Lucy Ives writes:
“Whether we are convinced by the metaphors selected by Freud and Lacan, a general effect of these psychoanalytic accounts, celebrated by literary critics perhaps more than clinicians, is to foreground the ways in which behaviour associated with a time when we could not survive on our own determines whom we love as adults and how. Indeed, it is the famous mechanism of repetition you’ve surely heard about: the treatment you receive at the hands of a caregiver becomes the action you associate with someone who loves you. Thus, in this account, do parents win for their children their future partners. If a parent physically abuses their child, that child will seek a lover who will do the same, even if that child is able to recognize that physical abuse is, in the abstract and rationally speaking, harmful and in no way loving. Because a child is compelled to understand an abusive parent’s behaviour as loving, because to survive a child must view a caregiver as loving.
Contemporary psychoanalytic approaches, even if circumspect about Freud and Lacan, often privilege a sort of practical suspicion designed to help the patient explore self-defeating narratives adopted as a protective veil during childhood. To undergo treatment, then, is a bit like stopping where one is on the path of life and turning to face something that one has for so long kept at one’s back. It’s the thing you think is going to kill you. That thing. That unspeakable thing. The one thing that lacks contingency and seems fated and is therefore “yours.” In a way, you’re not wrong. In the past, it could have killed you, when you were small and vulnerable, but it cannot harm you anymore. What is harmful is that you run from it – and that you run, uncannily, toward it, as in a waking dream. What is harmful is that when you find another person you believe figures this thing for you, you fall deeply in love with them. And the whole world falls away.”