A qualitative exploration of psychoanalytically-oriented psychotherapists’ subjectivity in relation to money-matters and the implications thereof on the analytic process

Abstract

This study examined UK-based psychoanalytically-oriented psychotherapists’ subjectivity in relation to money-matters and the implications thereof on the analytic process. Since the therapist’s fees are integral to the analytic setting and process, the objective of this study was to understand psychotherapists’ thoughts and feelings regarding money-matters and their impact on the psychoanalytic process. This investigation was deemed important since, despite contemporary understanding of the analytic process as co-constructed by both analysts’ and analysands’ psyche, current literature on money-matters largely focuses on the latter whilst neglecting the former. Following a qualitative approach, this study involved in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 19 UK-based psychoanalytically-oriented psychotherapists, with reflexive thematic analysis as the chosen method for analysing the data. Following the data analysis and in light of existing literature it is argued that, in the context of British culture, money is often regarded a taboo topic, resulting in a particular resistance to talking about and, thus, thinking about money-matters. This resistance is particularly apparent within the psychoanalytic community where monetary needs and desires are felt to be in conflict with therapists’ ego-ideal. Consequently, money-matters are often experienced in the psychic-equivalence pre-mentalizing mode, whereby internal states are felt as concrete representations of reality. Accordingly, rather than flexibly oscillating between the concrete and the symbolic, money-matters become lodged in the former pole of the concrete-symbolic continuum. In turn, difficult elicited feelings in relation to money-matters, such as shame, guilt, greed and envy, cannot be reflected upon, leading to various modi operandi which primarily serve to defend against these feelings, rather than being in analysands’ best interest and in the interest of the analytic process. The findings’ central implication is that, unless psychotherapists begin to mentalize their attitudes towards money, money-matters cannot be worked through within the analytic process, thus limiting patients’ personal development. This study makes an original theoretical contribution to the scarce literature on money-matters and the analyst’s subjectivity, and an original clinical contribution to our ever-expanding understanding of the psychoanalytic process.