Physical spaces and mental space. How Hong Kong people deal with high density living.

 (A research project)

The relations between psychoanalysis and architecture have been largely underestimated. Architecture cannot simply be considered as the "projection of the architect's unconscious mind"; nor are we interested to what is called the "architecture of the mind". Psychoanalysis goes beyond the "perspective" and the "point of view". Both psychoanalysis and architecture are science of the speech; both indicate how things are being written. We aim at a psychoanalysis and architecture without representation.

I present here an attempt to a research project to investigate in a original and more productive way the relations between psychoanalysis and architecture:

Abstract

The urban area of Hong Kong has one of the highest population and employment density in the world. As of 2013, there are more than seven million people for its 1,068 square kilometres (412 square miles) of land. There is a myth that high population density is often associated with social pathologies and problems. However, only studies on animals have proven this association. There is little correlation between density and social pathology – deviant behavior, crime and suicide – when other socioeconomic variables are considered. This is particularly true in Hong Kong, where the very high density of development has not been accompanied by many of the social illnesses expected in the Western experience. The Hong Kong Chinese have not eliminated tension, stress and conflict, but they have developed ways for managing effectively space, time and people.

However, some variables suggest that high density living has effects on the human mind and the psychological development of individuals.

What are the relations between the living conditions of Hong Kong (the external, physical space) and its effects on the psychology of people (the inner, mental space)? How do the Hong Kong Chinese cope with living in a high density place? What psychological consequences it has? How do people prevent or manage conflicts in relationship? What is the price to pay for pursuing harmonious relationships in a high density living? Is high density living related to the level of awareness of one’s own unconscious desires and feelings?

Research Objectives

The Chinese have developed some strategies for coping with high density living (Anderson, 1972). Literature describes Hong Kong culture as very practical, concrete (Hall and Ames, 1998; Liang, Cherian and Liu, 2010; Jullien, 2004/b) and money oriented (Chen, 1995; Yeh and Wang, 2000). Life is fast paced and hongkongers are normally described as hardworking. The social structure of Hong Kong has perhaps favored interdependency among people, rather than developing individual critical thinking (Nakarama, in Redding 1990). Hong Kong Chinese culture is flattened on a horizontal, relational level, and apparently less concerned than European or North American cultures with understanding or analyzing transcendence or inner reality (Busiol, 2013). More than in other cultures, the social network is central for the Chinese (Yeung, et al, 2012), and feelings of acceptance, trust (Fang and Faure, 2010; Fukuyama, 1995; Ke and Zhang, 2003), and hope are emphasized over the content of communication (Mok, Wong, and Wong, 2010; Tong, Hung, and Yuen, 2010). The Hong Kong Chinese show a peculiar attitude toward speaking and listening (Busiol, 2013), distinctive help seeking behaviors (Cheng, Lo and Chio, 2010), and preference for passive coping strategies; they are oriented toward “solving” rather than “analyzing” problems (Ho, Tsui, Chu, Chan 2003), and evaluate practical problems more than emotional problems. The Chinese thought developed for providing answers (for regulating a way of living together, for example), rather than posing questions; efficiency and practicality are emphasized. Direct communication is often avoided. There is a great concern for meeting others’ expectations in order to obtain social acceptance, maintain relational harmony, and avoid social sanctions (Hwang and Han, 2010).

Understandably, harmony in relationships becomes a very important value when living in places with high density, so it became a keyword in the Hong Kong Chinese culture; but, at the individual level what is the price of pursuing social harmony? A series of social phenomena may indicate the need to redesign a mental space different or alternative to the physical space in which people live, which is not enough. The phenomena of “hidden youths” (reclusive adolescents or young adults who withdraw from social life, often seeking extreme degrees of isolation and confinement; see Wong, 2009), the internet addictions (Cheung, Chiu and Lee, 2011), and the continuous and almost uninterrupted use of the phone, just to name a few, can be interpreted as different attempts to recreate a virtual space (giving different limits and barriers) where the current living space is lacking. Such phenomena allow at the same time higher proximity (everybody seems so close, anytime) and higher distance (the connection can be interrupted anytime; it is not too intrusive; it can help to overcome shyness) from others; thus, these can be ways for taking distance from situations deemed too invasive, and ways to create one’s own privacy.

One hypothesis is that high density living reflect in a reduced inner space and a reduced attitude toward cultivating inner feelings and desires. This research aims at clarify the relations between living in high density and the need for harmony on one hand, and the need to redesign a virtual space, which is also an inner, space with different barriers and limits on the other hand.

It is expected that pursuing harmony is reflected in lower awareness and expression of unconscious feeling and a reduced attitude toward questioning, so as to avoid conflicts. Furthermore, it is expected that long working hours are also a consequence of lower personal space at home. The variable trust is also expected to be correlated to the great concern for securing a safe space for one’s own. Finally, it is expected that the use of internet is very high because it allows to a virtual space that overcome the lack of physical space and barriers and distance from others.

  

Practical relevance

This perspective helps to debunk some myths about high density living and investigates more in depth some issues that have been only partially or superficially analyzed. Previous research on Hong Kong show that high density, if better planned and managed, can be an interesting and pleasant environment. However, previous research only focused on external, observable behaviors, and were not able to highlight and investigate the dynamics between people and the effects of reduced living space on individuals and the unconscious mind. This research bridges architecture and psychology/psychoanalysis and shed some light on the implications and consequences of high density living.

Results are pragmatic because they show how the external space is perceived by individuals and reflected in the inner world. A reduced living space does not necessarily lead to social pathology, or higher mental illness, as incorrectly assumed in the past. However, it does not go without consequences on the mind, and this research aims at showing what such consequences may be.

References

Abbas, A. (1994). Building on Disappearance: Hong Kong Architecture and the City. Public Culture, 6(3): 441-59.

Anderson, E.N. (1972). Some Chinese methods of dealing with crowding. Urban Anthropology, 1 , 141-150.

Busiol, D. (2013). Is Psychoanalysis missing from counseling in Hong Kong? 在香港的心理輔導中，心理分析是否遺漏了呢? City University of Hong Kong. PhD thesis, unpublished.

Chang, C. (2001). Harmony as performance, the turbulence under Chinese interpersonal communication. Discourse Studies, 3(2), 155-179, Sage, London.

Chen, C.P. (1995). Group counseling in a different cultural context. Several primary issues dealing with Chinese clients. Group, 19, 1,45-55.

Cheng, C., Lo, B. C.Y. and Chio, J.H.M. (2010). The Tao (ways) of Chinese coping. In: Bond, M.H. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Psychology, (pp. 399-419), New York, Oxford University Press.

Cheung, C.M.K, Chiu, P.Y. and Lee M.K.O. (2011). Online social networks, Why do students use Facebook? Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1337-1343.

Cheung, S. (2001). Problem-solving and solution focused therapy for Chinese, recent development. Asian Journal of counseling, 8(2), 111-128.

Fang, T. and Faure, G.O. (2010). Chinese communication characteristics, A yin yang perspective. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 329-333.

Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust, the Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. The Free Press.

Hall, D.L. and Ames R.T. (1998). Thinking from the Han, self, truth, and transcendence in Chinese and Western culture. Albany, State University of New York Press.

Ho, W.S., Tsui, M.S., Chu, C.K. and Chan, C.C. (2003). Towards culturally sensitive EAP counselling for Chinese in Hong Kong. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 18(4), 73-83.

Hwang, K.K. and Han, K.H. (2010). Face and Morality in Confucian society. In: Bond, M.H. (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese Psychology, (pp.479-498). New York, Oxford University Press .

Jullien, F. (2004/b) Treatise on Efficacy, Between Western and Chinese Thinking, Honolulu, University of Hawai'i Press.

Ke, R., Zhang W. (2003). Trust in China, A Cross-Regional Analysis. William Davidson Institution Working Paper No. 586. Available at http, //ssrn.com/abstract=57781i

Leong, F.T. (1986). Counseling and psychotherapy with asian-Americans, review of the literature. Journal of Counseling psychology, 33, 196-206.

Liang, B., Cherian, J., Liu, Y. (2010). Concrete Thinking or Ideographic Language, Which is the Reason for Chinese People's Higher Imagery Generation Abilities? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(1), 52-60.

Mok, E., Wong, F., Wong, D. (2010). The meaning of spirituality and spiritual care among the Hong Kong Chinese terminally ill. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66(2), 360-370.

Redding, G. (1990). Management education for orientals. In: Garratt, B. and Stopford, J. (eds), Breaking Down Barriers, Aldershot, Gower.

Tong, K.K., Hung, P.W., Yuen, S.M. (2011). The Quality of Social Networks, Its Determinants and Impacts on Helping and Volunteering in Macao. Social Indicators Research, 102, 351-361. Doi, 10.1007/s11205-010-9686-4

Wong, V. (2009). Youth locked in time and space? Defining features of social withdrawal and practice implications. Journal of Social Work Practice, 23, 337–352.

Yeh, C.J. and Wang, Y.W. (2000). Asian American coping attitudes, sources, and practices, Implications for indigenous counseling strategies. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 94-103.

Yeung, E, Irvine, F, Ng, S, Tsang, S (2012). Role of social networks in the help-seeking experiences among Chinese suffering from severe mental illness in England: A qualitative study. British Journal of Social Work, 43(3):486.

Psychoanalysis: from the talking cure to the listening cure

In 1895, before the term psychoanalysis was adopted, the verbal therapy offered by Freud was described as talking cure, or chimney sweeping. It was noticed that the very act of talking could alleviate the symptoms by discharging the energy repressed. However, Freud soon realized that the cathartic effect of talking was temporary, if not matched with an adequate listening. Indeed, I propose that the birth of psychoanalysis has been possible because of this shift from talking to listening. Listening is probably the term that best sums up and captures the essence of psychoanalysis, and this different emphasis on listening rather than talking is likely what distinguishes psychoanalysis from all other (more recent, but pre-psychoanalytic) therapeutic approaches. But then: what listening? How to listen to the unconscious?

Psychoanalysis is not psychology, psychotherapy, or medicine. Part 3/3

this is the following of a previous part, which you can find here:

http://diegobusiol.blogspot.hk/2013/05/psychoanalysis-is-not-psychology_30.html


Part 3:

  

Psychoanalysis differs from any other practice also because it makes a different use of the transference. Transference is what ties one person to another. At the same time, it makes the relationship irreducible to the two persons; it indicates that there is more. It is what makes possible to address a question to someone. Transference is not just the repetition of a past relationship. Transference is not an accident; it is at the same time the motor and the resistance of a cure. It is what allows a process to begin, but at the same time it may be what opposes to this process to produce a change. In psychoanalysis the transference is considered by the psychoanalyst. He or she should be aware of the transference, and should be aware that it is more important the position where s/he speaks from, than the content of his/her words. Being a psychoanalyst means that one is occupying a particular position in someone’s discourse, and this position should be preserved. A psychoanalyst cannot really believe to master some specific knowledge or technique. A psychoanalyst occupies an empty place, and this emptiness is what provokes the analysand to produce his/her knowledge. The analyst should resist the temptation to feed the client, to answer him/her. Instead, the position of the analyst should be preserved, because the analyst works at the one to whom a question can be addressed. 

This is obviously just a fiction, because the addressee is the Other. The Other has a capital letter because it indicates a radical otherness, a radical difference. It means that the “I” is not fully master; it means that we are ruled by the unconscious, and we have to deal with this. Not only we are not “master in our home” (and for example we are subjects to the symptoms), but it means that we cannot fully know our desires, and our phantasm until we go through it. This means that we can only know something of our unconscious desires when we start talking. This is the only condition at which we may be able to see something happen. Only talking we may discover something about our desire, because when we talk we have the chance to listen to our speech, and we have the chance to encounter something of our unconscious, even though it sometimes come up through lapse, slips of tongue, and other unexpected, funny, and may be not always pleasant ways.

 

So, what psychoanalysis shows is that we are occupied by the Other, which is also the culture in which we were born, the normative Other, the system, the society, the family, etc…in short everything that is unconscious and has shaped our discourse. We were born in a discourse, as part of a current discourse; we are sons of our times. But still, we have a chance: listening to the discourse in we are caught, so that we can go through that discourse. This will result in less dependency by all the identifications and beliefs we have gained before. And of course, we can decide to stay still within the same culture, within the same society. But a journey has begun, a journey that may leads to reconsider all that we say, and don’t give anything for granted. This journey is not against society, and it is not against living with others. Psychoanalysis will not make of us more individualistic people (this is a frequent prejudice). Instead, it may lead to a different living with others, as it may lead to encounter the solitude. Solitude means that speaking (and every word works by difference to another word) we differentiate by the mainstream. But at the same time we differentiate by our “self”. 

Psychoanalysis follows the unconscious, and the unconscious has nothing to do with the individualism. Individualism and collectivism are just two sides of the coin, and both are ways for avoiding the unconscious. Psychoanalysis shows that we are always in relation to the Other; this means that we cannot erase it, we cannot erase the unconscious. Being alone and self-sufficient is thinking that we can skip the unconscious, that we can cut it out. Living all together, living as a group is another defense from encountering the unconscious. The group is the idea that we can replace the Other with many others; it is the idea that living with others we can avoid the anxiety that encountering the unconscious may give.

So, psychoanalysis is not a technique for managing the anxiety, or for limitating it. On the contrary, it shows that anxiety is much related to the unconscious, and that a bit of anxiety is probably necessary. But anxiety seems to be something pathological. Medicine proposes to reduce anxiety with pills; psychology teaches how to manage anxiety and reduce the stress; psychotherapy help to prevent anxiety and substitutes the irrational beliefs. But psychoanalysis proposes to listens to such anxiety, as this is a chance, because that anxiety may shows the way to a treasure. Psychoanalysis shows that fear may be real, but the danger is only imaginary.

Psychoanalysis is not psychology, psychotherapy, or medicine. Part 2/3

this is the following of a previous part, which you can find here:

http://diegobusiol.blogspot.hk/2013/05/psychoanalysis-is-not-psychology.html

Part 2:

Today it seems that everybody is affected by some symptoms (symptoms are very fashionable. They are like a dress, they normally last for a season, then are replaced by different symptoms, and we almost don’t hear about the previous anymore). We see pathology everywhere. So, for example, now the Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is very fashionable today, and the kids are suddenly very troublesome. Or they are very bully. But no one asks where such phenomenon come from. Nobody concerns to listen. All are worried to find solutions. Solutions are answers that we give to problems. But problems are easily given for granted; the premises are rarely investigated. Every practice (medicine, psychology, psychotherapy) has its own answers, its own techniques, and its own ready-to-use solutions. This is obviously quite impressive for the audience, and for clients. It is obviously more impressive to provide answers, no matter how superficial they are. Giving answers sets a limit to anxiety, and I would say regardless to the content of the answer. Understandably, many clients want to feel that the therapist masters some knowledge and has the answers. This is what people expect from specialists. Because knowledge is like a rock on which we can hang on. Without the rock of knowledge, we may feel lost. The anxiety would be overflowing. But in this case, it has to be said frankly that the only specialist can be the client, who indeed in psychoanalysis is expected to become the analysand.

But it normally works for a limited time. Freud too has begun with hypnosis, but soon he abandoned this method. Instead, a more fruitful and farsighted way is to focus on the question, rather than the answer. Elaborating the question is the most difficult task, but at the same time it is the more pragmatic, and the more concrete.

 

What is a question? A question is not a request, nor is a demand. A question is an investigation. A question opens. A question introduces a bifurcation: from the 1 to the 2. It shows that something else is possible. So, a question doesn’t aim at suggesting simply another solution (this or that). A question is not just an alternative. It is something more, because while we pose a question, we operate a shift of position in the speech. A question opens to the un-thought. A question introduces some new element; it is not simply a translation from one language into another. A question is effective when it makes think differently, meaning when it subverts our beliefs, finally when it opens to the Other.

 

So, psychoanalysis doesn’t go in the direction of a universal knowledge (like medicine, or psychology, or philosophy). Instead, it shows that even similar symptoms can have for everyone different grounds, and different place in one’s history. So, psychoanalysis is for each one a different journey. It may happen that people go through the same questions (who am I? where is my desire? Why I cannot get what I want? Etc…) but everyone will articulate different stories and go in different directions. What psychoanalysis shows is the singularity of the case. Every case is different from another, and it is not possible to refer to something like a manual of psychoanalysis, or a dictionary of dreams, or a dictionary of symptoms. There are no definitive answers. This is also the reason why psychoanalysis is virtually un-ended, a lifelong journey.

 

So, of course posing questions is not easy. We all want to find answers, and we all want others to give us the answers. Normally when a patient comes to us, he or she speaks non-stop for 45 minutes, and then tell us: “Ok, now I think I have told you everything. So, what is my problem? What is the solution”? Everybody expects to find the solution in few sessions. But actually, since there is no pathology and no disease, then there is no solution too. The point is that everybody can give an answer. But what is really difficult is to pose the right question. This is what we can do: posing and further articulating questions. This is the only starting point. Of course some clients are disappointed when we make questions and don’t give answers, but this is the only chance for them to try articulating their answer. This also leads us to think the position of the psychoanalyst.

 

Who is the psychoanalyst? Is s/he someone who really has the answer? Maybe yes, maybe no; this is not the point. Even if the analyst possessed the answer, this would be quite useless. Psychoanalysis is not just a matter of transferring information, from an expert to a novice: knowing something doesn’t produce any change. So, it is the client (in psychoanalysis is named analysand) who has to go through this process, with his/her speech. It is not the content of the talk that is important. Important is that the analysand goes through the process, through this imaginary knowledge. Important is that s/he goes through, meaning that there is not an ultimate, definitive knowledge. Psychoanalysis is a process of losing something (identifications, beliefs, etc…) rather than accumulation of knowledge.

And it is even difficult to say what happens within the consultation room, because the conversation doesn’t follow the standard of a dialogue. There is not a teaching to transfer, or no irrational belief to correct. Even though psychoanalysis has been named “talking cure”, it is actually and first of all a listening cure. The listening is in foreground; but a different listening, which is not just hearing. It is a listening that aims at the misunderstanding, because the misunderstanding indicates that another meaning is possible; it shows that another direction is possible. Indeed, words carry much more than it seems. So, the psychoanalyst will try to listen that other meaning that possibly arise from the words of the analysand, rather than trying to get his/her intended meaning.

Psychoanalysis is not psychology, psychotherapy, or medicine. Part 1/3

Psychoanalysis is an art of listening, and as such it can be at the same time either the easiest or the most difficult occupation. I studied clinical psychology at the University. Together with medicine, it was the only accepted degree for becoming a therapist later (not a psychoanalyst). However, psychology and philosophy sounded more interesting than medicine. At least, their declared interest for humankind seemed more straightforward than medicine. On the other hand, the weak scientism, the rationalism and materialism of medicine seemed to me a rough and presumptuous oversimplification. Such aridity, then, is what often times opens the door to spirituality, as a sort of compensation. Materialism on one hand, and spirituality on the other hand. It is the effect of the split between body and mind.

What I realized only later, as a psychology student and at the same time as analysand, is that also psychology and philosophy are very different from psychoanalysis. The first, psychology, suffers of a dangerous complex of inferiority to medicine, and just tries to emulate it. Not surprisingly, this way is leading nowhere. The second, philosophy, is a sophisticated practice of thinking. But Freud showed effectively that thinking is just the top of the iceberg, the small part that we see up the level of the water. But the important part is down there. But philosophy is all about thinking, reasoning, or (but it is just the other side of the coin) repressing or suspending the thinking (meditation). Even the most developed phenomenologies remain simply at the level of the thinking. As such, they aim to produce a universal and sharable knowledge.

Both psychology and philosophy do not recognize the unconscious. Both elude the listening. Even though both psychology and philosophy apparently emphasize the question, and the questioning, finally they just aim at producing answers and delivering teachings. The questioning in psychology and philosophy is the at best a maieutics, a method for guiding the other to a truth that is already written. Indeed, this is not a listening that opens to anything new; this is simply finding confirmation for what has already been said.

Despite many medical doctors claim that psychoanalysis should be accessible only to them (meaning with this that psychology, psychotherapy, or even psychoanalysis are branches of medicine), psychoanalysis lies at the antipodes of medicine too, for several reasons. Medicine (just as psychology and psychotherapy) is more likely in search of a universal knowledge, what is true for all.

The symptom, in medicine, is intended as a malfunctioning. Thus, medicine and aims at curing the symptom (more likely erasing it). Instead, in psychoanalysis there is a different conception of the symptom, which is not at all intended as a malfunctioning. For Freud the symptom was like a text that the person cannot read anymore. It was like having a text in an unknown language. At the beginning, Freud was thinking that the work of analysis was to give interpretations, so to finally discover the meaning of this unknown text. However, later became clear to Freud that the working through of the analysis was not that simple, and that a first version of the text was probably not even available. The symptom is likely impossible to understand once for all. But what is important is that Freud, for the first time, didn’t treat the symptom as something external to the client. Instead, he investigated the relations of a person with his symptoms, showing that the symptom has a particular place in our psychic economy. The symptom serves for something. At the same time, it is an attempt of self-healing, and something that provide a secondary satisfaction. Freud defined the symptom (and all the forgetfulness, the lapse, the dreams, the slips of tongue, etc…) as a compromise formation between different instances.

So, we see that the work of psychoanalysis is much more complex than in medicine. In medicine we think that we know what a body is. In western medicine there is a clear distinction between the body and the mind. For instance, the body of the western medicine is normally seen as a passive body. It is the body that lies on the bed (from which the etymology of the word clinic). Actually, this ideology is shared by psychology and psychotherapy, which consider the symptom as a cognitive or physical impairment that has nothing to do with the person who owns it. To such practices the symptom simply makes no sense. Thus, their goal is to get rid of it, and free the person by such scrap.

Instead, psychoanalysis starts from here. In psychoanalysis there is no waste, so the symptom has a completely different relevance. The symptoms speaks about the subject. It is the particular modality of enjoyment of a subject.

 Freud has shown is that there is an unconscious. And the unconscious is not stupid, or damaged. Then, rather than being worried to fix the symptom, what we first need to do is to read the symptom differently, and try to question that symptom. To be precise, symptoms are not accidental: the symptom is inscribed in a particular unconscious logic. What psychoanalysis always shows is that we are always somehow implicated in what happen to us. So, the symptom always talks about us, and what we should do is to listen to this symptom. The symptom has some specific ways for emerge; however, we can find it structured in a discourse (where for discourse we intend a fixation of the speech). Indeed, the symptom can become the most powerful resource for us.