Psychotherapy identify Essay

In this paper I will let you see, how in my view the classic psychoanalysis is intimately linked to the premises of the existential phenomenological approaches of the psychotherapy conjuncture. I shall start by one of the pillars supported by Ricoeur: heideggerian ontology. The existential phenomenological approaches in psychotherapy identify themselves with the notion of that Dasein which even before it comprehends it is already there, launched into the world. This openness embodied by the Dasein where it falls from its inner self presupposes a frustrating aloofness that is it is not the intra-mundane entities that frustrate the being there; it is the world as â€Å"mundaneness† that frustrates the Dasein, it is the very being in the world that is frustrating, for it is alone, all by itself, it ek-siste strangely in a world where it does not belong, but an uprooting instead. The triad situation – comprehension – interpretation follows a logic that extends to the therapeutic space, but as contended by Ricoeur, man has not one situation only; he has and lives in a world. Always launched into, he will have to turn awareness into a task. The long path followed by Ricoeur seems to us to be clearly linked to the room for two where knowledge itself becomes a task, of, shall we say, an interception of texts that cross themselves. But let us move on, on a step by step basis. The opposition between dialogue and text. By explaining his textual paradigm, Ricoeur makes it easier for us to understand the importance of language itself, or preferably, the importance of the linguistics of the discourse on which the therapeutic relationship is based. Let us see, then. The main issue of discourse has to do with a distance that translates itself in the event – meaning dialectic. The four features distinguishing this linguistics from discourse are indeed a good description of the therapeutic space: it occurs over time; someone speaks and by speaking he is describing, expressing a world; by expressing himself he does it in front of someone else. These four issues are inherent in the intra-subjective relation. Besides, I should stress that is not the transitory nature of human language that weights more but as upheld by the theory of acts and speech, it is what remains said that enables to create a meaning for the events of the speech. The different levels (locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary) translate the recording of speech as acts that have a real impact on people’s actions, influencing them emotionally and at the cognitive and inter-relational levels. The difference between language and discourse lays basically on the possibility for the latter to become an important event because of the fact that distancing from what has been said confers a meaning to it. The theory of the acts of speech seems to stress the concerns of Brunner’s cultural psychology which does not discard the relationship between what people say and what they do. This dialectic may open up a privileged way for the meaning of human experience, for the action situated in the world. This relationship between say and do has direct implications upon the therapeutic space. What is spoken within the intersubjectivity of dialogue bears undoubtedly a relational mark of the order of what has been said of the theory of acts of speech marking and pinpointing a path that is inherent and restricted to the relationship between both subjects, but which is also related to the world expressed in the narration and its characters. Language perceived as a discourse has an exponential effect upon the relationship; the propositions go beyond themselves and beyond the strictly prepositional act; they mark and define the room for the happening lying between two subjects. Thoughts, cognitions, emotions, dreams and illusions stake out a path as if they were riveted to specific points of time relational space, as if they were a text fixed by writing.