![]() This adheres to Zabarenko’s ( 2011) suggestion of fielding a team of psychoanalysis, neuroscience, and cognitive psychology. It is hoped that when various sciences, including neuroscience, are combined, a more comprehensive picture of ADHD will emerge. The aim is to focus on one point in this issue’s appeal to discuss ADHD from “a broad range of non-neurobiological perspectives and contexts”, namely, “the child’s inner drama, symbols and imaginations”. In order to present how this “lab work” is being conducted, qualitative data of a boy with ADHD and my interpretations of them will be briefly presented. Findings from the “psychoanalytic laboratory”, that is, experiences gathered during individual treatments, can help us understand how the ADHD child experiences having these symptoms and how they connect with his affective world-and nothing more. Sociological theorizing and field studies can reveal important factors on macro- and micro-developments on the social field-and nothing more. Thus, instruments from the biological sciences can investigate how ADHD is associated with, for example, variations in neurophysiology, neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, diets, and blood chemistry-and nothing more. Every instrument has been developed for a specific field of knowledge. Rather, it will clarify that the resolve of combining biological, sociological, and psychological perspectives to understand ADHD, though this be important and laudable, is restricted by which instrument of research one is using. It takes Frances’ warning seriously and does not juxtapose a psychological perspective against biological or sociological theories. The question in this paper is what a psychoanalytic perspective might add to the understanding of ADHD in children. Frances rightly salutes Freud for his commitment to combining biological and psychological perspectives. Indeed, he considered psychoanalysis as an “intermediary between biology and psychology” (Freud, 1913, p. For example, in his speculations on the death instinct and human aggression, he hoped that biology, “truly a land of unlimited possibilities”, might one day “give us the most surprising information and we cannot guess what answers it will return in a few dozen years to the questions we have put to it” (Freud, 1920). Frances points out that Freud, who founded psychoanalysis, the most influential school in the latter tradition, often linked his psychological theories with the insights of the neuroscientific knowledge of his era. The latter is “brainless” in suggesting that “mental health problems all arise from unpleasant experience” (p. The former is “mindless” in assuming that “genes are destiny and that there is a pill for every problem” (p. Frances ( 2016) speaks of a “civil war” between the two major approaches of explaining mental disorders the biological and the psychosocial. ![]() For example, the field of epigenetics highlights and recognizes the influence of experience on a neural level without disqualifying the predictive capacity of genes. Such critique forms part of another and broader one, namely, against any reductionistic perspective on mental illness. If we adhere to the call of papers for this issue of the journal, to apply a critical yet informed perspective to the ADHD concept, it would be easy to link it with the critique against the overuse of the diagnosis and stimulants (Batstra & Frances, 2012 Frances & Batstra, 2013). The implications of such an approach are discussed. ![]() This is achieved by the psychoanalytic method, a hermeneutic approach with which the analyst interprets the child’s behaviours and communications as they emerge in the session. Psychoanalytic treatment is one of several approaches to understanding ADHD and helping the child cope with it. ![]() If we recall that the diagnosis is based on a list of symptoms, not of etiology, we realize that this limitation applies to any scientific perspective on ADHD. On the other hand, it cannot establish causality in the individual or general case. It can shed light on the connections between his/her inner world and symptoms, such as attention deficits, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. Though much more systematic research is needed to establish its efficacy, it can inform on the ADHD child’s emotional experiences. This paper argues that such views are based on a misunderstanding of the scope of psychotherapy. In contrast, psychoanalytic therapy has receded into the background and is often viewed as inefficient or even noxious. This development is concomitant with an emphasis on medication, behavioural treatments, and parent training programmes. ![]() ADHD is increasingly seen as associated with cerebral dysfunction and caused by it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |