The Last Time: Commentary on Paper by Stuart A. Pizer

Pizer presents poetic details of his patient's complex therapy and analysis. This commentary examines one moment in the treatment that may have violated the potential in potential space. The question is raised as to the impact of such a moment.     

Affective Relatedness in Stance and Process: Commentary on Papers by Stuart A. Pizer and Barbara Pizer

Although these papers by Stuart and Barbara Pizer might initially seem unrelated, I find in them a deep complementarity, presenting an interlocking approach to analytic stance or attitude and analytic process. Both papers are responses to the totalizing nature of knowing that can reduce our ineffable subjectivity to chattel, to be used as spare parts in the service of avoiding the existential agonies of our own vulnerability in the face of death. I see generous involvement as a contemporary formulation of neutrality and as a necessary foundational stance for an analytic process captured eloquently by the notion of moving feeling forward, a process of de-totalizing, of opening a generous experience of the other as an irreducible mystery.     

Love Will Do the Thing That's Right: Commentary on Paper by Stuart A. Pizer,Ph.D., A.B.P.P.

In this paper, hope is explored as a motivating force in analysis. To see the patient's and the analyst's hopes in terms of changes they expect the treatment to accomplish emphasizes the cognitive aspect of hope. While touching on these cognitive expectations, this paper focuses on the emotional, rather than the cognitive, function of hope in treatment. It addresses the question of how hope can inspire analytic participants to have the strength and stamina that analysis requires.     

Narrative Writing and Soulful Metaphors Commentary on Paper by Barbara Pizer

The author posits that Pizer's use of both narrative and lyrical style is not typical in psychoanalysis, whose scholarly tradition tends to favor a denser, more academic style of writing. The ways in which psychoanalysts read these two forms of writing are mirrors of one another. Both kinds of reading are forms of discipline; both forms of writing are necessary in psychoanalysis. The author also writes that Pizer's “nonanalytic third” does not have to be a “good” thing like a poem; it can be almost anything important to the analyst. The nonanalytic third is a soulful metaphor that can be used to create alternatives to rigid experience. Because rigidity in psychoanalytic relatedness is usually the result of problematic unconscious involvements between analyst and patient, the nonanalytic third can be significant in the negotiation of enactments.     

Commentary on Paper by Philip A. Ringstrom

When we feel overwhelmed by an inescapable threat, we “identify with the aggressor” (Ferenczi, 1933). Hoping to survive, we sense and “become” precisely what the attacker expects of us—in our behavior, perceptions, emotions, and thoughts. Identification with the aggressor is closely coordinated with other responses to trauma, including dissociation. Over the long run, it can become habitual and can lead to masochism, chronic hypervigilance, and other personality distortions.

But habitual identification with the aggressor also frequently occurs in people who have not suffered severe trauma, which raises the possibility that certain events not generally considered to constitute trauma are often experienced as traumatic. Following Ferenczi, I suggest that emotional abandonment or isolation, and being subject to a greater power, are such events. In addition, identification with the aggressor is a tactic typical of people in a weak position; as such, it plays an important role in social interaction in general.     

Search Yourself: Commentary on Paper by Kenneth A. Frank

This commentary has as its point of departure essential questions about selfhood, self-knowledge, and therapeutic action. Frank's contemporary redefinition of “mutual analysis” and its impact on the clinical surround are examined, with a special emphasis placed on the willingness of the analyst to change and grow. The vital role and theme of the analyst's emotional honesty are explored with an eye toward the clinical impact of contextualism, psychoanalytic complexity, and the personal attitudes that inevitably permeate the analytic relationship and its trajectory. This commentary, in concert with Frank's paper, encourages clinicians to embrace a more collaborative, mutually analytic posture in their clinical endeavors.     

A Neuropsychoanalytic Viewpoint: Commentary on Paper by Steven H. Knoblauch

In October 2004 it was my pleasure to present at a cutting-edge conference entitled The Interplay of Implicit and Explicit Processes in Psychoanalysis. In addition to offering an address (“The Essential Role of the Right Brain in the Implicit Self: Development, Psychopathogenesis, and Psychotherapy”), I also provided a commentary to Steven Knoblauch's excellent paper, “Body Rhythms and the Unconscious: Toward an Expanding of Clinical Attention.” In the following, I briefly summarize these presentations, with the purpose of showing how current advances in developmental and neuropsychoanalysis are being incorporated into the practice of clinical psychoanalysis. This work is part of an ongoing effort to expand regulation theory, an overarching theoretical model of the development, psychopathogenesis, and treatment of the implicit self.     

High-Risk,High-Gain Choices: Commentary on Paper by Philip A. Ringstrom

In this commentary building on Philip Ringstrom's paper, I address how improvisation, an unpremeditated spontaneous activity emerging within an interactive context, can be analytic even when not shaped consciously by the analyst's reflective capacity and therapeutic judgment. A microanalysis of the nonverbal dimensions of the analytic exchanges that Ringstrom offers is used to illustrate how affective experience can be attended and coconstructed on a subsymbolic process register carried on kinesthetic, somatic, and acoustic dimensions that may or may not be transduced to symbolic expression for mutative analytic impact to have occurred. The metaphor of jazz is added to the metaphor of improvisational theater to help elaborate this view.     

A Warrior's Stance: Commentary on Paper by Terry Marks-Tarlow

This commentary highlights specific aspects of a psychoanalytic complexity perspective in considering and discussing Terry Marks-Tarlow's article, “Merging and Emerging: A Nonlinear Portrait of Intersubjectivity During Psychotherapy.” The advantages of a complexity theory sensibility reside in the areas of (a) providing a robust theoretical framework for understanding the sources and phenomenology of complex emotional life and (b) understanding the clinical implications of thinking through a complexity theory lens. The latter involves examining the attitudes that emanate from such a revolutionary perspective and their impact on the therapeutic relationship and on therapeutic action and change. Special emphasis is placed on the distinction between two vital dimensions of psychoanalytic discourse: the phenomenological and the explanatory. This distinction is used as a lens through which the author considers the essential themes of understanding the complexity of the multiple sources of personal lived experience and their concomitant meanings, personal situtatedness (or “thrownness”), emotional responsibility, and personal freedom.     

Commentary on Paper by Ellen F. Fries

In Perchance to Sleep: Minding the Unworded Body in Psychoanalysis, Ellen F. Fries masterfully articulates the complexities of right-brain to right-brain, body-to-body interactions between herself and her patient. Her work highlights the dominance of the nonverbal implicit self over the verbal, explicit self and provides an excellent example of clinical work in which she thoughtfully attends to the unspoken, bodily based communication that takes place within the therapeutic dyad. In this discussion, I offer perspectives from Sensorimotor Psychotherapy on the impact of early attachment on the procedural organization of action sequences that reflect and sustain the implicit self, and embody unconscious relational expectations. The following topics are addressed: (a) Physical actions that provide avenues of exploration into the implicit self, especially actions such as reaching out, making eye contact, or maintaining an upright posture that are abandoned or distorted when they are ineffective in eliciting the desired response from attachment figures; (b) Body-oriented interventions that target the involuntary physical spasms that Fries' patient experiences, which are associated with unresolved physiological arousal originally stimulated in the face of trauma; and (c) The nonverbal manifestation and negotiation of enactments that emerge from the body-to-body dialogue between the implicit selves of patient and therapist.     

Commentary on Paper by Lawrence J. Brown

Brown's historical overview of post-Kleinian psychoanalysis traces key steps in the evolving and diverse practice of working in the psychoanalytic situation while regarding it as a two-person field. The Barangers' “The Analytic Situation as a Dynamic Field” is central to his narrative. I develop my understanding of the originality of their contribution in theorizing a situational unconscious, and of their continuing relevance for thinking about analytic listening and intersubjective collaboration. Brown presents a countertransference dream of his own along with the dream of a patient as an example of the Barangers' concept of the “shared unconscious fantasy” of the analytic couple. A detailed alternative reading of Brown's clinical vignette reveals an absence of fit with the Barangers' views on collaboration in the analytic situation. Some uses of Bion's “dreaming” and “becoming” are implicitly questioned as they risk encouraging the idealization of special states over process.     

Field Theory: Commentary on Paper by Donnel B. Stern

Stern offers a compelling introduction to a comparative theory of the field in his examination of its origins in the work of Harry Stack Sullivan and of Madeleine and Willy Baranger. Although he notes that Sullivan and the Barangers developed their field concepts separately, I suggest that there is a common context, and I detail this in regard to the early history of the concept, particularly in regard to Merleau-Ponty. Stern describes well the points of common use of the field concept and highlights differences that are the defining line between relational thinking and other orientations. In his view, the Barangers do not adequately take into account the analyst's inevitable participation and do not in the end step out of framing the unconscious as an internal process. I question this reading and ask how we might benefit from an “epistemological pluralism” that would invite working from diverse perspectives.     

Between Subjects: Commentary on Paper by Robert P. Drozek

This commentary on Drozek's paper outlines its key points under 10 headings, looking at various aspects of the intrapsychic and intersubjective elements involved in understanding motivation. There is discussion of issues of autonomy and dignity based upon Kant's philosophy that underpin the paper's assumptions about unconditional valuing of the other as a universal element of intersubjective motivation. In the commentary attention is paid to the role of desire in motivation, as well as some of the psychoanalytical literature on motivation, including papers by Sandler, Loewald, and Winnicott, some aspects of which connect up with the paper's theses. At various points, some of the clinical relevance of the paper's proposals are brought to light, in particular how the patient may be in a position to use the analyst's interventions as a source of intersubjective motivation.     

The Experience of Another Body on Our Body in Psychoanalysis: Commentary on Paper by Jon Sletvold

The current challenge of complexity requires that we overcome the mind–body dichotomy in order to find a more holistic way to explore human experience. Contemporary relational psychoanalysis tries to get past the overemphasis placed on language, and to include the development and promotion of a greater awareness of the bodily experience of the patient and analyst, with respect to their “bodies as they relate to each other.” We especially agree with Sletvold about the notion that psychoanalysis has a great deal to learn from the performing arts in terms of engaging in emotional communication and therefore of training the body to express emotions. This is true in particular for the “arts of time”: music, dance, acting. Unlike Sletvold, we keep the relational standpoint as a point of departure rather than as a point of arrival of processes. According to us, imitation is not the result of induction; rather it is a process whereby we discover and rediscover, that is, we find again the remains of the effects of another body on our body. In clinical praxis we should learn how to allow an ongoing dialectic between the implicit and the explicit. Finally, we underscore that we find the training program proposed by Sletvold original, innovative, and stimulating.     

Commentary on Paper by Michael Parsons

A range of clinical psychoanalytic approaches in the United States is considered as they may parallel Parsons's presentation of an “independent” orientation in Britain.

Attention is paid in particular to the analyst's sense of outsiderness and concern for otherness, along with their moral implications for clinical work. In addition, the limitations of theory and defensive misuse of theory are also addressed.     

Commentary on Paper by Hilary Hoge

In this discussion the author raises the question of the analyst's freedom to sustain paradoxical viewpoints, specifically with regard to dream interpretation and related links to internal objects and the self as they appear in the transference. Paradox allows for the creation of multiple, coexisting meanings that can be played with by patient and analyst. Paradox also makes possible an experience of decentering and destabilization pursuant to Bion's catastrophic change. The risk inherent in the emotional experience of catastrophic change may limit and at times foreclose both patient's and analyst's freedom to tolerate and sustain the effects of paradox.