Dear All,
Of interest in the discussion of Foucault /
Psychoanalysis (therapy) is a theme issue of British
Journal of Guidance and Counselling (British Journal
of Guidance and Counselling Volume: 33, Issue: 3
August 1, 2005).
This is its table of contents:
Editorial Poststructuralism and the impact of the work
of Michel Foucault in counselling and guidance pp.
277 - 281
A. C. (Tina) Besley and Richard G. Edwards
Using poetic documents: An exploration of
poststructuralist ideas and poetic practices in
narrative therapy pp. 283 - 298
Jane Speedy
Researching trauma, the body and transformation: A
situated account of creating safety in unsafe places
pp. 299 - 313
Kim Etherington
Resisting anorexia/bulimia: Foucauldian perspectives
in narrative therapy pp. 315 - 332
Andrew Lock, David Epston, Richard Maisel, Natasha
de Faria
Discursive empathy: A new foundation for therapeutic
practice pp. 333 - 349
Stacey L. Sinclair and Gerald Monk
Utilising discursive positioning in counselling pp.
351 - 364
John M. Winslade
Self-denial or self-mastery? Foucault's genealogy of
the confessional self pp. 365 - 382
A. C. (Tina) Besley
Foucault, counselling and the aesthetics of existence
pp. 383 - 396
Michael A. Peters
Subjects, networks and positions: Thinking educational
guidance differently pp. 397 - 410
Robin Usher and Richard G. Edwards
Overcoming modern-postmodern dichotomies: Some
possible benefits for the counselling profession pp.
411 - 421
Zvi Bekerman and Moshe Tatar
-------------------------------------------------------
Alex.
--- Mark Kelly <mgekelly@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Let's take this point about psychoanalysis. Assuming
> an analyst did do this,
> and I'm sure there are plenty who do, simply tell
> the patient the meaning of
> the dream, well, this is obviously interventionist,
> you are right. But is it
> speaking for someone else? The entire point in
> psychoanalysis is that the
> unconscious is not something that cna be accessed
> either by the subject or,
> indeed, by the analyst in a direct manner. Telling
> the subject the hidden
> meaning of his dream is a didactic operation which
> presupposes a certain
> power relation, and is therefore, as Foucault would
> say, certainly
> dangerous, but it is not speaking for. Speaking for
> the subject would, I
> would have thought, be articulating the conscious
> experience of the subject
> itself, for example when a journalist waxes about
> the pain of the victims of
> a natural disaster, not making a diagnosis about the
> unconscious based on
> the subject's own account of himself. This is by no
> means non-invasive - I
> was wrong if I said that - but it's not shameful
> either.
>
> Representative democracy is tricky too: are
> politicians speaking for us, or
> do we delegate them to speak for themselves? It
> seems that the latter is
> both what happens and what is supposed to happen.
> All the stuff about the
> war not being in our name was admitted by Blair, I
> seem to remember, who
> claimed it was his function as leader to do things
> that the people did not
> want. Clearly he had to claim that the war was in
> our interests, but that is
> not the same as speaking for us. No, I think
> journalists and academics are
> the ones who speak for others, and of course
> activists in many cases.
>
> Mark
__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
Of interest in the discussion of Foucault /
Psychoanalysis (therapy) is a theme issue of British
Journal of Guidance and Counselling (British Journal
of Guidance and Counselling Volume: 33, Issue: 3
August 1, 2005).
This is its table of contents:
Editorial Poststructuralism and the impact of the work
of Michel Foucault in counselling and guidance pp.
277 - 281
A. C. (Tina) Besley and Richard G. Edwards
Using poetic documents: An exploration of
poststructuralist ideas and poetic practices in
narrative therapy pp. 283 - 298
Jane Speedy
Researching trauma, the body and transformation: A
situated account of creating safety in unsafe places
pp. 299 - 313
Kim Etherington
Resisting anorexia/bulimia: Foucauldian perspectives
in narrative therapy pp. 315 - 332
Andrew Lock, David Epston, Richard Maisel, Natasha
de Faria
Discursive empathy: A new foundation for therapeutic
practice pp. 333 - 349
Stacey L. Sinclair and Gerald Monk
Utilising discursive positioning in counselling pp.
351 - 364
John M. Winslade
Self-denial or self-mastery? Foucault's genealogy of
the confessional self pp. 365 - 382
A. C. (Tina) Besley
Foucault, counselling and the aesthetics of existence
pp. 383 - 396
Michael A. Peters
Subjects, networks and positions: Thinking educational
guidance differently pp. 397 - 410
Robin Usher and Richard G. Edwards
Overcoming modern-postmodern dichotomies: Some
possible benefits for the counselling profession pp.
411 - 421
Zvi Bekerman and Moshe Tatar
-------------------------------------------------------
Alex.
--- Mark Kelly <mgekelly@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Let's take this point about psychoanalysis. Assuming
> an analyst did do this,
> and I'm sure there are plenty who do, simply tell
> the patient the meaning of
> the dream, well, this is obviously interventionist,
> you are right. But is it
> speaking for someone else? The entire point in
> psychoanalysis is that the
> unconscious is not something that cna be accessed
> either by the subject or,
> indeed, by the analyst in a direct manner. Telling
> the subject the hidden
> meaning of his dream is a didactic operation which
> presupposes a certain
> power relation, and is therefore, as Foucault would
> say, certainly
> dangerous, but it is not speaking for. Speaking for
> the subject would, I
> would have thought, be articulating the conscious
> experience of the subject
> itself, for example when a journalist waxes about
> the pain of the victims of
> a natural disaster, not making a diagnosis about the
> unconscious based on
> the subject's own account of himself. This is by no
> means non-invasive - I
> was wrong if I said that - but it's not shameful
> either.
>
> Representative democracy is tricky too: are
> politicians speaking for us, or
> do we delegate them to speak for themselves? It
> seems that the latter is
> both what happens and what is supposed to happen.
> All the stuff about the
> war not being in our name was admitted by Blair, I
> seem to remember, who
> claimed it was his function as leader to do things
> that the people did not
> want. Clearly he had to claim that the war was in
> our interests, but that is
> not the same as speaking for us. No, I think
> journalists and academics are
> the ones who speak for others, and of course
> activists in many cases.
>
> Mark
__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/