Your observation brings out a fundamental challenge to the practice of psychoanalysis—or any form of deep psychological exploration—in an environment where political constraints shape, and often limit, personal expression. Psychoanalysis relies on the freedom to explore unconscious desires, fears, and conflicts without censorship or repression. For an analysand to fully engage with their psyche, they must feel free to express thoughts, dreams, or fantasies that may be socially or politically transgressive.
In a setting where even private thoughts might be subject to political scrutiny or self-censorship, the space required for genuine psychoanalytic work becomes constrained. The therapeutic process depends on ambiguity, openness, and a willingness to explore whatever arises, no matter how uncomfortable or controversial. When certain thoughts, particularly those related to political authority or forbidden topics, are off-limits, the unconscious becomes guarded. This restriction could prevent analysands from honestly confronting the inner conflicts that psychoanalysis seeks to uncover and work through.
The analyst’s position is also compromised if they must navigate political considerations, as they may be unable to fully explore or interpret dreams and thoughts that touch on sensitive topics. In this way, the environment compromises the core of psychoanalytic work: the freedom to explore the mind’s hidden layers without repression. When ambiguity is lost, replaced by a clear, politically sanctioned boundary on thought, the analyst-analysand relationship risks becoming superficial or performative rather than transformative.
So, in a sense, you’re right: psychoanalysis as it was conceived may struggle to function in such an environment because it fundamentally requires a realm of exploration and ambiguity that cannot coexist with imposed ideological conformity.
