PSYCHOANALYSIS “TRAUMATIZED” BY WAR. FOUR CLINICAL ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE VULNERABILITY OF THE SETTING

Abstract

The main motivation for writing this paper was the conflict experienced by professionals working within the psychoanalytic paradigm in Ukraine in the context of war. The conflict is between the natural desire of psychoanalysts to adhere to a stable, safe, negotiated setting with patients and the reality of war, which opposes this by invading all areas of the psychoanalytic relationship. In this regard, efforts to keep the process within the analytical framework are often futile. The author explores four variants of "traumatization" of the setting, illustrating his conclusions with clinical vignettes. The fragments of the sessions presented in the article reflect the characteristic features of the interaction of analytical couples who are trying to enable psychoanalysis to survive in conditions that seem to be completely unsuitable for it. In the author’s opinion, in the conditions of war, the psychoanalytic setting is particularly vulnerable in its basic properties. For example, the boundary between the world of social interactions and the psychoanalytic office is collapsing. The shared experience of survival with the patient "pushes" the analyst from the position of a researcher to that of a subject of empathy, which deprives the process of a large part of its analytical character. The situation is no better with the therapist’s ability to control compliance with setting agreements in circumstances of social instability. This, in turn, determines the "military" specificity of the patient’s perception of the analyst. It loses its properties of reliability, strength, and maturity. The relationship itself becomes less containerized. The article pays great attention to the issue of confidentiality, which is most likely to be violated in a situation of social confrontation, for example, when the patient and the psychoanalyst are supporters of warring social groups. The author discusses the consequences of the loss of space for fantasies, free associations, and, ultimately, the interaction of the two unconscious. By stating the fact of the "death" of psychoanalysis in only one of the four clinical cases cited in the article, the author avoids categorical conclusions and recommendations regarding "war" psychoanalysis. The article concludes with questions addressed to the readers and an invitation to reflect on the specifics and prospects of the psychoanalytic process in wartime.