A Critique of the Postmodern Turn in Relational Psychonalysis - Dr. Jon Mills

A Critique of the Postmodern Turn in Relational Psychoanalysis, a lecture by Dr. Jon Mills,
Keynote Speaker at the conference "Relational Psychoanalysis and Its Critics" held at by the IARPP and Bar-Ilan's Multi disciplinary Studies Unit, in Febrary 2015.

[@Lindani_Mvano]

Where can I get a transcript of this?

[@cherihausmann]

Yes there is a philosophical and metaphysical lack in postmodern applications.

[@camuscat123]

I would have preferred someone to not read a prepared speech. I see you are appealing to a sophisticated audience, and I understand your points (made eloquently). I wish you whole argument was in terms of "in other words..."

[@RichardKoenigsberg]

Great presentation! We exist.

[@genuineletter]

The argumentation seems contradictory and simplyfing and ill informed. Postmodernism is taken as a synonym for relativism and constructivism which it fundamentally differs from! Postmodernism describes power relations that form social realities. This is why it also cannot be said that freedom of choice is erased by it, especially not compared to Freud's drive theory which at its time was accused of exactly this (humans being subject to drives). In my opinion, one has to work through this narcissistic injury : the ego has no core, it is empty. This talk ignores to differnciate identifications from substance. Of course the psychoanalyst has a symbolic function and operates in a health system with ethical (not moral!) vectors that give him/her the responsibility of taking action when a patient clearly shows suicidal signs. The way a person would act here is dependent of his/her symbolic status- a psychoanalyst outside this function will maybe be able to accept the choice of a person who has decided to kill him/herself. The thing about postmodernism is that there is no clear universal law that operates, no clear punishment, a distinction of symbolic representation and identity. I think all these points are extremely valuable- and they are scary. Psychoanalysis has to deal with this and it is almost comic that the speaker here refers to the value systems of the greeks and romans. Sure, the position of relativity that he describes exists but it is not clever to attack postmodernism instead of analysing how these two positions- relativism and conservatism are two sides of the same reaction to the fear that an ethical position has to be developed in every case, executed in action by taking on a symbolic function, one that cannot be used narcissistically nor universally pushed on people. The fact that there is no one universal thruth does not mean that there is no truth at all!!!!!!

[@MW-ic7lr]

I wish I knew wtf you're saying.

[@Me_ThatsWho]

Yes, good points. PM is taken as a synonym for relativism and constructivism, but honestly I've yet to find an account of PM that did not emphasize those as defining qualities of PM. References ?

[@lordtains]

Are you taking a Lacanian position here? I don't think Dr. Mills is attacking Lacanian psychoanalysis here (he edited a book on Lacanian psychoanalysis, and he seems favorable towards it, and also: Dr. Mills focuses on Hegelian philosophy in his own writing). He seems to attack (1) intersubjective psychoanalysis (e.g. Stolorow) and (2) the kinds of philosophies endorsed by critical race theory and other movements focusing on social justice and breaking down the power structures (including the modern intellectual traditions). I agree that postmodernism isn't necessarily representative of this movement, but it is clear that these movements make much use of postmodernist philosophers (e.g. Foucault, Derrida).