I feel as if people tend to discredit Freud and the psychodynamic/psychoanalytic approach to

treating less severe mental illnesses such as depression, anxiety and phobias.
If a person becomes depressed because theyre dealing with situational, external environmental
factors such as financial issues, bereavement, physical illness etc., then its an obvious ab=c
pattern (mentally healthyinherently negative and uncontrollable stressors in life that cause change
= feelings of anger, anxiety, depression, etc). Therapy isnt usually necessary in these situations if
an individual has had a positive relationship in early life with their parent(s) or carer(s), good
emotional development and skills necessary to deal with these emotions.
-Its important to note that this only applies to normal negative life events. For example, having a
parent die in your adult life or losing a job are examples of common, negative life events everyone
will experience. They have temporary effects including negative emotional reactions, however the
severity of the reaction is what should be focused on. For example, an ineffective and overly severe
way to respond to losing ones job would be to turn to alcohol or drugs. Often, people who do turn
to drugs or alcohol to deal with problems in life have either seen their parents do the same, or have
had parents who did not display any clear reaction to negative events, thus leading the child to feel
guilty for having an emotional reaction at all. Losing a parent at a young age, becoming homeless,
living in a war zone (etc) are experiences of trauma, that are not a normal part of the average
persons life and will almost inevitably lead to mental illness. They therefore cannot be considered
to be a part of abnormal psychology in the sense that a person is forced to develop certain
behavioural coping mechanisms in order to survive, as opposed to their being a range of ways in
which to cope with ordinary problems.
For some people, they may become depressed purely because of biological or physiological factors
such as chronic physical illness or disabilities that negatively affect quality of life. However, there is
debate as to whether and to what extent genetics have a role in the explanation for depression.
Adoption studies have been said to show evidence for depression both in the child and parent.
However, it is likely that a mother or father who has to give their child up for adoption had to do so
because of a negative environment that would be unsafe or impossible to raise a child in- it is not
surprising that a parent may become severely depressed after giving their child(ren) away. If their
child or children spends their first few months of life in an orphanage before being adopted, the
evolutionary theory of attachment suggests that it is likely for them to have relationship and
emotional difficulties in the future, due to the privation of an early attachment to a caregiver.
Research by conducted by Stanford University states that if someone has a parent or sibling with
major depression, that person probably has a 2 or 3 times greater risk of developing depression
compared with the average person (or around 20-30% instead of 10%). However, the nurture side
of the nature vs. nurture debate could argue that living with a family member suffering from major
depression is likely to cause difficulties in the relationships between the family members. A child
living with a parent suffering from major depression will face a degree of emotional and physical
absence of their parent, particularly if they have recurrent major depression. This may be what
causes the child to become depressed later in life if triggered, as they will be accustomed to how
major depression manifests itself from observing their parents or siblings. Most people, let alone
children, are aware of what major depression is like to live with; for an infant to see major or severe
depression affect a close family member of whom they live with, their perceptions and
understanding of the severity of depressive symptoms are thus much deeper than most peoples.
In my opinion, psychoanalysis should be seen as a last resort treatment for mental illness and health
issues, as it is the most expensive and is a process that takes years. In many cases, it simply is not
necessary or relevant to some people suffering from psychological abnormalities (such as

schizophrenia or bipolar, of which there is far greater genetical evidence of). If a person is
abnormally depressed in reaction to a temporarily negative environment or life event, medication
can be used or general counselling/psychotherapy. Cognitive behavioural therapy may also be
useful, but often ignores the genuine lack of control a person has over a situation. Simply telling a
depressed single mother who is unemployed and in debt that she should change her cognitive
processing seems highly dismissive, and does not address the issues that have caused the
depression. However, for a person with a phobia or social anxiety for example (that is not comorbid
with depression), CBT is effective in helping the person unlearn their irrational reactions to
harmless things. Anxiety and phobia related disorders that are not accompanied with depression, are
likely to stem from a specific, potentially dangerous incident which was not emotionally dealt with
(eg, being bitten by a dog and then having a fear of dogs) in a healthy way, if at all. But, if a person
is suffering from depression or anxiety/phobia related disorder and there appears to be no obvious
external or physiological explanations, the only theory that remains is the psychodynamic
explanation.
Unexplained phobias that cannot be traced to a specific point in a persons life may be explained by
repressed childhood memories. There seems to me, to be little point in attempting to treat the
symptoms of a fear that is not fully, consciously understood by the individual. It is a common
complaint of behavioural therapy, is that it treats the symptoms of fear and anxiety as opposed to
addressing the cause of fear. If there are no obvious biological or external environmental factors that
could be used to explain a persons neurosis, it seems self evident to conclude their thought process
behaviour is the result of their childhood experiences. Severe phobias of things that are not
commonly feared may be symptoms of repressed trauma. Children repress traumatic experiences in
life as it is necessary for them to do so in order to cope with the experience. Victims of PTSD and
trauma related disorders often develop phobias or are intensely triggered by things associated with
their trauma- people who have unexplained phobias may have developed them in reaction to a
traumatic experience that has since been repressed.
For individuals who become depressed or anxious in adult life for reasons that arent a history of
depression in the family or known difficult, emotional or traumatic experience, it is likely to in
relation to learned unhealthy emotional processing from their parents and/or siblings. For example,
a child from a white, heteronormative, middle class family [such as myself], may appear to have no
reason to become depressed or anxious later in life, as there are no obvious external factors that
could have put the child at risk or in a situation that could be expected to lead to depression.
However, for children, behaviour of parents and/or siblings is the norm, and the basis of which they
develop emotionally. A family member with their own psychological issues, who negatively
projects these emotions onto their children or siblings, inevitably will affect the childs
understanding of what they consider to be normal behaviour.
Something else I was thinking about is the effectiveness of using the internal working model to
predict the outcome of our future relationships. The idea of daddy issues is sort of a pop
psychology thing, I think.. Its based on the century old theories of Freud, but Im fairly sure it is
not a widely accepted theory amongst psychoanalysts or researchers of psychodynamic theory. I
dont know if this is the more modern, currently accepted idea, but I do not believe that issues with
parents are gender specific, and the assumption that women have an electra complex (daddy issues)
and men having an oedipus complex, is heteronormative and demonises single parents, particularly
daughters of single mothers. A single, happy, healthy and psychologically stable mother, is unlikely
to raise a daughter who grows up to have, what people call daddy issues. Firstly, she could be a
lesbian, but more importantly, her mother would have demonstrated to her that there is no need for
the presence and relationship with whatever is considered to be a father figure to be happy.
However, a daughter of a single parent who has had several failed romantic relationships with men,

may be likely to develop the same habits and subconscious belief that they, like their mother, need a
relationship with a man in life to be happy. The same would apply to the son of a single man,
however, I think it is important to focus on the obsession with young girls and the idea of daddy
issues, the fucked up DD/lg community, porn in general etc., and the pseudo psychological
generalisations made in reference to the women involved in sex work/women with an affinity to
certain sexual preferences and kinks that are within the realms of pedophilia and incest.
Bowlbys internal working model and continuity hypothesis suggest that the first attachments we
develop as babies (mother, father, brother, etc), are what we build as an internal working model
which predicts our future relationship. The second quarter of the first year of life is considered to be
the most important for our development of relationships and attachments, however if unhealthy
attachments are developed at this point, they can be fixed as long as it is within the first three years
of life. This theory is developed from Freuds original ideas, but provided with evolutionary context
and erasure of emphasis on the gender of a child or parent. The daddy issues stuff people always
talk about, is an idea that is not shared with many psychologists and is patriarchal, misogynistic
propaganda used to place the make it seem like theres some psychological, Freudian explanation
for why girls have daddy issues, rather than focusing on the men involved in the violence of
sexualising minors, pornographic promotion of incestual sex, etc.