Creating an Intersubjective Reality: Commentary on Paper by Arnold Rothstein

The author discusses Arnold Rothstein's paper “Compromise Formation Theory: An Intersubjective Dimension” and challenges his definition of intersubjectivity. She offers a perspective in which the import of intersubjectivity theory is less to dissolve the notion of objectivity than to grasp processes of mutual engagement, regulation, and recognition. While it is true that the recognition that the analyst is also a subject and therefore does not have exclusive knowledge is an important shift in the psychoanalytic paradigm, the author suggests that the intersubjective is far more encompassing than this. Intersubjective theory emphasizes the active creation of consensus or conflict about reality rather than merely the recognition that the analyst's perspective on reality is subjective. This cocreation produces a different emotional experience of connection, not merely a change in the quality of insight. Finally, Rothstein's case illustrates how he responds to the need for recognition and regulation. He shows us how focusing on the procedural allowed him to make an intersubjective shift, not simply an intrapsychic interpretation of compromise formation.     

Multiplicity as a Form of Enactment Commentary on Paper by Graham Bass

In this commentary I address the functions of gender and of bodily state as a way of managing memory, affect, and interactions. I consider the status of alters as narrative or as historical truths. Graham Bass's case illuminates problems and potentials of touch and the inevitability of intersubjectively constructed enactments.     

The Coparticipant Field: Commentary on a Paper by Juan Tubert-Oklander

Psychoanalytic field theory is integral to relational praxis. In his study of the analytic field and its interpersonal complexities and relational intricacies, Tubert-Oklander emphasizes its clinical promise. Tubert-Oklander's field orientation, however, is a conservative and limited one. This commentary proposes a new, more radical coparticipant theory of analytic praxis.

As a unique form of clinical participation, coparticipant inquiry is marked by an emphasis on patients' and analysts' relational mutuality, coequal analytic authority, and dyadic uniqueness. Coparticipant inquiry represents both a one-person and two-person psychology—an integral of classical individualism and the social emphasis of the interpersonal/relational viewpoint. Coparticipant analysis calls for a new, multidimensional concept of the self that reconciles the seeming paradox that we are simultaneously communal and individual beings—from birth embedded in a series of social field, yet always uniquely individual. This psychoanalytic dialectic between personal, nonrelational selfic “I” processes and an interpersonal “me” pattern brings into relational play such concepts as will, self-determination, and agency. Coparticipation promotesatechnically freer, more self-expressive, and spontaneous inquiryandemphasizesthecurativeimmediacyofnewrelationalexperience.

I have believed for a long time that human

nature is a reciprocity of what is inside the skin

and what is outside; that it is definitely not

“rolled up inside us” but our way of being one

with our fellows and our world. I call this field

theory.

—Gardner Murphy     

Commentary on Paper by Steven Cooper

In this discussion of Steven Cooper's paper, it is argued that, although Cooper's desire to hold himself “accountable” in his work with patients is laudable, the “pluralistic third” approach that he employs gives rise in his doing so to several difficulties in the way that it is described in the paper. The vivid clinical material that Cooper provides to illustrate his approach is used as a starting point to offer an understanding of what transpired between analyst and patient, which although convergent with Cooper's formulations in some respects nevertheless follows a very different line of thinking in other areas. Broadly speaking, it is suggested that although these divergences arise from many sources—a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this contribution—one particular issue involved is a rather different understanding of the role of early internalized object relations in the patient's psychic life and the way these get lived out at many levels in the treatment situation. It is further argued that Cooper's conceptualization of the approaches of schools different from his own appears somewhat circumscribed and this detracts from his desire to make an authentic comparison between his way of working and those of other schools, something that is called for by his proposed pluralistic third method of keeping himself accountable. This is not considered surprising given the difficulties inherent in our becoming adequately familiar, in more than just an intellectual way, with the approaches of schools different from our own, especially when wide divergences are involved between schools.     

Commentary on Paper by Julie Gerhardt

This review discusses factors producing excessive envy in some personalities innate, environmental and developmental. He agrees with Julie Gerhardt that envy is not atomic but molecular and evoked in triangular situations. However he suggests that factors that may manifest themselves in the earliest infantile stage can contribute to its later development and agrees with Gerhardt that the earliest mother infant interaction is crucial.     

Commentary on Paper by Ken Corbett

A report on the third analysis of a 41-year-old man who had been a feminine boy is used as a vehicle to describe the idiographic aspects of this way of being as well as to specify the input of the environment—parents, analysts, community. The role of self with mother, self with father, and self with mother and father together representations is explored and Zadie Smith's concept of dual citizenship and multiple internal voices is featured as an integrating and explanatory concept. The ways in which each analysis highlights different aspects of the patient's conflicts and dilemmas and reflects successive intrapsychic organizations is also explored.     

Commentary on Paper by Debra Rothschild

In my response to this paper, I begin by appreciating Debra Rothschild's relational approach and pointing to the links with our work at the Clinic for Dissociative Studies. For example, we all respond differently to child alters/states than to adult ones, consider the attachment relationship to be the crucial tool, do not like to see distancing mechanisms privileged by abusing the original concept of “neutrality,” and consider honesty and authenticity are essential when working with extreme trauma. In this we agree with Bass (2007) Bass, A. 2007. When the frame doesn't fit the picture. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 17: 1–27. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar] that one size does not fit all. We consider patients need to choose between integration or separateness. Where integration is sought we speak of “merger not murder.” I express concern at the prevailing idea that a person with Dissociative Identity Disorder needs safety, stabilisation, and symptom reduction initially when the most needy clients are those who will never be safe. I also raise issues around secondary traumatisation to the therapist, the meaning of self-injury, and the language used to describe the angry alter.     

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.     

Breakthroughs and Phallacies: Commentary on Paper by Dianne Elise

This is the third in a series of papers comparing the work of three contemporary theorists, each of whom is associated with the intersubjective turn in psychoanalysis: Jessica Benjamin (Gerhardt, Sweetnam, and Borton, 2000), Christopher Bollas (Gerhardt and Sweetnam 2001), and Darlene Ehrenberg. This paper describes aspects of the work of Ehrenberg and attempts to show how her trailblazing ideas of the therapeutic relationship and its nuanced particularities bear on issues in intersubjectivity theory. Ehrenberg's distinctive twist lies in her painstaking exploration of the processes of mutual influence in the ongoing therapeutic interaction and their bearing on the analytic process. The manner in which Ehrenberg attempts to integrate both interpersonal and intrapsychic perspectives and uses the interpersonal as a way of locating the intrapsychic is another focus of this inquiry. Moreover, the sense conveyed through Ehrenberg's voice—a voice both sensuous and strident, tender and provocative—in her attempt to make living, breathing contact in the moment with patients otherwise deadened to their own desire is also examined as bearing on issues associated with the intersubjective turn. While our own authorial positioning is never quite declared, our object relational biases exert their influence throughout our reading of her work, not surprising for a paper on intersubjectivity.     

Arnold B. Come,Kierkegaard as Theologian: Recovering My Self

International Journal for Philosophy of Religion -     

More Metaphor: Commentary on Paper by Ken Corbett

Beyond the inevitability of countertransference feelings is the question of countertransference enactments. From a two‐person, participant‐observer or observing‐participant perspective, enactments are inevitable. The analyst becomes influenced by the patient (and influences the patient as well) and enmeshed in the patient's internalized interpersonal configurations. Analysis works not by avoiding such action but by analyzing from within the interactional system. Analysts who are different from one another become engaged in different ways, since the person of the analyst is a significant variable. This article, using case examples, explores two analyst‐related variables, age and family configuration, to expand the examination of countertransference enactments and some effects on the analytic process.     

Crossing Boundaries: Commentary on Paper by Sarah Hill

This commentary focuses on two aspects of Hill's presentation. First, it addresses the critical role of repetition compulsion in carrying into analytic enactments the patient's early, unsymbolized traumas. This discussion addresses, furthermore, Hill's reference to her early, preverbal, experience with an African nanny, as this resonated with some of the author's personal experiences. It is suggested that, particularly in American culture, the identities of white children who experience extended care by black nannies must be regarded as multiply determined, race being a critical determinant. How this aspect of white identity is negotiated in a culture bounded by established racial dichotomies is regarded as critical to analytic inquiry, regardless of the racial makeup of the analytic dyad.     

Stained Hands: Commentary on Paper by Gillian Straker

I attempt, in this discussion, to deconstruct the jouissance present in the witnessing of a deliberate annihilation of a human being. I propose that the crisis in the analyst's subjectivity is linked to an unconscious identification with that which is most abhorrent and unacceptable. The unknowability of trauma ensures that its presence will be enacted in a complex system of mutual influence between analyst and patient in which the roles of victim, perpetrator and bystander oscillate between and within the participants. Taking the discussion to the broader sociopolitical level, I make an analogy between the destructiveness of the South African regime under apartheid and the current destructiveness of the U.S. engaging in a pre-emptive war. In a similar way to how Straker may feel contaminated by her patient's complicity in annihilation, so too are we contaminated by the atrocities perpetuated in the name of our country, even if they are policies we condemn.     

Humiliation and Transgender Regulation: Commentary on Paper by Ken Corbett

This commentary reads Ken Corbett's “Boyhood Femininity” alongside the Lawrence King case to examine shame as a means of regulating gender nonconforming boys. Corbett describes the dominant clinical discourse on feminine boys that understands them to be “nonconforming, extreme, and disordered” and notes that such discourse depends on the presupposition that boys must be masculine. This discourse is at once ontological and normative, asserting both that boys are naturally masculine and that they need to become masculine, a paradoxical imperative that may account for the ways in which the discourse is haunted by anxiety about the location, durability, and persistence of masculinity. In responding to the framing of boyhood femininity as a disorder, Corbett inverts the diagnosis; as a response to the reading of gender variant youth as inappropriately arrested in their psychosexual development, he diagnoses the profession itself as suffering from a “developmental lag” and suggests that the diagnosis that condemns a femme boy to psychic stagnation and unhappiness projects its own failure to see beyond normative gender presumptions onto the phenomenological life of the feminine boy. Corbett asks us to consider boyhood femininity as the scene of gender's emergence rather than as the site of its failure.     

Homage to Dora: Commentary on Paper by Melanie Suchet

This discussion of Suchet's paper further explores Butler's double disavowal of love and loss as it relates to racialized bonds. It also examines Yoshino's concept about the cost of “covering” difference and supports the need to uncover white privilege and lack while being mindful of holding the tension of sameness and difference between the psychic and the social. Surrender is considered within a frame of multiplicity and of Buddhist thought, and the author associates to the sensory realm of childhood through her own early attachment. Finally, the author wonders about the nature and complexity of racialized shame and its delicate place in clinical work.     

Jonah's Crisis: Commentary on Paper by Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg

In discussing Zornberg's paper, Jonah's Flight, the author uses Zornberg's multifaceted midrashic analysis as a portal to offer an alternative reading of the Jonah text. Using Relational and British Object Relations psychoanalytic theories, the author explores Jonah's state of mind, focusing on his profound despair. Most notably she finds that his despair is indicative of traumatic disappointment stemming from the sense of not being recognized by God, experiencing an acute disconnection. Jonah is then seen as being in crisis: incapable of self-reflection, caught in a dissociated self-state, and unable to inhabit and struggle with his own feelings. The result is alienation from himself, incapacity to feel concern for others and estrangement from God. Using the spiritual writings of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, who believes that God is in search of man, the author suggests that it is the need for an intersubjective relationship with God that is at the core of this Biblical story.     

How to Help a Thin-Skinned Person: Commentary on Paper by Stephen Seligman

Stephen Seligman's treatment of Harriet illustrates the typical challenges and basic technical principles in working with narcissistically sensitive people. Often, with such patients there are struggles around the frame, especially issues of payment and cancellation policies. Sometimes the therapist must be flexible in negotiations with the patient. In the early phases of therapy interpretations of defense, especially the interpretation of projected aggression, are not helpful. Interventions that recognize the patient's response to something the therapist has done or failed to do are more effective and set the stage for later work focused on the patient's recognition of her self-states. A willingness to respect Harriet's identification with Joan of Arc, and to work in displacement, rather than pathologizing her preoccupation was also essential. Finally, Seligman utilized the concept of mentalization in actively discussing with Harriet the mental processes of other people in her life. All these techniques enabled Harriet to move from being dominated by a sense of grievance to becoming capable of experiencing grief.     

Roles of Engagement: Commentary on Paper by Richard Almond

Richard Almond's discussion on the benefits of attending to the tension between what he refers to as analyst role and nonrole behaviors is quite stimulating and highlights important issues within the world of psychoanalysis. Although appreciating Almond's efforts to add clarity and perspective to the discourse on relational analytic activity, I point out the ways in which dichotomizing the analytic endeavor into “role” and “nonrole” behaviors can be limiting. It is proposed that prioritizing the tension between these polarities as mutative does not encourage the “spaces” between these role and nonrole behaviors to be maximally used, minimizes the interactive component, and privileges observing over experiencing. It is also contended that an affectively alive analyst, including one in the midst of enactments is acting within role. A clinical example is used to demonstrate that neither interpretation nor interaction should be privileged in terms of therapeutic action.