What do you think?
Rate this book
Psikanaliz ve Devrim
Freud, psikoloji dünyasıyla eleştirel ve şüpheci bir ilişki içindeydi. O, psikolojiyi, nesnel bir biçimde bilinebilecek; belirli, gerçek, tamamen açık ve her insanda her zaman aynı olabilecek bir olgu olarak görmedi. Bütün bunlar, Freud’un insan acısının doğasının tarihsel bağlamına ve acının diyalektik bir sürecin içinde kendini semptomlarda gösterdiğine dair değerli çıkarımlar yapmasını sağlamıştır. Bu çıkarımlar aynı zamanda kavrayış ve özgürleşme arasındaki ilişkiye de ışık tutmaktadır.
Tarihi ve psikanalizi sevsek de sevmesek de tarihin kendisi mevcut düzeni alaşağı etme girişimlerinin ve bunların yenilgilerinin tekrar ettiği bir süreçtir. Bir kalemde yinelemeyi bırakıp başarılı olamayız; çünkü tarihi kendi seçtiğimiz koşullarda yazamayız. Verili koşullar içerisinde ve sömürücü yabancılaştırıcı üretim ve tüketim koşullarını oldukları yerde tutan farklı baskı örüntülerine göre hareket ederiz. Bu örüntülerin çok önemli bir işlevi vardır ki o da hayati gereksinimler olan kolektif öz-örgütlenmelerin inşasına engel olmaktır.
Bu manifesto özgürlük hareketleri için, daha iyi bir dünya için hazırlandı. Günümüzün baskıcı, sömürücü, yabancılaştırıcı gerçekliğiyle mücadele eden birey ve gruplara hitaben ve onlar için yazıldı. Bu manifesto bugünkü yaşamın sefil dış gerçekliği ve adına “psikoloji”miz denebilecek, derinlerde “içimizde” olduğunu hissettiğimiz, sıklıkla gerçekliğe teslim olan ya da umuyoruz ki ona isyan eden “içsel” yaşamlarımızın karşılıklı ilişkisi üzerinedir.
Tarihi ve psikanalizi sevsek de sevmesek de tarihin kendisi mevcut düzeni alaşağı etme girişimlerinin ve bunların yenilgilerinin tekrar ettiği bir süreçtir. Bir kalemde yinelemeyi bırakıp başarılı olamayız; çünkü tarihi kendi seçtiğimiz koşullarda yazamayız. Verili koşullar içerisinde ve sömürücü yabancılaştırıcı üretim ve tüketim koşullarını oldukları yerde tutan farklı baskı örüntülerine göre hareket ederiz. Bu örüntülerin çok önemli bir işlevi vardır ki o da hayati gereksinimler olan kolektif öz-örgütlenmelerin inşasına engel olmaktır.
Bu manifesto özgürlük hareketleri için, daha iyi bir dünya için hazırlandı. Günümüzün baskıcı, sömürücü, yabancılaştırıcı gerçekliğiyle mücadele eden birey ve gruplara hitaben ve onlar için yazıldı. Bu manifesto bugünkü yaşamın sefil dış gerçekliği ve adına “psikoloji”miz denebilecek, derinlerde “içimizde” olduğunu hissettiğimiz, sıklıkla gerçekliğe teslim olan ya da umuyoruz ki ona isyan eden “içsel” yaşamlarımızın karşılıklı ilişkisi üzerinedir.
160 pages, Paperback
Published October 3, 2024
10 people are currently reading
290 people want to read
About the author
Ian Parker
109 books35 followersIan Parker is a British psychologist who has been a principal exponent of three quite diverse critical traditions inside the discipline. His writing has provided compass points for researchers searching for alternatives to ‘mainstream’ psychology in the English-speaking world (that is, mainstream psychology that is based on laboratory-experimental studies that reduce behavior to individual mental processes).
The three critical traditions Parker has promoted are ‘discursive analysis’, ‘Marxist psychology’ and ‘psychoanalysis’. Each of these traditions is adapted by him to encourage an attention to ideology and power, and this modification has given rise to fierce debates, not only from mainstream psychologists but also from other ‘critical psychologists’. Parker moves in his writing from one focus to another, and it seems as if he is not content with any particular tradition of research, using each of the different critical traditions to throw the others into question.
The three critical traditions Parker has promoted are ‘discursive analysis’, ‘Marxist psychology’ and ‘psychoanalysis’. Each of these traditions is adapted by him to encourage an attention to ideology and power, and this modification has given rise to fierce debates, not only from mainstream psychologists but also from other ‘critical psychologists’. Parker moves in his writing from one focus to another, and it seems as if he is not content with any particular tradition of research, using each of the different critical traditions to throw the others into question.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
December 2, 2021
A timely manifesto for the re-politicisation of psychoanalysis, and the rejection of reactionary, bourgeois 'psy' professions. Ian and David go through four psychoanalytic concepts: the unconcious, repetition, drive and transference. These are not so much taken from the one-to-one clinic to the collective political sphere, as the clinic is already in itself collective and political.
It starts off with a basic and fundamental psychoanalytic fact: the unconcious is structured like language, it is collective, the subject is an ensemble of social relations, the individual is a fiction.
It starts off with a basic and fundamental psychoanalytic fact: the unconcious is structured like language, it is collective, the subject is an ensemble of social relations, the individual is a fiction.
August 16, 2024
Seize the means of ... interpretation?!
The aim of “Psychoanalysis and Revolution” by Ian Parker and David Pavón-Cuéllar is twofold:
1) to critique mainstream “adaptive psy” professions and
2) to highlight the radical potential of psychoanalysis to support emancipatory movements both in theory and practice.
1. The authors criticize adaptive psy professions (a) for their tendency to overlook how often it is society that is “sick” and not the individual, (b) reinforcing individualism and separation, a form of dualism between the external environment and the Self, (c) their role in normalizing and adapting individuals into oppressive structures and (d) producing ‘good’ (“functional”, “productive” and obedient) workers and consumers.
For instance, treating depression and anxiety merely as “chemical imbalances” or using CBT to address “dysfunctional thinking patterns and behaviors” often obscures the role of societal factors such as economic insecurity, job dissatisfaction, social isolation, poverty, inequality, lack of access to support systems, the lack community and many other major contributors to mental health. The notion that “if only you’d think differently” or “balance your brain chemistry” will fix the problem serves as a tool to adapt people to reality instead of enabling them to change it. It’s not like drug treatments and “adaptive” psychotherapy are useless or never appropriate (they can even be life-saving in some cases) but they primarily address surface-level symptoms and tend to ignore the underlying root causes. As a result, the symptoms often reemerge or manifest in a different form.
In a sense, I expect the argument to be self-evident to most radicals. What else would be the case? Systems tend to produce individuals who perpetuate and reproduce these systems. Most institutions evolve and are organized to produce, reproduce, and normalize their own existence and support the status quo. Much like the education system or news media, which are primarily designed to produce good workers and consumers — passive, obedient, and uninformed individuals. And surely, if people lacking class consciousness or awareness of other systems of oppression experience negative effects as a result of systemic oppression and encounter mainstream “adaptive psy” professions, they will likely be “adapted” again. But [anecdotal argument alert], I have had numerous friends and comrades suffering from depression, anxiety, drug addiction, or other issues, who went through mainstream psy treatments and, to some extent, benefited from them, without forgetting or ignoring the root causes of their suffering. Once they were better, they returned to their movements and organizations. It seems less likely to me that activists and radicals will be neutralized to the extent of abandoning their struggles by adaptive psychotherapy.
2. There is a long history of both tension and collaboration between psychoanalysis and movements such as Marxism, post-colonialism, feminism, and others. Figures like Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, Louis Althusser, Slavoj Žižek, Frantz Fanon, Juliet Mitchell, and many others come to mind. The authors choose to focus on four key psychoanalytic concepts and their “radical potential”: the unconscious, repetition, drive, and transference.
Unconscious: the ruling ideology structures the unconscious, influencing our desires, fears, and inner conflicts, dictating behavior and our internal sense of self and reality.
The authors caution against two common misconceptions about the unconscious:
– the notion that it is “something deep and dark within us”, connected to our biological nature while psychoanalysis serves to “civilize” it.
– the Jungian idea of the “collective unconscious” as a mystical realm of universal archetypes, which easily leads to problematic concepts like “racial archetypes” where different ethnic groups are thought to have specific ways of thinking, and it is the work of “experts” to identify them.
Instead, the unconscious is seen as “socially and historically produced and reproduced”. It is “the other side of language”. A part of the symbolic order, shaped by social and historical contexts.
Repetition: we unconsciously repeat what we cannot remember because it is too intolerable or traumatic to face directly. We often repeat self-destructive behaviors, i.e. repeatedly choosing toxic romantic partners/friends/allies, overworking to the point of burnout, perpetuating exclusionary or hierarchical practices, or adhering to ineffective strategies in emancipatory movements. Free association provides the opportunity to unmask “the compulsion to repeat” self-destructive patterns and gives an opportunity “to repeat, and fail better”.
Drive: the logic of Capital exploits our ‘vital drive’ and transforms it into a ‘death drive’, manifested in the relentless pursuit of “dead money,” self-destructive work habits, ecological destruction and so on. Critically examining and understanding how our drives are manipulated and exploited, we can re-direct them towards emancipatory and collective goals.
Transference: in the beginning, the Analysand may suppose that the Analyst has special knowledge and insight about them (and thus power over them) but in the process they can realize that they do not. No one does. Including other authority figures, be it parents or “charismatic leaders”. Through transference the Analysand can become aware and re-evaluate internalized hierarchies and illusions of authority, inside and outside the clinic.
So in summary, the authors contend that through psychoanalysis, both theory and practice, radicals could gain a deeper understanding into the barriers, both internal and external, that hinder our pursuits for emancipation.
On one hand, psychoanalysis as a theoretical lens, has undeniably inspired a multitude of thinkers, leading to insights across various disciplines. However, I remain somewhat unconvinced that psychoanalysis holds a unique position in offering these insights. For example, the notion that the “unconscious is historically and socially constructed” can be effectively explored through alternative models, even contemporary neuroscientific models such as Predictive Processing, i.e. how our “generative models and “precision weighting” mechanisms are shaped by prior experience, societal influences and roles, providing a compelling lens that in my opinion exceeds the explanatory (and predictive) power of psychoanalytic theory. Furthermore, I consider claims such as “capitalism fuels our death drives” to be truisms framed in psychoanalytic terms.
On the other hand, psychoanalysis as a practice — although I have no personal experience — it seems more plausible that, if “reformed”, as Ian Parker and David Pavón-Cuéllar propose in this book, it could fulfill its radical potential by giving a space to analysands to work through their past trauma, become more aware of internal conflicts, gain a deeper understanding of how these conflicts intersect with broader societal structures and even become more critical and autonomous. The obstacle, of course, is that currently, psychoanalysis runs as privatized for-profit treatment. This creates a divide where those who can benefit the most from (critical) psychoanalysis cannot afford it, while those who can afford it will not fully appreciate its “radical potential”. To this end, the authors highlight various historical attempts and current movements in support of the “free clinic”, in Europe, Argentina and Brazil among other places, and call for a universal and socially-owned clinics.
So on that note, yes, let us also seize and socialize the means of interpretation and free association.
The aim of “Psychoanalysis and Revolution” by Ian Parker and David Pavón-Cuéllar is twofold:
1) to critique mainstream “adaptive psy” professions and
2) to highlight the radical potential of psychoanalysis to support emancipatory movements both in theory and practice.
1. The authors criticize adaptive psy professions (a) for their tendency to overlook how often it is society that is “sick” and not the individual, (b) reinforcing individualism and separation, a form of dualism between the external environment and the Self, (c) their role in normalizing and adapting individuals into oppressive structures and (d) producing ‘good’ (“functional”, “productive” and obedient) workers and consumers.
For instance, treating depression and anxiety merely as “chemical imbalances” or using CBT to address “dysfunctional thinking patterns and behaviors” often obscures the role of societal factors such as economic insecurity, job dissatisfaction, social isolation, poverty, inequality, lack of access to support systems, the lack community and many other major contributors to mental health. The notion that “if only you’d think differently” or “balance your brain chemistry” will fix the problem serves as a tool to adapt people to reality instead of enabling them to change it. It’s not like drug treatments and “adaptive” psychotherapy are useless or never appropriate (they can even be life-saving in some cases) but they primarily address surface-level symptoms and tend to ignore the underlying root causes. As a result, the symptoms often reemerge or manifest in a different form.
In a sense, I expect the argument to be self-evident to most radicals. What else would be the case? Systems tend to produce individuals who perpetuate and reproduce these systems. Most institutions evolve and are organized to produce, reproduce, and normalize their own existence and support the status quo. Much like the education system or news media, which are primarily designed to produce good workers and consumers — passive, obedient, and uninformed individuals. And surely, if people lacking class consciousness or awareness of other systems of oppression experience negative effects as a result of systemic oppression and encounter mainstream “adaptive psy” professions, they will likely be “adapted” again. But [anecdotal argument alert], I have had numerous friends and comrades suffering from depression, anxiety, drug addiction, or other issues, who went through mainstream psy treatments and, to some extent, benefited from them, without forgetting or ignoring the root causes of their suffering. Once they were better, they returned to their movements and organizations. It seems less likely to me that activists and radicals will be neutralized to the extent of abandoning their struggles by adaptive psychotherapy.
2. There is a long history of both tension and collaboration between psychoanalysis and movements such as Marxism, post-colonialism, feminism, and others. Figures like Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, Louis Althusser, Slavoj Žižek, Frantz Fanon, Juliet Mitchell, and many others come to mind. The authors choose to focus on four key psychoanalytic concepts and their “radical potential”: the unconscious, repetition, drive, and transference.
Unconscious: the ruling ideology structures the unconscious, influencing our desires, fears, and inner conflicts, dictating behavior and our internal sense of self and reality.
The authors caution against two common misconceptions about the unconscious:
– the notion that it is “something deep and dark within us”, connected to our biological nature while psychoanalysis serves to “civilize” it.
– the Jungian idea of the “collective unconscious” as a mystical realm of universal archetypes, which easily leads to problematic concepts like “racial archetypes” where different ethnic groups are thought to have specific ways of thinking, and it is the work of “experts” to identify them.
Instead, the unconscious is seen as “socially and historically produced and reproduced”. It is “the other side of language”. A part of the symbolic order, shaped by social and historical contexts.
Repetition: we unconsciously repeat what we cannot remember because it is too intolerable or traumatic to face directly. We often repeat self-destructive behaviors, i.e. repeatedly choosing toxic romantic partners/friends/allies, overworking to the point of burnout, perpetuating exclusionary or hierarchical practices, or adhering to ineffective strategies in emancipatory movements. Free association provides the opportunity to unmask “the compulsion to repeat” self-destructive patterns and gives an opportunity “to repeat, and fail better”.
Drive: the logic of Capital exploits our ‘vital drive’ and transforms it into a ‘death drive’, manifested in the relentless pursuit of “dead money,” self-destructive work habits, ecological destruction and so on. Critically examining and understanding how our drives are manipulated and exploited, we can re-direct them towards emancipatory and collective goals.
Transference: in the beginning, the Analysand may suppose that the Analyst has special knowledge and insight about them (and thus power over them) but in the process they can realize that they do not. No one does. Including other authority figures, be it parents or “charismatic leaders”. Through transference the Analysand can become aware and re-evaluate internalized hierarchies and illusions of authority, inside and outside the clinic.
So in summary, the authors contend that through psychoanalysis, both theory and practice, radicals could gain a deeper understanding into the barriers, both internal and external, that hinder our pursuits for emancipation.
On one hand, psychoanalysis as a theoretical lens, has undeniably inspired a multitude of thinkers, leading to insights across various disciplines. However, I remain somewhat unconvinced that psychoanalysis holds a unique position in offering these insights. For example, the notion that the “unconscious is historically and socially constructed” can be effectively explored through alternative models, even contemporary neuroscientific models such as Predictive Processing, i.e. how our “generative models and “precision weighting” mechanisms are shaped by prior experience, societal influences and roles, providing a compelling lens that in my opinion exceeds the explanatory (and predictive) power of psychoanalytic theory. Furthermore, I consider claims such as “capitalism fuels our death drives” to be truisms framed in psychoanalytic terms.
On the other hand, psychoanalysis as a practice — although I have no personal experience — it seems more plausible that, if “reformed”, as Ian Parker and David Pavón-Cuéllar propose in this book, it could fulfill its radical potential by giving a space to analysands to work through their past trauma, become more aware of internal conflicts, gain a deeper understanding of how these conflicts intersect with broader societal structures and even become more critical and autonomous. The obstacle, of course, is that currently, psychoanalysis runs as privatized for-profit treatment. This creates a divide where those who can benefit the most from (critical) psychoanalysis cannot afford it, while those who can afford it will not fully appreciate its “radical potential”. To this end, the authors highlight various historical attempts and current movements in support of the “free clinic”, in Europe, Argentina and Brazil among other places, and call for a universal and socially-owned clinics.
So on that note, yes, let us also seize and socialize the means of interpretation and free association.
September 6, 2022
I’ve been depressed since middle school. I’ve been suicidal in high school and university. I’ve been in therapy for two years and in analysis for one year. I’ve been on SSRI for 1,5 years.
That’s my clinical picture. I’ve been trying to reconcile my mental health problems and my politics for a while. I’ve talked to my therapists about my politics, but one of them outright defended billionaires and «all the good they do for people», and another explained my depression as simply chemicals going wrong in my brain.
In analysis I’ve found more freedom to express myself and to develop the ways I relate to myself and others. My politics evolved. And this book helped me find points I need to work on in both clinic and organising. It helped me put them together. It showed me how my lifelong psychological struggles intrinsically related to our path towards collective liberation.
That’s my clinical picture. I’ve been trying to reconcile my mental health problems and my politics for a while. I’ve talked to my therapists about my politics, but one of them outright defended billionaires and «all the good they do for people», and another explained my depression as simply chemicals going wrong in my brain.
In analysis I’ve found more freedom to express myself and to develop the ways I relate to myself and others. My politics evolved. And this book helped me find points I need to work on in both clinic and organising. It helped me put them together. It showed me how my lifelong psychological struggles intrinsically related to our path towards collective liberation.
May 13, 2022
Wanted to like this much more than I did. There's nothing egregious or bad in it, and it might even be recommended as a solid intro to some psychoanalytic terms, or at least an only at times misleading foray into that world that will give you something to hold onto. I am no master of psychoanalysis, but I believe "drive" or "Trieb" is not synonymous with "impulse" or "compulsion" as the authors claim, for one example, which makes psychoanalysis a form of vitalism. Like a lot of vitalisms, it too often sounds like romantic cliche: “The drive is what achieves satisfaction in the capitalist process that devours the planet and corrodes the various diverse human civilizations we have created. It is also, at the same time, what is impelling us to resist this widespread devastation and moving those who fight for their cultures, for the planet, for life and against capitalism. We must choose. This is the choice we face at every moment, and especially now. Our body can be at one with us when we act, but then our nature can be turned into a machine; then our alienated body is a machine turned against us." Body versus machine, life versus death, Vital force of Gaia versus vampiric drainage of capital and the structures of dead labor.
Drive tends to find itself pulled into these sorts of poetic vagaries, as it seems to suggest a principle tying the image of psychoanalysis to naturalistic, evolutionary, and biological law. The sections on the unconscious and the repetition compulsion are not as weighed down by such vagaries, and make some nice points/ask some good questions about why we repeat that which we know to be bad/false/harmful. But the book's main fault is not that it got this or that concept right or wrong but that it's just not much of a joy to read and it lacks force or momentum. It's short but it took me way too long to read. The examples are often too broad to be engaging and the concepts barreled through too quickly with perfunctory definitions. It makes broad, imprecise claims (that I can find ways to agree with in the abstract) like "we are alienated from our bodies", but I can't help feel like it does them a disservice by writing them more like slogans than critical claims. In short, it is similar to a lot of manifestos. Perhaps it's folly to hold a manifesto to a standard outside of itself, but I claim the right in the name of the unconscious (or something).
Drive tends to find itself pulled into these sorts of poetic vagaries, as it seems to suggest a principle tying the image of psychoanalysis to naturalistic, evolutionary, and biological law. The sections on the unconscious and the repetition compulsion are not as weighed down by such vagaries, and make some nice points/ask some good questions about why we repeat that which we know to be bad/false/harmful. But the book's main fault is not that it got this or that concept right or wrong but that it's just not much of a joy to read and it lacks force or momentum. It's short but it took me way too long to read. The examples are often too broad to be engaging and the concepts barreled through too quickly with perfunctory definitions. It makes broad, imprecise claims (that I can find ways to agree with in the abstract) like "we are alienated from our bodies", but I can't help feel like it does them a disservice by writing them more like slogans than critical claims. In short, it is similar to a lot of manifestos. Perhaps it's folly to hold a manifesto to a standard outside of itself, but I claim the right in the name of the unconscious (or something).
Read
September 28, 2023I think this is a fairly good introduction to psychoanalysis for those critical of the 'expansion of the psychological at the expense of politics, society and culture.'
October 16, 2023
Excellent, just excellent. While not groundbreaking in the sense that it doesn't offer anything completely novel (and I don't think that was the authors' purpose to begin with), it offers a comprehensive, cohesive picture of why the core of psychoanalysis is, has been, and was intended to be, radical and community-based. Not a "healing", "self-actualization" practice, but one meant to create disturbance, internal and external, a tool to understand and combat Authority on many fronts.
I will not act as any kind of authority (ha) on psychoanalytic theory, revolutionary or not, but I think this is a great starting point, if one knows a few very basic psychoanalytic terms (even for a complete beginner with some background in leftist/marxist/anarchist theory). Also good for people wanting to read Lacan, but are intimidated by him. All in all, maybe someone with a heavy lacanian/critical psychology background won't find much groundbreaking material in here, but is an excellent starting point - refresher course.
I will not act as any kind of authority (ha) on psychoanalytic theory, revolutionary or not, but I think this is a great starting point, if one knows a few very basic psychoanalytic terms (even for a complete beginner with some background in leftist/marxist/anarchist theory). Also good for people wanting to read Lacan, but are intimidated by him. All in all, maybe someone with a heavy lacanian/critical psychology background won't find much groundbreaking material in here, but is an excellent starting point - refresher course.
January 5, 2026
Ian Parker ve David Pavón-Cuéllar’ın Psikanaliz ve Devrim adlı çalışması, psikanalizi yalnızca bireyin iç dünyasını anlamaya yönelik bir araç olmaktan çıkararak, onu kolektif özgürleşme mücadelesinin bir parçası olarak yeniden düşünmeye davet eder. Yazarlar, kitabın daha ilk sayfalarından itibaren psikanalizin egemen ideolojinin bir taşıyıcısı mı yoksa ona karşı bir direniş aracı mı olabileceğini tartışmaya açar. Bu tartışma, yalnızca psikanaliz için değil, çağdaş psikoloji ve terapi pratikleri için de dönüştürücü niteliktedir.
Kitabın temel iddialarından biri, psikoterapinin özellikle neoliberal bağlamda bireyi toplumsal koşullardan soyutlayarak yalnızlaştırdığı ve yaşadığı sorunları bireyselleştirdiğidir. Parker ve Pavón-Cuéllar, bu durumu şu şekilde ifade eder:
“Psikoterapi, kişinin hayatını düzene sokması gerektiğini söylerken, o düzenin neden böyle kurulduğunu sormaz.”
Bu eleştiri, sadece klasik terapi biçimlerine değil, günümüzde oldukça yaygın olan “iyi hissetme” kültürüne de yöneliktir. Yazarlar, bireysel refahın çoğu zaman yapısal sorunları görünmez kılma işlevi gördüğünü belirtir. Oysa psikanalizin devrimci bir potansiyel taşıyabilmesi için, özneyi yalnızca kendi iç çatışmalarıyla değil, o çatışmaları doğuran tarihsel, kültürel ve politik bağlamlarla birlikte ele alması gerekir.
Kitap boyunca Lacancı psikanalizin kavramları merkezî bir yer tutar. Özellikle "bölünmüş özne", "eksiklik", "arzu" gibi kavramlar, yazarlar tarafından devrimci bir yeniden düşünüş için araçsallaştırılır. Öznenin bütünlenemeyecek yapısı, onu sürekli yeniden kurmaya ve sorgulamaya açık kılar. Bu da psikanalizi statik değil, dinamik ve politik bir alan olarak konumlandırır.
“Gerçek özgürlük, eksiklikle barışmak değil; o eksiklikten yeni bir düzen kurmaya cesaret etmektir.”
Kitapta önerilen “özgürleştirici psikanaliz” anlayışı, terapi odasını politik bir düşünme alanına çevirme çabasıdır. Bu anlayışta öznenin yaşadığı sıkıntı yalnızca bireysel bir sorun olarak değil; ideolojik aygıtların, toplumsal eşitsizliklerin ve tarihsel kodların içselleştirilmiş bir sonucu olarak görülür.
Sonuç olarak Psikanaliz ve Devrim, psikanalitik düşünceyle ilgilenen okurlara sadece teorik değil, etik ve politik bir sorumluluk da yükler. Kitap, psikanalizin egemen sistemin yeniden üretimiyle mi yoksa onun dönüşümüyle mi ilişkileneceğine dair açık bir tercih sunar. Parker ve Pavón-Cuéllar’ın çağrısı nettir:
“Devrim sadece sistemin yıkılması değildir. Aynı zamanda içimizdeki egemen sesin susmasıdır.”
Kitabın temel iddialarından biri, psikoterapinin özellikle neoliberal bağlamda bireyi toplumsal koşullardan soyutlayarak yalnızlaştırdığı ve yaşadığı sorunları bireyselleştirdiğidir. Parker ve Pavón-Cuéllar, bu durumu şu şekilde ifade eder:
“Psikoterapi, kişinin hayatını düzene sokması gerektiğini söylerken, o düzenin neden böyle kurulduğunu sormaz.”
Bu eleştiri, sadece klasik terapi biçimlerine değil, günümüzde oldukça yaygın olan “iyi hissetme” kültürüne de yöneliktir. Yazarlar, bireysel refahın çoğu zaman yapısal sorunları görünmez kılma işlevi gördüğünü belirtir. Oysa psikanalizin devrimci bir potansiyel taşıyabilmesi için, özneyi yalnızca kendi iç çatışmalarıyla değil, o çatışmaları doğuran tarihsel, kültürel ve politik bağlamlarla birlikte ele alması gerekir.
Kitap boyunca Lacancı psikanalizin kavramları merkezî bir yer tutar. Özellikle "bölünmüş özne", "eksiklik", "arzu" gibi kavramlar, yazarlar tarafından devrimci bir yeniden düşünüş için araçsallaştırılır. Öznenin bütünlenemeyecek yapısı, onu sürekli yeniden kurmaya ve sorgulamaya açık kılar. Bu da psikanalizi statik değil, dinamik ve politik bir alan olarak konumlandırır.
“Gerçek özgürlük, eksiklikle barışmak değil; o eksiklikten yeni bir düzen kurmaya cesaret etmektir.”
Kitapta önerilen “özgürleştirici psikanaliz” anlayışı, terapi odasını politik bir düşünme alanına çevirme çabasıdır. Bu anlayışta öznenin yaşadığı sıkıntı yalnızca bireysel bir sorun olarak değil; ideolojik aygıtların, toplumsal eşitsizliklerin ve tarihsel kodların içselleştirilmiş bir sonucu olarak görülür.
Sonuç olarak Psikanaliz ve Devrim, psikanalitik düşünceyle ilgilenen okurlara sadece teorik değil, etik ve politik bir sorumluluk da yükler. Kitap, psikanalizin egemen sistemin yeniden üretimiyle mi yoksa onun dönüşümüyle mi ilişkileneceğine dair açık bir tercih sunar. Parker ve Pavón-Cuéllar’ın çağrısı nettir:
“Devrim sadece sistemin yıkılması değildir. Aynı zamanda içimizdeki egemen sesin susmasıdır.”
February 10, 2025
Psikanaliz ve Devrim: Özgürleşme Hareketleri İçin Eleştirel Psikoloji isimli kitap, Ian Parker ve David Pavón-Cuéllar tarafından pandemi döneminde yazılmış, 2024 yılının sonlarına doğru da Türkçe çevirisiyle Türkiye’de de yayınlanmıştır. Psikanalizi sadece klinik bir süreç ya da bir terapi pratiği olarak değil; toplumsal olanı, politik olanı da anlamak için nasıl bir yol olacağını, hatta dönüşüm için nasıl bir araç olarak konumlanacağını da tartışıyor yazarlar. Önsözde metin için manifesto tanımlaması kullanılıyor. Popüler psikolojinin ideolojik yansızlığına radikal bir meydan okuma hali var. Kitabın ilk iki bölümünün sesi, tonu nasıl diye bir soru olsa slogan tonu diyebilirdim☺️
Kitap altı bölümden oluşuyor. Bunların içinden iki bölüm benim için çok etkileyici, düşündürtücü oldu.
3.Bölüm Yineleme: Tarih, Zorlantı ve Özgürlük.
Politik yenilgilere bu perspektiften nasıl bakabiliriz? Özgürlük tarihle nasıl bir ilişki içinde kurulur? Istırabın hazzı bu yenilgilerin oluşumunu etkiler mi? Solun yenilgisi bir zorlantı mıdır? Bireyin bilinçdışındaki tekrar zorlanımıyla tarihsel tekrarlar arasında nasıl bir ilişki vardır?
“Solun çok iyi bildiği bir şey olarak; gerçek, tekrar etmek istemediğimiz şeyi bile tekrar etmeyi bırakmamamızdır.”
4. Bölüm Dürtü: Beden, Kültür ve Arzu.
Arzu, beden ve kültür arasındaki gerilim nasıl oluşur? Psikanaliz özgürlük hareketlerinden etkilenmiş midir? Beden siyasetin neresindedir?
“Psikanaliz insanları cinselliğin kendilerine söylenen tanımına bağlı kalmak için tasarlanmamıştır; bundan ziyade önümüze yem olarak sürülen her türlü ve ya herhangi bir ‘iyi olduğu iddia edilen şey’ ile ilişkimizi değiştirmemize olanak sağlayan bir kendine sorgulama uygulamasıdır.”
Kitap altı bölümden oluşuyor. Bunların içinden iki bölüm benim için çok etkileyici, düşündürtücü oldu.
3.Bölüm Yineleme: Tarih, Zorlantı ve Özgürlük.
Politik yenilgilere bu perspektiften nasıl bakabiliriz? Özgürlük tarihle nasıl bir ilişki içinde kurulur? Istırabın hazzı bu yenilgilerin oluşumunu etkiler mi? Solun yenilgisi bir zorlantı mıdır? Bireyin bilinçdışındaki tekrar zorlanımıyla tarihsel tekrarlar arasında nasıl bir ilişki vardır?
“Solun çok iyi bildiği bir şey olarak; gerçek, tekrar etmek istemediğimiz şeyi bile tekrar etmeyi bırakmamamızdır.”
4. Bölüm Dürtü: Beden, Kültür ve Arzu.
Arzu, beden ve kültür arasındaki gerilim nasıl oluşur? Psikanaliz özgürlük hareketlerinden etkilenmiş midir? Beden siyasetin neresindedir?
“Psikanaliz insanları cinselliğin kendilerine söylenen tanımına bağlı kalmak için tasarlanmamıştır; bundan ziyade önümüze yem olarak sürülen her türlü ve ya herhangi bir ‘iyi olduğu iddia edilen şey’ ile ilişkimizi değiştirmemize olanak sağlayan bir kendine sorgulama uygulamasıdır.”
December 8, 2023
Sadly this book is a pendulum swinging hard between pontifical cringefest and insightful surprises (as is often the case with manifestos). But I like the bits about the exteriority of the unconscious, how it’s shaped by history, culture and politics. Also the parts where the authors just straight-up annihilated the ego by describing it as if it were a 21st-century liberal. I came to this book hoping to learn how psychoanalysis can be applied in the arena of political struggle, and the best answer I took away from it is by using psychoanalysis as an instrument of analysis. Psychoanalysis is best studied with the aim of forming an incisive critique of our society under capitalism. Despite its flaws and shortcomings there is still much illumination to gain from this book.
May 17, 2025
interesting book, inspiration comes from reading it. though it must be admitted that the form of a manifesto has some drawbacks to it. namely that a lot of claims are made without further argumentation. this leaves one guessing of the proof of set claims.
overal interesting read
overal interesting read
August 29, 2024
1/10
Nas 200 páginas de ‘’Psicanalise e Revolução’’ temos um produto baseado somente na visão concentrada patriarcal sobre a ideia política sobre o que a psicanalise deveria ou não entregar como uma tecnologia de analise universal ou até social.
Ambos os autores criam uma suposta materialidade sobre os aspctos políticos de Freud que não possuem uma comprovação ou referencia em seus comentários ou livros. Colocando palavras na boca do “pater da teoria”, não percebem mas retiram o valor filosófico que esta possui com sua evolução acadêmica e psicológica.
Mas o que chama a atenção durante a passagem das páginas é a falta total de qualquer referências bibliográficas ou citação, seja indireta ou direita. Sua, incrível” ideia era de mostrar um texto que fosse uma introdução tranquila sobre o movimento analítico, mas se tornou um dos meljores exemplos de como o machismo se fundamenta de maneira capciosa na literatura universitária.
Os autores, ambos homens, utilizam de um conteúdo já pesquisado, já fundamentado, já articulado e provado como verdade científica social e o utilizam como se fosse escrito por eles próprios e nem mesmo se dão ao trabalho de colocar algo relacionado os seus estudos. Sendo que pelo conteúdo é nítido ver o trabalho de inúmeras pessoas, principalmente mulheres nos capítulos que abordam a atividade feminista da esquerda radical sendo completamente “roubados”.
O ponto positivo do livro é mostrar de forma clara como a esquerda radical se vê vazia de sentido, foco político e razão social. Os trabalhos realizados por social-democrata, reconhecidos por eles como “pelegos” se tornam mais duráveis e materialmente estáveis.
Vale a pena? Eu não recomendaria. Há livros melhores.
Nas 200 páginas de ‘’Psicanalise e Revolução’’ temos um produto baseado somente na visão concentrada patriarcal sobre a ideia política sobre o que a psicanalise deveria ou não entregar como uma tecnologia de analise universal ou até social.
Ambos os autores criam uma suposta materialidade sobre os aspctos políticos de Freud que não possuem uma comprovação ou referencia em seus comentários ou livros. Colocando palavras na boca do “pater da teoria”, não percebem mas retiram o valor filosófico que esta possui com sua evolução acadêmica e psicológica.
Mas o que chama a atenção durante a passagem das páginas é a falta total de qualquer referências bibliográficas ou citação, seja indireta ou direita. Sua, incrível” ideia era de mostrar um texto que fosse uma introdução tranquila sobre o movimento analítico, mas se tornou um dos meljores exemplos de como o machismo se fundamenta de maneira capciosa na literatura universitária.
Os autores, ambos homens, utilizam de um conteúdo já pesquisado, já fundamentado, já articulado e provado como verdade científica social e o utilizam como se fosse escrito por eles próprios e nem mesmo se dão ao trabalho de colocar algo relacionado os seus estudos. Sendo que pelo conteúdo é nítido ver o trabalho de inúmeras pessoas, principalmente mulheres nos capítulos que abordam a atividade feminista da esquerda radical sendo completamente “roubados”.
O ponto positivo do livro é mostrar de forma clara como a esquerda radical se vê vazia de sentido, foco político e razão social. Os trabalhos realizados por social-democrata, reconhecidos por eles como “pelegos” se tornam mais duráveis e materialmente estáveis.
Vale a pena? Eu não recomendaria. Há livros melhores.
March 24, 2025
3.5 ⭐
Funnily enough this wasn't anything revolutionary. It is one of those non-fiction books that don't necessarily leave you learning something new, but it does formulate thoughts you may have already had in a distinct and easily digestible way.
At the end of the day it was solid analysis that I will probably refer back to. Maybe the fact that the content came off as very self-explanatory to me speaks to the (mostly) well-argued thesis of the authors.
Funnily enough this wasn't anything revolutionary. It is one of those non-fiction books that don't necessarily leave you learning something new, but it does formulate thoughts you may have already had in a distinct and easily digestible way.
At the end of the day it was solid analysis that I will probably refer back to. Maybe the fact that the content came off as very self-explanatory to me speaks to the (mostly) well-argued thesis of the authors.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews