WHICH THEORIES AND CONCEPTIONS DO PSYCHOANALYSTS AND PSYCHOANALYTIC PSYCHOTHERAPISTS CONSIDER HELPFUL IN THEIR PRACTICE DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC UNFOLDING IN UKRAINE?

Mariana Velykodna,Halyna Tsyhanenko

doi:10.31108/1.2020.6.8.7

Mariana Velykodna, Halyna Tsyhanenko

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.31108/1.2020.6.8.7

Copy DOI

Abstract

This paper presents the results of an anonymous survey of psychoanalysts and psychoanalytic psychotherapists (n=71) from different institutions, associations, and theoretical schools, which was conducted online after a month of lockdown in Ukraine due to the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the survey, one-third of the respondents adhered to their usual psychoanalytic theories and conceptions for reflecting on the phenomena they observed during the pandemic unfolding. Two-thirds of the practitioners admitted that they had been focusing or shifting toward certain conceptions in their theoretical thinking more than they used to. These theories were referring to the following two main issues: (1) how the psychic response to the COVID-19 pandemic and quarantine in each particular case can be explained and theorized on, and (2) how a psychoanalyst can deal with it through his or her own analytic stance and interventions. Practitioners tended to refer to the theoretical viewpoints of “Classic psychoanalysis”, “Object relations”, and the variety of particular one-time-mentioned theories of mourning, anxiety, trauma, defense mechanisms, manifestation of neurotic conflicts, Self issues, complexes, early traumatic experience, etc.  

Highlights

The tense situation of the COVID19 pandemic dictates to providers of psychological support and psychotherapy to change substantially their common format of practice, e.g. to conduct remote sessions (Inchausti & et al, 2020; Perrin & et al, 2020), to deal with chaotic schedules (Velykodna, Frankova, 2020), and to shift to urgent and educative interventions or even to suspend their practice (Velykodna, 2020; Tsyhanenko, Velykodna, 2020), etc
Freud (1919) there had been a standard of meeting in person more than twice a week, using a couch, along with long-term and open -ended psychoanalysis, with a neutral and abstinent psychoanalyst and an adult analysand in his or her deepening regression
The anonymous online-survey was developed for Ukrainian practitioners in psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapy

Summary

Introduction

The tense situation of the COVID19 pandemic dictates to providers of psychological support and psychotherapy to change substantially their common format of practice, e.g. to conduct remote sessions (Inchausti & et al, 2020; Perrin & et al, 2020), to deal with chaotic schedules (Velykodna, Frankova, 2020), and to shift to urgent and educative interventions or even to suspend their practice (Velykodna, 2020; Tsyhanenko, Velykodna, 2020), etc. A number of psychoanalytic approaches have departed from this standard due to many reasons, e.g., expanding the range of patients to psychotic (Spotnitz, 2004), narcissistic (Kohut, 1985), borderline (Kernberg, 1967), i.e., so-called “nonneurotic” (Green, 1975), traumatized (Fonagy, 2010) ones, and even to “anti-analysands” (McDougall, 1972), as well

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion