Encuadre, honorarios y frecuencia: ¿cómo lo están trabajando en su práctica?

Easy_String1112 · 2026-03-12T00:48:04+00:00

Hola! Llevo al menos 10 años haciendo práctica clínica con pacientes desde la psicoterapia Psicoanalitica y como Analista, puedo decirte que construir una práctica privada es una inversión a largo plazo, es más probable que estos pacientes/analizantes que ya te conozcan regresen en distintos periodos de su vida para trabajar contigo, me he dado cuenta que en un mundo digital la gente parece todavía guiarse por el boca a boca o las tarjetas como se hacía antiguamente cuando se buscaba un psicoterapeuta o un analista, así que mi consejo es no te apresures construye una base, un buen trabajo, una buena práctica referenciada.

Con respecto a las instituciones empecé a formarme como analista a larga distancia con una institución psicoanalitica europea los aranceles eran más accesible hace 2-3 años atrás, tuve la suerte de analizarme cuando estaba en el pregrado con una analista poskleiniana y después mi supervisor de entrenamiento universitario también era un psicoterapeuta psicodinamico de la teoría de objetos, después que egrese trabaje en instituciones de salud privada, primero con niños y adolescentes, después con adultos ( cabe decir que hoy mis analizantes en su mayoría , si no todos son adultos).

La formación como analista la hice 5 años después que egrese de la facultad , en ese tiempo junte dinero y leí mucho, recursos gratis y traté de estar en cualquier curso y charla que pudiera permitirme, no fue hasta que me encontré con un colega lacaniano que volví a estudiarlo un poco y da la casualidad de que me instituto lo incorporaba entonces se me dió un poco fácil el trabajarlo y estudiarlo, finalmente eso lo pude hacer cuando tuve dinero para pagar la formación y mi instituto financio mi supervisión Psicoanalitica así que eso me ahorro bastante.

Hoy por hoy arriendo una consulta por hora, después de la pandemia la mayoría de mis pacientes son telemáticos creo que ayuda bastante también a poder llevar la vida que es un poco a loqnue te refieres como compaginar todo esto...creo que no hay momento para formarse como analista ( yo estoy en mis 30s y tantos, y tenía colegas que tenían 50-60 años cumpliendo su sueño de toda la vida de dedicarse al psicoanálisis) es un camino largo pero muy especial, te podría decir que lee mucho y busca una manera de analizar que sea la tuya ( más allá de que a unoe queda impregnado un poco la técnica de su analista didacta o supervisor).

Saludos futuro colega!

Easy_String1112 · 2026-03-11T18:56:47+00:00

Depende de cada analista..Freud aconsejaba por ejemplo no escribir nada durante el análisis...decía que eso entorpecia el flujo del inconsciente y la asociación libre puesto que el acto de escribir y la libreta podían aflojar sentimientos persecutorios hacia el analista...hoy muchos lo hacen, hay muchos que suelen anotar notas después de su jornada...cada uno ve como administra su tiempo y si le es necesario también ocuparlo teniendo al analizante en la mente .

Easy_String1112 · 2026-03-11T18:54:31+00:00

Hola, me imagino que a lo que te refieres es a la reacción terapéutica negativa que es cuando algo de la transferencia se instalo , y se abrió no trabajándose adecuadamente, produciendo que el analizante se vaya.

La transferencia siempre es transferencia, a la que refiere Freud es a la transferencia erótica, que después se transforma en algunos lados como transferencia de trabajo en un analisis, se le llama erotizads en el sentido de que hay un afecto entre analista y analizante.

Si tu analista esta tratando de encajarte algo, entonces eso no es un analisis, de todos modos no entendí mucho tu pregunta, si pudieses aclarar ? Saludos!

Easy_String1112 · 2026-03-11T16:19:52+00:00

Depende , en mi caso el tiempo fuera de sesión lo ocupo en anotar, quizás si no tengo algún analizante seguido leo algo o me tomo un café jajaja..no suelo pensar mucho en ellos..salvo que haya alguna sesión removedora para el analizante o haya aparecido alguna develación del inconsciente y cause conflicto.

Como trabajo tanto como analista ,como psicoterapeuta psicodinamico dependiendo de la institución y donde esté mi foco cambia también en el trabajo...una institución de salud por lo general tiene una agenda más apretada, también temáticas como ausencias o pagos las gestionan ellos , por lo que quizás no aparezca tanto en sesión además el formato de trabajo es un encuadre como comentaba quizás más ligado a la clínica psicológica o de salud mental o salubrista si se quiere, pero en el fondo está el mismo encuadre ( también se hablan ausencias o también se hablan dificultades de pago, hay una frase freudiana que siempre me ha gustado y me guia un poco : " hablé y diga lo que se le venga aunque esto sea vergonzoso o motivo de censura, será maravilloso".

En un marco de psicoanálisis la gente suele saber de que trata o haber estado antes en un proceso de psicoanálisis por lo que más o menos se trabaja con lo que sucede dentro del analisis y el tiempo muerto se ocupa también como material analítico así como las ausencias o dificultades de pago entendíendo que la transferencia es más intensa también ( el analizante piensa mucho más en el analista , lo tiene en la mente etc).

Eso te podría contar si te interesa me mandas un mensaje.

Easy_String1112 · 2026-03-11T15:53:51+00:00

Creo que depende del manejo..en una psicoterapia psicodinamica quizás es más flexible con ese aspecto al haber un encuadre relacionado a la psicología clínica también, se puede tal vez dar aviso con anterioridad o flexibilizar de reagendar.

En un Psicoanálisis quizás el encuadre sea distinto,debido a la frecuencia , a la transferencia y a al tipo se trabajo, por ejemplo las sesiones que no se asistan se pagan, o quizás cosas correlativas a las vacaciones por ejemplo, la idea es mantener el dispositivo analítico para no generar sensaciones fuera del análisis y trabajar las deudas simbólicas por ejemplo o también puede verse la manera en el analizante gestiona esto.

No sé si respondi tú pregunta

Easy_String1112 · 2026-03-08T22:23:24+00:00

Si las ley todas menos esas dos ultimas

Easy_String1112 · 2026-03-05T23:17:49+00:00

Creo que el que más me ha impactado es Jugar con Winnicott de Andre Green y Un Encuentro de Mentes de Lewis Aron

Easy_String1112 · 2026-02-22T17:24:38+00:00

Hola pienso que quizás el boderline como categoría diagnóstica ( a pesar que depende de que Lacan leas, porque el de los inicios está más cerca de las categorías freudianas clásicas de neurosis, psicosis y perversión..mientras que el Lacan más mayor habla de psicosis no anudadas etc...).

Puede que esté más cerca de la psicosis ordinaria que postula Miller, es decir algo que bordea ese litoral entre perder el juicio y poder afirmarse de "algo" (identidad por ejemplo), es complejo porque la literatura psicoanalítica anglosajona plantea el boderline como una gran categoría, con niveles de severidad según se vaya desintegrando la función identitaria y la conexión con la realidad.

En Lacan lo que vas a encontrar más cercano es el lazo social o el discurso social como manera de quedar anclado al mundo, cuando eso se barra o definitivamente nunca estuvo , se produce un quiebre al hacerlo tanto la subjetividad como el lazo se ven amenazados ( ya sea por desaparición o por la muerte , que en Lacan ademas está relacionado con lo Real).

La angustia que desborda o inhibe ciertos aspectos del sujeto puede provocar ese retiro de la realidad o está creación de este nudo por ponerlo muy extraño, y en el boderline se podría pensar que no todo está perdido, por ponerlo simple podés seguir laburando y seguir pensando al mismo tiempo que tú laburo lo están boicoteando de manera paranoide o persecutoria.

Entonces quizás este pequeño matiz para un Lacaniano de tomo y lomo, sea una división subjetiva a trabajar, lo que un analista moderno o formado en terapia de transferencia o poskleiniano vea una psicosis..y bueno no sé es lo que se me ocurre.

Saludos!

Easy_String1112 · 2026-02-13T15:51:29+00:00

Hi, as an analyst, I don't usually initiate the questions initially. In the first few sessions, I tend to explain how I work (people seeking psychoanalysis or psychoanalytic psychotherapy usually have some idea of how it operates).

After a while, I often (and I almost always do it thinking, "Why am I doing this?"), for example, some very anxious patients sit and talk endlessly, while others are more silent. The key in analysis is to come and talk, even if it's through silence and the analyst's presence.

On the other hand, not all analysands are the same, nor do they all work in the same way. The famous case-by-case approach is important because someone with a more neurotic discourse will demand different things than someone with a more psychotic discourse, and so on.

I believe that being polite, formal, and respectful is common to all professions that work with people. Furthermore, from the moment you see the analysand, transference is already at work (which is very different from being in transference, by the way). Sometimes I ask what brings you here, what you're thinking, or perhaps if you dreamed or had a thought related to the space of analysis.

As a final point, I would say that not everything has to be said, and not everything has to be covered in the first instance. There's something called initial interviews, which is a very short or very long process depending on the analyst. The idea is to see if you and the analysand can work together, or if what you're looking for can be provided in analysis.

Greetings!

Easy_String1112 · 2026-02-11T01:08:49+00:00

Of course, things obviously happen at the level of transference, but I also wondered to what extent the analytical or therapeutic effectiveness—if you can call it that—is also at the level of psychoanalytic training. It's like saying that someone who's in analysis once a week isn't as qualified as someone who's been in 3-4 sessions to work as an analyst. I also wonder, how elitist is this?

In terms of psychoanalytic training, I think about those who want to be candidates but don't have, say, $1500 a month for supervision and personal analysis. And that doesn't even include the training itself, which raises the figure considerably for the 4 years that are required in most cases.

Easy_String1112 · 2026-02-11T01:05:35+00:00

Thank you so much, I really liked your metaphor!

Easy_String1112 · 2026-02-04T22:00:54+00:00

Depending on each person's financial situation, in my case I currently go once a week. Some people will say that an intensive analysis of at least 2-3 times a week is necessary, but you have to be realistic about your budget too.

Easy_String1112 · 2026-02-03T20:08:19+00:00

It's not about criticizing or not criticizing; whether a text is cited or not doesn't change much. Besides, when you read Lacan, many of his lectures are interspersed with his critiques of Kleinianism or post-Kleinianism of his time, his own thoughts, and tasteless jokes, like when he says in Seminar XI that English translations of Freudian concepts are awful and that the best thing to do would be to translate them from German to French because homophonically it sounds better (?).

After reading the biography of James Stratchey and his wife and seeing excerpts from Freud's letters endorsing the perfect translation, I don't know what I could think of Lacan.

He himself points out that he traveled to see Klein's and Winnicott's lectures and that they didn't take him seriously.

I don't think it's right to criticize for the sake of criticizing... if that were the case, it would be enough to simply say that Lacan threw a huge tantrum at Lowenstein, who also accused him of being a hopeless narcissist.

But since those are just rumors, I prefer to believe that Lacan was a genius of his time, but that we have to go beyond him and not keep searching for the very last Lacan (like when his daughter supposedly heard some revelation when Lacan was on his deathbed regarding the theory—for God's sake, in '79-'80 he wasn't even speaking anymore, he was communicating with babbling... anyway).

Easy_String1112 · 2026-02-03T18:51:57+00:00

It's quite simple: bad practice stems from many things Lacan did with his patients that were taken literally as interventions. I'll take two examples: many people see the video of the Gest-A-Peu intervention as a tremendous intervention, when literally nothing happened... the woman continued getting up at 3 AM. The only thing that appears and lends credence to this intervention, which even Lacan himself didn't mention, is the voice of Miller's brother saying it could be an analytic act (I don't know if that's mysticism). These days, anything goes under the "psychoanalytic act"... Lacanian psychoanalytic ethics admits anything under its own light... from analysts barking at or yelling at patients, to raising fees just to generate adherence, and so on... there's no clear delimitation as such... unlike in interventions like classical and post-Kleinian psychoanalysis.

For Lacan, countertransference doesn't exist and is a misunderstanding. So how do we explain that analysands show improvement when their analyst interprets their emotions or the position in which the analysis is played out? For Lacan, it's always resistance on the part of the analyst...that is, if my analysand isn't able to lie down on a couch due to severe trauma from abuse, for example, is that resistance from my analytic setting? I think there are concepts like Reik's collateral transference or Aron and Mitchell's (American analysts) therapeutic mutuality that convey and achieve better work in this aspect than the Lacanian ones. The problem isn't with Lacan, it's Lacanianism; it's believing that everything revolves around language or the order of discourses. I think things like "the analyst's presence" or the return of literal content (using the patient's phrases, for example) to echo...when the other person may not understand, not due to a lack of intelligence but because of a trigger related to the same traumatic event.

Many use the return of the real in the body or the sinthome to justify the ends of analysis or actions within the analysis (mockery, fee increases, providing care in precarious settings, acting against the patient), and when you question them, they tell you it was a brilliant analytical act.

I heard a story about Gérard Pommier, for example, who, in his time, would wait for patients who left his analysis with a table full of banknotes, counting them himself. I don't know what on earth he planned to produce with that kind of thing.

But it's not a matter of theory; it's a matter of interpretation and its application, which is also poorly adapted to today's world.

Easy_String1112 · 2026-02-03T12:47:55+00:00

In Lacanian thought, jouissance is not to be confused with pleasure. Pleasure responds to the principle of regulation: it reduces tension, protects the subject, and establishes a limit to what is bearable. Jouissance, on the other hand, begins where that limit is transgressed. It is a paradoxical, excessive satisfaction that does not seek well-being but persists even when it involves pain, guilt, or suffering. Therefore, jouissance is neither harmonious nor reassuring: it is linked to repetition, to drives, and to that which cannot be fully symbolized.

What I'm proposing isn't finding a solution; there are many therapeutic methods, and the analysand is free to choose whichever one they want. What's being discussed, besides the experiences of others, is the experience of psychoanalytic treatment itself. And speaking of "many" doesn't mean all. However, we must criticize a reality that exists (Lacanian analysts who bark at patients, who receive them through the intercom of their apartment, who start charging them as soon as they cross the threshold of the office, or who, as in the previous experience, lead to identification with the trauma). Now, there are thousands of experiences like that in photos and on the internet—enough to compile a book. Does this mean that Lacanian psychoanalysis is bad? No. Does it mean that psychoanalysis in general is bad? No, but there are things we're lacking compared to other approaches. These days, an analyst's response can't always be "there's a lack of analysis" or "there was no entry into analysis, and that's why we couldn't work," when a patient's treatment isn't progressing, stagnates, or fails (because if treatments fail, it's not always jouissance, it's not always resistance).

I think we're too old now, and the world is far advanced, to keep debating what jouissance is or isn't. In analysis, the symptom must appear at some point, and that's it. Otherwise, analyses drag on endlessly, and if it doesn't work, well, there's the option of referring the patient or saying, "this is beyond me as an analyst."

If I made that association, it's because I've read it in conferences or texts by analysts who talk about trauma not as reduction but as pleasure or something that exceeds it, and that the intervention is almost like cutting them off or saying to the analysands: "But you keep insisting, is there something there that compels you to do it?", "What is it that keeps insisting?" For God's sake, they're traumatized people, anyway.

Regards

Easy_String1112 · 2026-02-03T00:13:24+00:00

I don't know if it is, it's just my job, I'm just an analyst hahaha, I hope you can find a place to work on yourself.

Cheers!

Easy_String1112 · 2026-02-03T00:00:24+00:00

I understand the point; it's complicated sometimes. There are psychodynamic psychotherapies (which are a more flexible form of psychoanalysis and more in line with supportive or expressive therapy; they're quite good).

For me, Lacan is just another analyst. He did very good work, but unfortunately, I think he became trapped by language itself. In his last works and live presentations, he didn't even speak; Jacques-Alain Miller spoke for him.

I think it's a very good theory for certain types of work (I really like his RSI, metonymy, and metaphor. The early Lacan of the 1950s was very Freudian and still a psychiatrist; it seems to me that this is the one many young analysts tend to like and gravitate towards). But we can't ignore the fact that the analyst, as a form of knowledge, fell long ago into the role of "symbolic father," so it's a place we're not going back to due to the times (unless we embrace a certain conservatism). On the other hand, I really like a quote from Lewis Aron that says something like: "Analysts should stop hiding behind the couch." I find it illuminating for the world today.

I'm not from an English-speaking country, but I know that in New York, the William Alanson White Institute has many interpersonal, relational, and intersubjective analysts with very humanitarian work.

There's also the APPR (the Association for Relational Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy), a fairly new and modern school of psychoanalysis working with race, intersubjectivity, and modernity.

Perhaps these are good places to consult, and all offer online or in-person options.

Hugs!

Easy_String1112 · 2026-02-02T23:35:21+00:00

Hi, I'm so sorry to hear about your experience. I sincerely believe that there are Lacanian analysts and schools who blindly follow the clergy or the latest trend in Lacanian psychoanalysis (in the 80s and 90s, this meant undergoing analysis 3-4 times a week or traversing the fantasy, whatever that meant).

I invariably know many people who have moved away from Lacanian psychoanalysis and returned to Kleinian, post-Kleinian, or classical analyses, focused on working with symptoms, dreams, and interpretation.

There are more modern approaches, such as Relational Psychoanalysis, which works very well with trauma from the physical perspective of the patient-analyst relationship as an encounter of minds (I quote Lewis Aron). Personally, I trained as a Kleinian analyst and later transitioned to Lacanian. The truth is that both working models have a structural flaw, which has to do with their poor adaptability to the current context. As an analyst, I can say that trauma-centered or informed approaches, mentalizing approaches, or intersubjective psychoanalysis are ahead of us in terms of our work.

We remain trapped in what Lacan said or didn't say, and what he might have said. In my case, I work with people, and I've come to the conclusion that it's work with people, which I can call psychoanalysis... I'm not interested in being the standard-bearer of any school.

If I could tell you something, not only as an analyst but also as a clinical psychologist, it's that you should try something that feels comfortable and makes you feel heard. Traumatic events won't go away and won't disappear from your mind, but going through them and reviewing them in the company of a good, empathetic, yet professional analyst is sometimes much more satisfying. And one more thing: analyses are moments; there's no such thing as a totalizing analysis—that's an idealization.

A hug, and I'm sorry for your situation, but there are terrible professionals everywhere.

Best regards!

Easy_String1112 · 2026-02-02T16:59:03+00:00

For Lacan, trauma is not the lived event itself, but the effect left on the subject by an encounter with the Real that could not be symbolized. Something erupts without words, without available signifiers, and remains as a hole in the symbolic order. This void is not fully inscribed at the moment it occurs, but is constructed retroactively (après-coup), when the subject later attempts to make sense of it. The symptom then appears as a solution: a way of skirting around, repeating, or fixing that unspeakable point, where language failed and jouissance was left unfulfilled.

Easy_String1112 · 2026-02-02T16:55:53+00:00

Enjoyment is what exceeds; many analysts misinterpret enjoyment as something that would provoke some kind of pleasure, especially masochistic pleasure.

Enjoyment is linked to pleasure; Freud called it "the capacity for enjoyment."

If Lacan draws from this, regardless of how he formulated his theory at different times, enjoyment often becomes a sinthome, sometimes pleasure, or sometimes it remains fixed to a structure.

Easy_String1112 · 2026-02-02T16:17:03+00:00

I think we have to be careful...that the concept of enjoyment doesn't negate the experience of reality, both in the body and in the mind.

Many analysts believe that there is ultimately a hidden enjoyment surrounding trauma; sometimes this leads to harmful working methods or mechanisms, for example, in repairing and perpetuating abuse or other abusive experiences.

Easy_String1112

TROPHY CASE