![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
This article explores the themes related to ‘turning a blind eye’. This is first discussed in terms of the marvellous benefits of turning a blind eye and not seeing; this is followed with a discussion about the dangers of seeing and encountering the erotic. History and myth are referenced. Sex is special: the most powerful of all sensual experiences and therefore brings with it the power to transform or distort the mind. The link is made between pivotal developments in psychoanalysis and blindness to erotic manifestations in both patients and therapists. There follows a detailed discussion of the correspondence between Jung and Freud concerning the former’s severe boundary violations with Sabina Spielrein. From there, I discuss later developments within psychoanalysis which continues the theme of ‘turning a blind eye’. I bring this theme up to date with a clinical example of my own illustrating a multiple reluctance to see sexual abuse. The discussion concludes with thoughts about seeing and not seeing erotic material and/or sexual abuse prompted by the grave of Jimmy Savile. I conclude this article with some additional ideas stimulated by the discussion following my original lecture.
Notes
1. For this publication, I have chosen to keep largely to the format of my lecture. I have, however, made major changes to the presentation. For the purposes of a spoken paper, I cut down on the number of literature citations and used a large number of visual slides to illustrate or emphasise some of the issues I was raising. For the purposes of this article, I have elaborated some of the discussion, increased some of the literature citations and cut back (for space and copyright reasons) on the visual images. Essentially, though, this written article follows what I originally presented.
2. Up to this point, I had been showing slides of Nelson, cupid, advertising for underwear and a still from the film, ‘Fifty Shades of Gray’: all using blindfolds as a common image to suggest both not seeing and sexual excitement.
3. At this point in my talk, I diverted into a discussion of an altogether different family, the Hindu myth of Shiva, Parvati and Andhaka which gives a very different, functional resolution of the Oedipal problem. I have described this more fully elsewhere (Mann, Citation1995). As with the Oedipus story, blindness is a recurring theme in this Hindu myth.
4. In my lecture, I erroneously said that I thought this new affair was with another of Jung’s patients, Antonia (Toni) Wolff. Actually, Wolff started her analysis with Jung in 1909, was his lover by at least 1913 and was coming to Sunday lunch with Jung and Emma from 1915. By all accounts this open affair, folie a trois, was very difficult for Emma!
5. Following my lecture, the lively discussion ranged far and wide. Some people suggested that we all make mistakes, none of us are perfect so who are we to be judgemental? I find that these thoughts are quite similar to the Jungian therapist I quoted earlier on: ‘There but for the grace of God go us all’. It also brings the Biblical quote to my mind: ‘Let those amongst you who are free of sin cast the first rock’. Perhaps it was directed at me in particular regarding my views about Jung’s character! Of course, up to a point, this is true. But there are two serious points to be made. First, you cannot make distinctions if we are all the same. Second, there is all the world of difference between the kind of mistakes most therapists will inevitably make and the severe boundary violations that The Code of Ethics in every counselling and psychotherapy organisation prohibits. We are not all the same nor is every boundary infringement of the same order of magnitude or seriousness. I would further add that it is very important not to confuse Christian morality, because that is what it is, as the same thing as the analytic attitude. The question is not simply about can we make judgements or should we not be judgemental, but rather do we have the capacity to make distinctions, for example, between the very serious and the not so serious? I would suggest that calling ‘we all make mistakes’ rather misses the point, as this seriously blurs the capacity to make distinctions and see differences. There is another important point to be made here. This concerns the limits and/or the appropriateness of what we might think of as the analytic attitude (Schafer, Citation1983). If Jung were one of my patients, I think the analytic attitude rightly ensures that I would try to treat him in a containing but non-judgemental attitude. However, we should question whether the analytic attitude is appropriate outside the analytic therapy setting. For example, whether it is always appropriate to use a therapeutic attitude with a non-patient in a non-therapeutic, non-analytic setting? For instance, if a therapist was brought in front of a Malpractice Ethics Panel, more than just understanding and analytic attitude is required. The protection of the patient (and future patients) and the reputation of the therapy profession requires some judgement to be made with a range of sanctions and recommendations ranging from the requirement that the offending therapist returns to personal therapy, gets better supervision, might be prohibited from seeing patients and in some cases might even be struck off for malpractice.
6. During my lecture, I used photographs to illustrate this section. The first was a picture of Savile’s memorial stone, the second was of the space left after the memorial had been taken down. For copyright reasons I have been unable to include these pictures in reproduction for this article.