Commentary on ‘The arms of the chimeras’ by Béatrice Ithier

In this Commentary I will first of all summarise my understanding of the proposal set out by Béatrice Ithier concerning her concept of the ‘chimera’. The main part of my essay will focus on Ithier's claim that her concept of the chimera could be described as a ‘mental squiggle’ because it corresponds to Winnicott's work illustrated in his book ‘Therapeutic Consultations’ (1971). At the core of Ithier's chimera is the notion of a traumatic link between analyst and patient, which is the reason she enlists the work of Winnicott. I will argue, however, that Ithier's claim is based on a misperception of the theory that underpins Winnicott's therapeutic consultations because, different from Ithier's clinical examples of work with traumatised patients, Winnicott is careful to select cases who are from an ‘average expectable environment’ i.e. a good enough family. Moreover, Winnicott does not refer to any traumatic affinity with his patients, or to experiencing a quasi‐hallucinatory state of mind during the course of the consultations. These aspects are not incorporated into his theory. In contrast (to the concept Ithier attempts to advance), Winnicott's squiggle game constitutes an application of psychoanalysis intended as a diagnostic consultation. In that sense Winnicott's therapeutic consultations are comparable with the ordinary everyday work between analyst and analysand in a psychoanalytic treatment. My Commentary concludes with a question concerning the distinction between the ordinary countertransference in working with patients who are thinking symbolically in contrast to an extraordinary countertransference that I suggest is more likely to arise with patients who are traumatised and thus functioning at a borderline or psychotic level.     

‘Numerical trap’. A new look at outcome representation in studies on choice behaviour

In almost all experimental studies on choice behaviour the consequences of choices are limited to denumerable goods (usually money) and represented in a numerical way. It is argued that a different way of representing consequences would cause differences in social orientations. In an exploratory study (1) the kind of consequences (money, satisfaction with money and satisfaction with the situation) and (2) the way of representing consequences (numbers, rectangles, and faces) were varied. No differences were found between the three kinds of consequences represented by rectangles. Representation of money by numbers did not differ from representation of money by rectangles. However, subjects in the condition in which satisfaction with money was represented by faces were more cooperative and altruistic and less equality-oriented than subjects in the corresponding condition in which satisfaction with money was represented by rectangles. Additional correlational analyses showed differences between ways of representing consequences. It was concluded that both for theory and for future research it is important to consider how consequences are represented.     

Semiotic aspects of the countertransference: Some observations on the concepts of the ‘immediate object’ and the ‘interpretant’ in the work of Charles S. Peirce1

The fi eld of semiotics, established by Charles S. Peirce, is characterised by its recognition of non‐linguistic signs and embedment in a communicative interaction; for this reason, it is especially well suited for a semiotic investigation of intersubjective processes. In this paper, the authors show how these intersubjective processes can be understood in semiotic terms within the transference‐countertransference setting. Based on a case vignette, the relationship between the ‘real object’ (e.g. an unconscious fantasy) and the sign (e.g. a particular facial expression) is fi rst demonstrated. In this mediation between sign and referent, an important role is played by the ‘immediate object’, by which Peirce understood the mental concept of a sign. However, a further component of the Peircian sign is responsible for the emergence of the countertransference, namely, the ‘interpretant’. The core of Peircian semiotics, namely the concept of an (infi nite) process of signifi cation, sheds light in semiotic terms on the dialectical movement between transference‐signs and countertransference‐signs, the interpretation and encounter between two subjects. The paper concludes with a discussion of both the interdisciplinary applicability of Peircian semiotics, for example in the context of the neurosciences, and the differences between the Peircian epistemological position and psychoanalytical conceptions of the objective cognition of mental processes.