Conference Report

REMOTE CONTROL: PSYCHOANLYSIS AND TELEVISION

A conference entitled “Remote Control: Psychoanalysis and TV” took place in the Anna Freud Centre lecture theatre, London on 29th and 30th October 2010. It was sponsored jointly by the Freud Museum and Media and the Inner World, a research network which explores the role of emotions and ideas of therapy in popular culture within the UK. During the conference, psychotherapists, psychoanalysts, academics, programme makers and presenters discussed the function and ethics of TV in the modern world. As still the most common form in which images and narratives are transmitted, they asked how TV functions intrapsychically and interpersonally and what its significance might be for psychotherapy. The opening discussion on Friday evening featured TV comedy script writer, Laurence Marks, who spoke with moving simplicity on how bouts of depression and despair led him firstly to his analyst’s couch (who upon his death bequeathed Marks his entire works of Freud) and ultimately to the cathartic creation of many of TV’s most popular sit-com characters. Marks’ unassuming, almost abashed attitude to his fame was as heart warming as his plea for the preservation of story-telling; something as old as the human race and in danger, he said, of erosion from the present ubiquity of reality television.

I experienced the following day as a veritable rollercoaster of debates, discussions, film excerpts and impassioned dialogue. Contributors included Valerie Sinason (psychoanalyst), Brett Kahr (psychotherapist and author), Carol Leader (psychotherapist, former presenter and actor), Oliver James (clinical psychologist, author and broadcaster) Dan Chambers (independent producer and former Director of Programmes, Channel 5), Richard McKerrow (producer), Tom Sutcliffe (presenter and journalist) Jonathan Phang (subject of the Marchioness Disaster Survivors’ documentary*), Sue Vice (Professor of English at the University of Sheffield) Sara Ramsden (Consultant Executive Producer for the BBC) and Candida Yates and Caroline Bainbridge (Co-Directors of Media and the Inner World). The energy and commitment the media representatives brought to the day was matched only by their good humour in the face of the inevitable differences of opinion at times – (after Oliver James’ critique of the ‘narcissistic’ and ‘psycopathologically disordered’ people who he claimed are drawn to television production, Richard McKerrow, one of the resident producers, responded wryly: “It would seem perhaps I am more of a fan of Oliver’s work than he is of mine!”) Conference co-organiser Candida Yates referred to the new ‘therapy culture’ of 21st century and reality television, with its air of self-discovery and pursuit of fulfilment. Is it inevitable that such things are simply about narcissism and superficiality? Could they possibly include a reflection of more empathic times?

I can give here only a snapshot of the day’s proceedings. I must confess that I unashamedly expected to be entertained by such a conference and the participants did not disappoint, particularly Brett Kahr who, as participant on the first panel, discussed with customary wit and erudition, the informative role – both diagnostic and therapeutic – that television can play in the consulting room. (The notion of TV as an ‘earth’, safely grounding the two electric currents of therapist/patient connectedness sprang to mind during his talk). Kahr illustrated his points with diverse clinical vignettes, including TV as Bionian bizarre object and crucial signpost to a patient’s
unbearably traumatic past. The material vividly conveyed the relation between
television as barometer of movement and change and its more active facilitating role at times, particularly for our more deeply troubled and isolated patients. Questioning whether the media simply reflects a copy of, or actually shapes the unconscious, Kahr concluded that as the average individual apparently spends 11 years watching television, it may have a hand in the shaping of phantasy. The panel also discussed ways in which psychotherapy is represented on TV and whether the media is not increasingly implicated in a cultural flailing sense of self. Yates concluded that perhaps at best, television might be seen as a transitional space – a theme which recurred throughout the day - allowing us to safely experiment, fantasise and to try out different positions and identifications.

I was taken with one of Valerie Sinason’s points during her introduction of the next panel, discussing ethics and therapy in terms of television. Sinason referred to the ‘smallness’ of our profession compared with the juggernaut of the media and how we might be wise to be wary of falling into defensive, fearful or contemptuous positions. Writers such as Zizek (1989) have ensured that popular culture is less ignored in psychoanalysis than it used to be and we need to embrace these opportunities for interdisciplinary dialogue. Here the quite fierce debate was around whether, with reality television – and indeed with many documentaries – there can be such a thing as honourable filming. By this the discussants meant something other than exploitation of contributors for the prurient ‘money moment’, followed by a casting aside – ie after they have been reduced to tears, exploded in rage, humiliated themselves or perhaps even died live on TV. Mckerrow’s argument, using his film of the Marchioness Disaster survivors’ stories - that TV producers can achieve this ethical position, can provide a kind of Greek chorus to bring relief to sufferers - and at best truth, visibility and validation to the abused, was juxtaposed by Oliver James’ sincere and vociferous doubts as to whether the vulnerable citizen’s needs and wellbeing are ever really put first. James’ view of how the most damaged, ‘narcissistic’ people invariably rise to the top of television hierarchy was picked up by Sinason with her later comment that we might ‘usefully reflect’ on James’ account with reference to the helping professions as well. I felt uncomfortably aware that my own desire for recognition cannot and should not always be neatly reconciled with Benjamin’s (1995) healthy developmental, intersubjective strivings. The age-old question may remain as to where the shadow goes in the helping professions; and one cannot help thinking that perhaps, at least sometimes, the age-old answer is into the drive towards power and ambition.

The final panel, chaired by Sara Ramsden, in discussing the shared cultural experiences which are offered by TV, returned to the question of its therapeutic potential in relation to the inner world. Here – and during an all-too-brief plenary – one of the many things explored and illustrated was the relevant distinction between - and application of - words like transitional object, transitory object, transitional space, transitional process and transitional phenomena. Carol Leader used the traditions of children’s television from the fifties onwards to speak movingly about ‘the whole delicate, vibrating balance of transitional space’; how crucial it is and how easily lost. There was general agreement that TV can satisfy the rest that human beings need from the absolute distinction between fact and fantasy and that identifications with fictional characters can have very real consequences. Kahr suggested that since Winnicott’s transitional object is by definition inert, it is perhaps as ‘transitional phenomenon’, like for example mother’s voice, that TV’s potential is best described – whether for good or ill.

The possible downsides from the viewer’s perspective were also fully acknowledged during the conference – for instance that TV can be watched in an autistic way, or as a ‘white noise’ manic defence – and that it can indeed be a literal obstacle to relating directly to the world. Likewise fundamental issues such as voyeurism, exhibitionism, prurience and authenticity versus performance of authenticity were also discussed. Reality TV shows can appeal to our baser instincts, carrying our shame and dread of humiliation, failure, loss, rejection and abandonment. What self-states were activated, I wondered, in the widow (cited by Sara Ramsden) who ‘allowed’ her husband’s death to be filmed?** Did she really know from her own process what she was consenting to? Could it have been ‘communicarthis’ for her, a term used by McKerrow's earlier in the day? Or were there painful post-programme psycho-biological changes leading to complex regrets even though both husband and wife had consented – indeed apparently invited the camera access? McKerrow suggested that, similarly perhaps to therapy, a great deal hinges on the programme maker (or clinician) and their motivations and Ramsden left me wondering if it is too easy to simply pass judgement and assume that for everyone, dying and one’s death should remain a deeply personal and private experience. Although a contentious area and initially repelled by the thought of this programme, I gradually found myself remembering an irrational desire, when my father died, to ring everyone in my entire address book, even those who had never known him and hardly knew me on a personal basis either. This seemed to reflect a powerful longing for the gravity of my loss, registered internally as absolute and profound, to be recognised and registered externally as well. In this way, what perhaps for many of us, may seem shocking, macabre and even repugnant, might contribute to the necessary symbolisation of the traumatic event for others, particularly in western culture, where funeral and mourning rituals are often more subdued and underplayed than in other cultures. McKerrow emphasised that a study of post-reality TV show participants is much overdue and studies of people’s viewing habits, particularly for instance, the differences in those of the securely and the insecurely attached, were also very usefully suggested during the plenary.

There was all this and much more. I can only thank the Freud Museum and Media and the Inner World for breaking new ground with this very successful venture. Speaking of the media and popular culture, on a last personal note, just a couple of days after the event, I heard a psychologist reflecting that it is not what has happened to us that defines us, but what we do with what has happened to us. Surely Mrs Klein could not have put it better herself. And where did I hear this? Where else but the mighty BBC Radio Two!

* The Marchioness was a pleasure boat which capsized and sank on the River Thames in London on 20th August 1989, during which large numbers of people lost their lives.

** The programme was a five part series entitled ‘Death’, commissioned by Sara Ramsden and broadcast by Channel Four in 2001

References
Benjamin, J (1995) Like Subjects, Love Objects, New Haven: Yale University Press
Zizek, S (1989) The Sublime Object of Ideology, New York: Verso