesses the odd hysterical symptom, and in this sense there is no self-conscious knowledge that the patient possesses as to the true nature of his/her symptom. This proves Dr. Georgaca’s initial claim (which was both Freud and Lacan’s original claim): the truth of the subject is the truth of the unconscious.

Hysteria is not the only type of psychopathology with an underlying unconscious basis: obsessional neurosis, compromise formations, and various repetition-compulsions often include unconscious psychodynamic mechanisms.

So, how is hysteria treated? To answer this question let us return to this essay’s initial thesis: the truth of the subject is the truth of the unconscious. A hysterical symptom is the result of a repressed memory, idea, or wish. As such, the truth of a hysterical symptom’s nature lies in the unconscious, which can be thought of as the symptom’s “control room” from which it operates. This “truth” must be brought to light; the doctor must help the patient bring what is unconscious into consciousness; to bring the operator out of the underground control room and to the surface, to see the light of day.

This is achieved by the work of psychoanalysis, hypnosis, and/or psychodynamic psychotherapy. Here Freud’s original formula, to the best of my knowledge, still stands: the patient must be brought to remember the origin of the symptom (through psychoanalysis and/or hypnosis), to put it into words as much as he/she can (the process of symbolization, context, and meaning), to remember it as vividly as he/she can, and to experience the emotion which accompanies it (the event, memory, wish, etc).

Thus making the unconscious conscious, and, as stated by Freud, “Where Id was, ego shall be.” This general formula is how the hysteric can be helped to eliminate the hysterical symptom.

Note: For a recent neurological explanation of hysteria, please see V.S Ramachandran’s lecture series “The Emerging Mind: Part 5 - Neuroscience, the new philosophy”

4 comments:

NWI Connect said...

Great article! Very well explained and simple to understand. Also, I'm glad that you supplied the correct spelling for "Ramachandran" at the end, so now I can find the neuroscience series. I found the stuff on temporal lobe epilepsy and god, very interesting. . . .

NWI Connect said...

Also, I am surprised to see that this is essentially the same way that I have been learning to conduct therapy (pastoral counseling), only they have alternate means than hypnosis for revisiting repressed memories. I still question if their method is "guided imagery" or not, I'll have to chat with you about it next time we get together.

Anonymous said...

this is great, but unfortunately there is nothing new in the article. I was really hoping that at least you will define a little more the term "truth of the subject" which was the reason i started reading it. Anyway very interesting blog, I will definitely read every new article in it ;)

Ben Leggett said...

NEEEIGHHHHH. Sorry but 'a horse voice' ? Hmm.