• Brummbaer@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    Freud and anything that came out of it was and is still a talk-therapy for rich people.

    If you were working class you had the option of self medication with drugs or being put into an insane asylum, if you broke down.

    So yes, Freud is still relevant, if you can afford it basically.

    • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      I don’t know that I can agree that the entire field of talk therapy is the sole domain of the rich. I’ve engaged in one-on-one talk therapy, and that was while entirely jobless and without income of any kind. Got it totally free. It took some jumping through hoops, yeah. And it was as an adjunct to other treatment modalities rather than the primary; but that’s actually a good thing, not a bad one since one-on-one is way less effective than other modalities for most people in most situations.

      What is absolutely true is that acces without either very high income, or unusually great insurance (here in the US at least) is much harder, and often with long waiting times, as well as being very difficult to schedule. In my area, you can expect to be limited to monthly sessions outside of crisis, and if you have to cancel, it will not be a quick new date. But, again, one-on-one talk therapy isn’t a first line of treatment.

      There was most definitely a hard class barrier originally, and it’s entirely possible it could get that bad again.