People often ask what the difference is between psychoanalysis and other approaches to the treatment of psychical symptoms. Here are some introductory responses.
People come to psychoanalysis for many reasons. Often, they bring a pain or difficulty from which they want release and from which they cannot release themselves. Psychoanalysis supposes that this pain or difficulty has unconscious foundations, foundations that are evident in the repeating pattern of behaviour or thought that someone suffers from. Through the work of free association, these patterns are worked through in an analysis, and the analysand’s relationship to them can be apprehended differently. In focussing in this way on unconscious and conscious processes, psychoanalysis differs from most other approaches in psychological and psychiatric practice.
Psychoanalysis does not aim to show anyone the best or right way to live, and it does not presuppose that the analyst can or should function as a model in these things. Instead, psychoanalysis is a process in which you speak to and, through your speech and the analyst’s interpretations, you develop a way to live that is different from the way you were living when you began analysis. It is this process that provides the therapeutic effect of psychoanalysis, an effect sometimes referred to as ‘the talking cure’. It is in talking in this very particular way and particular setting that a person in analysis (the analysand) comes to work out how s/he can live more fully and less burdened by the tendency to automatically repeat those behaviours and beliefs that cause pain.
Every Lacanian psychoanalyst has been in analysis. A personal analysis is a necessary component of developing an understanding of the theory and clinical practice of psychoanalysis: it is one component of the process of ‘formation’ through which someone becomes an analyst.
My psychoanalytic orientation is Lacanian: that is, my theoretical base and clinical practice is drawn from the work of French psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan who, in his reworking of the work of Sigmund Freud, not only radically rewrote that work but in the process formulated a distinct and original way of thinking and working psychoanalytically.
I chose Lacanian psychoanalysis for several reasons:
It is non-normative. In its fidelity to the principle of working with each analysand one-by-one, the analysand is invited to work through the unconscious foundations of one’s suffering. The analyst does not offer, or presume to know, the right way for the analysand to live. Because it does not elevate the analyst to an ideal or a model for life, Lacanian psychoanalysis represents an ethical approach to treatment: it offers each analysand the opportunity to find, work on and transform their position in life.
Because it is non-normative, Lacanian psychoanalysis does not interpret people and their symptoms against social ideals. Because it is non-normative, Lacanian analysis provides a theoretical and clinical framework for working ethically, constructively and non-judgementally with any person. The analyst works for and with each analysand to discover and work through the analysand’s own difficulties.
The work of sustaining and building this ethical practice, for me, has been vitally supported by fields of thought other than psychoanalysis. Those that have been and continue to be crucial to me in my formation are feminist and queer theory, gender and sexuality studies, critical race theory and postcolonialism, and post-structuralist and literary theory. The problem of difference is as crucial to these fields as to psychoanalysis: living in a culture whose difficulty with difference is devastating on so many levels for individuals and society, I have found it important as an analyst aiming for ‘absolute difference’ to engage with all these fields. To aim at ‘the desire for difference’ as a position from which to practise analysis means, for me, a continued investigation of the barriers in our culture(s) to honouring difference and enabling it to flourish.
There is one fundamental rule to psychoanalytic work: that the analysand speaks whatever is on his or her mind. This is the rule of ‘free association’: the continuous attempt to speak one’s thoughts, and to try to resist censoring oneself, so as to make one’s speech available to the encounter between analyst and analysand in the clinical setting.
Session frequency can be discussed during the preliminary interviews. Psychoanalysis is usually a medium to long-term process, and attending regularly and consistently is important.
Identifying information about an analysand is never shared with any other person. Any discussions in supervision do not involve the use of names, and any information that may enable the analysand to be identified is changed or deleted.
If you have a question that isn’t answered here, you can email me at
or phone 0439 561 799
There are many different approaches to psychoanalysis: Lacanian, Kleinian, Jungian, Freudian, among them. These approaches all have in common the idea fundamental to psychoanalysis: that there is an unconscious, and that the effective treatment of psychical symptoms can only take place if therapeutic work takes the unconscious into account.
My psychoanalytic orientation is Lacanian: that is, my theoretical base and clinical practice is drawn from the work of French psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan who, in his reworking of the work of Sigmund Freud, not only radically rewrote that work but in the process formulated a distinct and original way of thinking and working psychoanalytically.
I chose Lacanian psychoanalysis for several reasons:
It is non-normative. In its fidelity to the principle of working with each analysand one-by-one, the analysand is invited to work through the unconscious foundations of her or his own suffering. The analyst does not offer, or presume to know, the right way for the analysand to live. Because it does not elevate the analyst to an ideal or a model for life, Lacanian psychoanalysis represents an ethical approach to treatment: it offers each analysand the opportunity to find, work on and transform his or her own position in life. Take this as an example: if a person comes to analysis with negative judgements about himself/herself (‘I am a bad person’), psychoanalysis does not offer an alternative model (‘here’s how you can be a good person and therefore like yourself more’), because for psychoanalysis this approach would simply put a benign face (the analyst’s) over the critical face (one’s own) of the internal judge, and it would do nothing to displace that internal judge. Instead, the psychoanalytic approach asks how it is that you came to see yourself as ‘bad’, and in answering that question the problem is worked through to its source and the problem of the internal judge is directly addressed.
Because it is non-normative in the way I have described, Lacanian psychoanalysis does not interpret people and their symptoms against social ideals. Because it is non-normative, Lacanian analysis provides a theoretical and clinical framework for working ethically, constructively and non-judgementally with people who do not fit the normative categories. The analyst works for and with each analysand to discover and work through the analysand’s own difficulties.
Because of its intellectual links with philosophy and literature both currently and historically, psychoanalytic inquiry is engaged in exploring important cultural and philosophical questions, particularly those concerning gender and sexuality. This means that as a clinical practice it is influenced by and open to ideas; it is not a closed system, but a constantly evolving and rigorous theoretical and clinical investigation of the relationships between people and the context in which they live.
There is one fundamental rule to psychoanalytic work, and it is quite simple. The analysand speaks whatever is on his or her mind. This is the rule of ‘free association’: what is thought is not censored, or edited, or eliminated, but is spoken and made available to the encounter between analyst and analysand in the clinical setting. Of course, free association is not all that easy: no-one can do it all the time, and sometimes censorship takes place before one even knows what one has thought. Nevertheless, free association is what is aimed at.
If the analysand is a child who is too young to speak or to speak a lot, the work takes place through play, drawing, building and other age-appropriate activities.
I work with people of all ages, including children and infants. If you are bringing a child to psychoanalysis, initial sessions may be conducted with parent/s and child together. The aim of these sessions is to obtain a family history as well as to establish a relationship with the child. The eventual aim is to see the child on his or her own when appropriate and possible.
For anyone interested in seeing how psychoanalysis can profoundly influence outcomes for infants, see Rosine and Robert Lefort’s book, The Birth of the Other (Other Press, New York).
The most effective way to work is to attend at least two sessions per week, but if this is not possible then once a week is the minimum. Psychoanalysis is usually a medium to long-term process, and attending twice a week ensures that it is not made any longer than necessary. If attending twice a week will cause financial hardship, then fees will be reduced by negotiation as necessary.
Identifying information about an analysand is never shared with any other person. It is conventional as a psychoanalyst to have ongoing professional supervision with another psychoanalyst, and to discuss cases. Any case discussions do not involve the use of names, and any information that may enable the analysand to be identified is changed or deleted.
If you have a question that isn’t answered here, you can email me at or phone 0439 561 799
