Embodied Care in the Classroom: Ethics, Group Psychology, and the Promise and Limits of Democratization

Freud famously identified governance, psychoanalysis, and teaching as the three “impossible professions.” In The Question of Lay Analysis (1926), he wrote:

“I have often expressed the opinion that the three professions which have to deal with the treatment of the human mind [psyche]—the healing of the sick, the education of the young, and the governance of communities—should be bracketed together. They are distinguished by a specific feature: an inevitable lack of success.”

This insight underscores the challenges inherent in each profession, where absolute mastery and definitive outcomes are unattainable. Teaching, like psychoanalysis, engages with the complexities of human relationships and unconscious dynamics, which Freud further explores in Analysis Terminable and Interminable (1937). There, Freud reflects on the open-ended nature of psychoanalysis, acknowledging its “interminable” quality:

“There are no indications of any limits in time to the length of a series of such changes; the final outcome of the treatment must depend on their number and on their intensity.”

These observations are equally relevant to the classroom, where the relational and unconscious dimensions of teaching create radical complexity. Both teaching and psychoanalysis demand an ethical commitment to embodied care—a relational presence attuned to the subtle, unconscious dynamics shaping individual and group interactions. When teaching or therapy moves online, these embodied dynamics are fundamentally altered, raising critical questions about whether virtual spaces can fully replicate the relational care possible in physical settings.

Lacan and Freud

The Ethics of Embodied Care in Group Psychology and the Lacanian Other

Freud’s Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (1921) highlights how collective dynamics are shaped by shared identifications and emotional ties. He writes:

“A primary group of this kind is a number of individuals who have put one and the same object in the place of their ego ideal and have consequently identified themselves with one another in their ego.”

In the classroom, the teacher often occupies this position as the idealized figure, shaping the group’s shared dynamics. Lacan’s concept of the Other deepens this understanding, framing the teacher not only as an object of identification but also as a representative of the symbolic field of language, knowledge, and power. The teacher mediates the group’s relationship to the Other, structuring the collective’s interaction with authority, desire, and meaning.

Both Freud’s and Lacan’s frameworks emphasize the indispensability of embodiment in these interactions. The teacher’s ability to attune to subtle shifts in tone, posture, or collective energy depends on their physical and relational presence. Online classrooms, while democratizing, disrupt this embodied connection, fragmenting the group’s affective ties and weakening its symbolic coherence. As Freud observed, groups rely on emotional bonds to sustain their cohesion; when these bonds are diminished, the dynamics of identification and collective engagement are destabilized.

Democratization and the Challenges of Disembodied Care

Online education and therapy offer profound opportunities for democratization, expanding access to transformative spaces that were once limited by geography, cost, and systemic barriers. Virtual classrooms allow students to engage with higher education regardless of physical location, while online therapy provides a lifeline to individuals in areas where psychoanalytic services are scarce. These developments align with democratic ideals, ensuring that education and mental health care are not privileges reserved for the few but rights available to many.

Yet this democratization comes with challenges. The relational and unconscious dynamics central to teaching and therapy cannot be fully replicated online. Freud’s observation in Analysis Terminable and Interminable that psychoanalysis is inherently open-ended applies equally to teaching: both practices are “interminable” because they engage with the unpredictable and evolving nature of human relationships. The absence of physical presence in online spaces makes it harder for teachers and therapists to read and respond to the subtle dynamics of group psychology and the Other. This loss risks weakening the affective and symbolic bonds that underpin both learning and healing.

AI in the Classroom: A Tool or a Disruption to Embodied Care?

The integration of AI into the classroom further complicates these dynamics. As demonstrated in The Authors of Silence, AI can support collaboration, analyze data, and facilitate creative processes, but it cannot engage with the unconscious dimensions of teaching. AI lacks the capacity for relational presence or the ability to navigate the affective and symbolic dynamics of group psychology. While AI can be a valuable tool, its limitations reinforce the need for a teacher who can mediate the group’s relationship to the Other and attune to the unconscious forces shaping collective interactions.

Moreover, AI risks displacing the teacher’s role as the primary mediator of the Other, positioning itself as an authority or source of knowledge. This shift can destabilize the relational dynamics of the classroom, amplifying silences and creating fragmentation rather than fostering connection. The ethics of cyborgian care in education demand that AI enhance, not replace, the embodied relational field that underpins both teaching and learning.

Conclusion: Embodied Care as a Democratic and Ethical Imperative

Freud’s recognition of psychoanalysis and teaching as “impossible professions” highlights the radical complexity and open-ended nature of these practices. Both require an ethical commitment to embodied care—a relational presence that is attuned to the unconscious dynamics shaping individual and group interactions. Online education and therapy, while democratizing, must navigate these challenges with care, ensuring that the pursuit of accessibility does not come at the cost of relational and ethical engagement.

The ethics of care require balancing democratization with the need for embodiment. Both the clinic and the classroom depend on the subtle interplay of affect, identification, and the dynamics of the Other. As Freud reminds us, these spaces are never finished; they demand an ongoing commitment to repair and transformation. In both education and psychoanalysis, care must remain central, ensuring that democratization enhances rather than diminishes the relational and ethical dimensions of these essential practices.