The epidemic has brought about significant changes in psychological working conditions along with the anxiety we experience. The most affected by the desperation brought about by external conditions was the framework, which was not just a simple regulation. The framework is the most important element of spiritual work in organic integrity with the theory, which is important not only for psychoanalysis but also for all therapies, and has many inclusive, limiting and symbolizing functions.
The most important disagreements in the history of psychoanalysis are related to the psychoanalytic framework. What caused Freud and Ferenczi to break up was their disagreement about the definition of the framework. Moreover, the main source of the discussions between Anna Freud and M.Klein is the analytical framework rather than the analytical process. Freud wrote many articles on various aspects of psychoanalysis technique between 1910 and 1915. In these articles, he aimed to explain what psychoanalysis is to prospective analysts and to convey its ethical framework. After Freud, many writers emphasized the importance of the frame. In 1956, Winnicott defined the setting as "the sum of the details in the arrangement of the therapeutic mechanism."* At this point, Winnicott draws attention to the development of the analytic process and the active role of the analyst in creating the appropriate conditions. Freud did not use the concept of framework directly, but he talked about rules of application and was very cautious about writing on the psychoanalysis technique. One reason for this is that he is afraid that people who are not trained in this field will make wrong applications based on his writings, and the other reason is that he is afraid that some of his students will try to apply what they wrote exactly without any flexibility.
While Freud left a margin of flexibility regarding the framework, our psychoanalysis framework, which we consider as the totality of unchangeables, has enabled us to see our capacity for adaptation and flexibility with new experiences by suddenly finding ourselves on Sykp or on the other end of the phone. What I understood best from this process was "use sparingly". The most important thing that kept me in this process was that my analyst was able to be there for me under all circumstances, even if he was in limited conditions and far away. On the one hand, the easy flow in its natural flow I have become more appreciative of my analysis sessions that are available to me. I may not be able to see the green branches of the big tree in front of me swinging in harmony while I am in analysis, but I realized that the distance I felt internally cannot be measured by the distance in reality, and by thinking more carefully and carefully about each session, it became a process in which I could say "even if it is far away, at least it is here".
Recently, in the podcast “IPA Off the Couch” of the International Psychoanalytical Association (IPA), former members of the Paris Psychoanalysis Association and the Paris Psychosomatic Institute were featured. He hosted the psychoanalyst Marilia Aisenstein, who was its president. Marilia talked about how French psychoanalysts had difficulty changing their frameworks during this pandemic, and that online sessions were seen as a "sin" by these psychoanalysts before the epidemic, and now they had to gradually relax the strict rules they adopted.
We need to listen to his flexibility in his clinical work, which I love very much. He states that the untouched version of the standard model is often not suitable for use in daily applications, but this does not mean that "all means are fair".
According to him, the purpose of making changes in qualities such as analytical framework, stance, and frequency is to preserve or even strengthen the essence.
As Marilia says, “In order to be flexible in a model, it must first be fully internalized.”*
Still, these days we stay away from our therapy rooms and couches. To the days when we will meet with health.
Read: 0
