On Some Advantages of Mutual Sexual Fantasy in the Analytic Situation: Commentary on Paper by Christopher Bonovitz

This commentary reflects a fundamental agreement with Christopher Bonovitz' main thesis—fantasy, indeed, cannot be seen as a product of an isolated mind and is intrinsic to the development of both optimal internal and interpersonal richness. The theme of mutual sexual fantasy between analyst and patient in particular is highlighted for discussion. It is argued that, contrary to the more discussed dangers of erotic countertransference feelings, the absence of analysts' reciprocal sexual fantasy has the potential to deaden the analytic relationship and result in a less than satisfactory analytic experience.     

Commentary on Papers by Burton and Bonovitz

The author probes bastions in Noelle Burton’s and Christopher Bonovitz’s patients’ unsymbolized experience. Bonovitz and his patient were involved in a mutually created phallic collapse, one in which they are unable to use their minds aggressively and vitally to make sense of things together. Bonovitz gained purchase on a set of conspiratorial feelings he had held toward his two analysts, feelings that were enacted with his patient. For Burton and her patient there was a different kind of bastion in which Burton’s wish to know her patient couldn’t be experienced as something other than impingement. The author argues the value of our openness to reverie not only when patients’ have poorly developed capacities for verbalization and symbolization but more generally as a clinical sensibility to cultivate with all patients.     

To Dream,Perchance to Think: Discussion of Papers by Noelle Burton and Christopher Bonovitz

This is a discussion of papers by Noelle Burton and Christopher Bonovitz, which explores clinical work with patients who are either developmentally incapable of articulating symbolic thought or immersed in a transference–countertransference position in which abstract thinking is foreclosed.     

The Radical Cure: Commentary on Paper by Eyal Rozmarin

This commentary on Eyal Rozmarin's paper “To Be Is to Betray” considers the place of history in the psychoanalytic encounter. Examining texts by Adorno and Ferenczi, the author cautions against “radical cures” that conflate political values with analytic ones.     

The Treatment of Choice: Commentary on Paper by Susan Fairfield

Dr. Fairfield's paper brings a radically deconstructivist, postmodern perspective, with great thoughtfulness and wit, to current concepts of “multiplicity.” I consider here the importance of the points she raises yet express some discomfort with deconstructionism as a conceptual methodology. I also show why I believe that some concepts Fairfield considers irreversibly modernist, like “authenticity,” can be retooled within a postmodern perspective.     

The Doors of Reception: Commentary on Paper by Stephanie Lewin

This discussion on Stephanie Lewin's “Parallel Identification: A Shield Against the Assault of Traumatic Jealousy” addresses the challenge of introducing new concepts and revising previous conceptual understandings while maintaining a balance between innovation and appreciation of the work of previous theorists. In the course of considering Lewin's notion of parallel identification the subjects of internalization, the nature of internal space and its relation to psychic reality, the role of unconscious models of therapeutic action, and the oscillating tension between the selected fact and the overvalued idea are explored and discussed in terms of their relevance to both development and clinical analysis.     

The Secret of Faces: Commentary on Paper by Rachael Peltz

Dr. Rachael Peltz stresses the aesthetic dimension of analysis. In fact the aesthetic experience can serve as a model for all that is deepest and truest in our lives and in the analytic encounter. We all have an “inner painter” which transforms primitive sensoriality into images or pictograms and then tie them up into oneiric thoughts, dreaming and thinking in order to give a personal meaning to experience. This model gives us the possibility in the clinical work to be more attentive to the musical, rhythmic, or semiotic aspects of the interaction between patient and analyst. Dr. Peltz shows in a beautiful vignette how, equating analysis to the aesthetic experience, it is possible to help the patient to reach a fuller sense of consonance and contact between mind and body.     

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 Danielle Knafo

The author discusses the importance of Knafo's rich paper on the often neglected subject of solitude but argues for a clearer demarcation of the multifarious states of aloneness, solitude, loneliness, and isolation. While solitude constitutes a state of plentitude, demonstrating an ability to be alone in the company of an Other, loneliness, in contrast, conjures up a sense of dread and despair, foreseeing no link to an Other. Hence, an artwork can fulfill radically different aspects of the various states of aloneness, it can be a product emerging out of a full sense of solitude, or it can function as a forceful shield against the unbearable sense of loneliness.     

Commentary on Paper by Terry Marks-Tarlow

This discussion of the paper merging and emerging: A nonlinear portrait of intersubjectivity during psychotherapy focuses on how the original paper demonstrates the usefulness of the concepts of nonlinear dynamics systems theory (NLD) to clinical psychoanalysis. Diagnosis conceptualize in NLD terms successfully resists the pressure to reduce complex situations to overly simple few word phrases. The phenomena of transference and repetition are redescribed as resulting from an iterative process that is evident in complex adaptive systems. The model of psychoanalysis in terms of coupled oscillators is demonstrated to be clinically useful as is the concept of emergence which overcomes some of the less useful aspects of the reductionist program. The idea of studying boundaries per se, as opposed to their function of separating individuals, arises naturally from the study of fractals and promises to clarify the oversimplified discussions of these matters in the psychoanalytic literature. The original author has successfully demonstrated how useful NLD conceptualizations can be to the clinical psychoanalyst.     

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 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 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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The Psychoanalytic Other: Commentary on Paper by Helen K. Gediman

Dr. Gediman locates the intersection of modern Freudian and relational theory in the arena of what she calls the “disclosures of everyday analysis” (p. 242). She suggests that because Freudian analysts, like their relational colleagues, work intersubjectively, relational theory does not itself embody a paradigm shift away from the Freudian model. I disagree. Relational theories assume that the analyst's work is inevitably informed by the relational context in a way that precludes clinical certainty. Gediman, however, believes that the analyst is capable of separating her countertransference response from her subjectivity and thus can interpret from a position of clinical certainty. Each set of theoretical assumptions is associated with a somewhat different analytic stance and analytic ideal. Freudian analysts aim for a position of “methodological neutrality” that relies on considerable certainty in the countertransference while giving the analyst plenty of room within which to use her subjectivity. The relational ideal concerns the analyst's capacity to enter into an asymmetrical treatment relationship and to tolerate the uncertainty generated therein.