Freud and narcissism: Developing links for inclusion of the ‘object’

Abstract

The problematic of narcissism in the way Freud visualized forces us to acknowledge the dualism of drives inside the subject; the object relations theory then builds up on the inherent need and the structuring potential of the object. The paper traces the growth of this concept in Freud's thinking in a bid to show how the object's otherness is not fully metabolized within the Freudian corpus. On the other hand, recent criticisms of object relations theory point to the perfunctory role ascribed to Freud's most radical discovery of the dualism of drives. Winnicott, Laplanche and Green have all developed theories that have provided pertinent rejoinders to the problematic of narcissism and object relations. The paper discusses how deconstructing and “going back over Freud” helps us to redefine object relations and give the drive functioning due importance. Hence the main thesis of the paper – that of narcissism – reveals the decentered subject's tussle with itself and with the alienness emanating from the object's otherness. If used creatively, ideas such as “otherness”, “objectalizing function” and Green's conceptualization of the clinical significance of negative and positive narcissism then seek to enrich the theorization on narcissism.     

Experience‐What is it?

The author takes a renewed look at the constitutive aspects of experience, looking at it as process rather than contents. Recently more psychoanalytic voices are discernible that argue for the complexity and multi-leveled nature of inner experience. Yet the predominant and preeminent psychoanalytic voice has traditionally emphasized the linearity and single-factored nature of experience and all that is based on it: development, object relations, psychopathology, and treatment. The author offers an understanding of experience as stemming from the operation of two contiguous, ongoing modalities of processing internal and external input, and reflecting two polarities of the subject-object experience: of separateness and instrumentality, and of oneness and ongoing being. Such a conceptual reframing of experience harbors multiple implications for understanding subjectivity and inter-subjectivity, inter-relatedness as well as single-person psychology, and the all-important role of an experiential 'goodness-of-fit' in the analytic situation and elsewhere.     

叙事医学在医学教育与临床实践中的五个关键词

叙事医学是新时代医学人文的落地工具,以医护患三大主体的叙事素养提升以及多维度生命和谐健康关系构建为中心议题。围绕叙事医学强调的叙事素养、关系构建、身份认同、主体间性和视域融合五个关键词,全方位阐释这一医学教育和实践新模式。叙事素养是实现和谐关系构建、医护职业和患者身份认同、主体思维模式和视域差异融合的综合体现,由关注力、再现力、互纳力和反思力四个方面能力构成。叙事素养以叙事性文本细读训练为内化手段,以叙事性反思写作为检验工具。     

论医患身体主体间性

医患身体主体间性理论是对主体性医学的反思,是在身体哲学思想影响下形成的学术研究成果,是身体主体间性理论在医患关系研究领域的展现。当下医患关系中的各种问题的根脉深藏在医患身体主体间性之中。医患身体主体间性实然状态的体现是：医患身体主体间性维度的裂解、医患身体主体平等的相对性、医患身体主体差异的绝对性和医患诊疗活动涉身的选择性。医患身体主体间性应然状态希冀是：“双手共现”的医患身体主体间性、医患身体主体间性促进医患共同决策、导向医患共识和增强医患共情。

     

咨访关系中的客观与主观

咨访关系是种特殊的、动态的、治疗性的人际关系,咨访双方互为主体.其间,咨访双方探求的"客观真实",因时空情境、历史文化、价值观念和个体经验不同而各异.建构主义认为真实是多元的,而在涉及心理现象,尤其是心理咨询与治疗的咨访互动的人际关系过程时,实证主义也显得力不从心,使咨访关系中的主观与客观成为很有争议、有价值的探讨点.     

Being, thinking, creating: when war attacks the setting and the transference counter-attacks

When trauma enters into the reality of the analyst and of the analysand, when it attacks the setting, what becomes of the analyst’s role? How can transformations be brought about? With reference to three clinical situations, the author attempts to explore how the articulation between transference and countertransference – the inter‐relation – structures the situation; the analyst must remain in his or her role as analyst through managing to create and to reflect upon the clinical aspects of that situation when faced with the unpredictability of what war brings in its wake. It then becomes possible to see how the work of the negative can be confined to the outer limits of the setting.     

Subject in first person--subject in third person: subject, subjectivity, and intersubjectivity

In this article, the author traces the history of the concepts of subject, subjectivity, and intersubjectivity in different psychoanalytic theories in the last decades. She argues that the uniqueness of these concepts and their different implications were not emphasized enough. The author discusses the various implications and contexts of the concept of subject in psychoanalytic theory proper and to relate as to: (1). The need to distinguish between the concepts of subject and subjectivity; (2). The mutual interdependence of the subject and his subjectivity and the intersubjective domain (both in the development of the individual and in theoretical thought pertaining to it). Her point of departure is from the position of the subject as a free creature, the centrality of the experiencing individual, from his/her perspective—the subject in the first person. She tries to explain the paradox implicit in the experiential dimension, the place of the other as participant, as both negating and recognizing—the subject in the third person. She suggests the interdependency of the first-person experience of subjectivity on the intersubjective dimension.