Organizational Structure and the Establishment of Psychoanalytic Identification: Commentary on Paper by Randall Lehmann Sorenson

This commentary addresses two themes: parallels between religious and psychoanalytic education and the question of group survival in a world of competitive groups, whether religious (“strict” vs. “weak”) or psychoanalytic (differing psychoanalytic approaches). “Strict” religious education involves teaching both critical thinking and identification with the particular religion. This blend of critical thinking and identification with psychoanalysis is crucial in psychoanalytic education. We want to graduate students who see themselves as psychoanalysts rather than as being “interested” in psychoanalysis. This goal is accomplished when students have close, positive experience with personal analysts, supervisors, and teachers who are strongly committed to psychoanalysis but in a manner that encourages students to think critically and find their own psychoanalytic perspective. With regard to the second theme, I discuss how our narcissistic commitment to one or another psychoanalytic model interferes with open integration of new insights. Individual analysts privately integrate competing ideas in their own idiosyncratic ways. When these individuals publicly represent competing psychoanalytic groups, however, they tend to emphasize differences among these groups. They then find ways to appropriate new ideas as extensions of their own evolving tradition. In this way, a theoretical school is able to integrate new developments while preserving its own identity.     

Toward a tripartite vision of supervision for psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic psychotherapies: alliance, transference-countertransference configuration, and real relationship

The psychoanalytic supervision relationship is examined as a tripartite phenomenon, comprised of the supervisory alliance, transference-countertransference configuration, and real relationship. While most supervisory analysts would readily acknowledge that a real (or personal) relationship element exists in analytic supervision, that facet of the supervision relationship has not routinely been incorporated into considerations of psychoanalytic supervision. In this vision of supervision, real relationship, supervisory alliance, and transference-countertransference configuration are presented as integral and complementary constructs that define psychoanalytic supervision. Each of those three components is examined briefly with regard to its beginnings, evolution, and contemporary status; each component is also considered from an empirical perspective. While we have a growing quantitative and qualitative research foundation that supports psychoanalytic practice, psychoanalytic supervision has largely been ignored as a subject and object of scientific study. Supervisory alliance, transference-countertransference configuration, and real relationship are explored as research ready variables. Some clinical hypotheses--eminently testable and worthy of investigation--are proposed with regard to each component of the model, and some ideas--albeit tentative and preliminary--about how to initiate such inquiries are offered.     

Changes in the level and quality of object relations in psychoanalysis: followup of a longitudinal, prospective study

As part of a prospective, longitudinal study of suitability for and outcome of psychoanalysis, 22 patients were evaluated for changes in the level and quality of their object relations. These patients had been accepted for supervised analysis with candidates in training by senior analysts who had diagnosed them as neurotic. The majority of these patients reported difficulties in relationships as at least one of their reasons for originally seeking psychoanalytic treatment. Prior to beginning analysis, each patient was given a battery of psychological tests. One year after the termination of analysis, the test battery was readministered and a followup interview was conducted separately with each patient and analyst. Ratings of change based on patient and analyst interviews and comparisons of psychological tests before and after treatment all showed statistically significant improvement in the level and quality of object relations for this patient group. The results of this study support what is often observed in clinical practice, that psychoanalysis has a positive effect on the level and quality of a patient's object relations.     

THE ANALYST'S HATRED OF ANALYSIS

Analytic work is loved and hated. Both attitudes deserve scrutiny, but the analyst's hatred of analysis, which transcends countertransference responses to individual patients, represents an impediment to gratifying analytic work whose recognition and conceptualization has been resisted. The author suggests that antipathy among analysts toward analysis and the analytic situation is normative and expectable, yet commonly experienced as shameful. He speculates that it is sometimes disavowed and projected. Training institutes might inadvertently foster this sense of shame rather than promote its working through. The recognition that analytic identity functions as both a loving and a persecutory internal object has implications for psychoanalytic education and practice.     

A successful trial utilizing the Leuzinger-Bohleber methodology for evaluation of psychoanalytic treatment: Preliminary report

Utilizing audio-recorded psychoanalytic interviews of both patients and their analysts, group discussions of these interviews, and the application of questionnaires commonly used in psychotherapy research, the authors investigate the potential use of the Leuzinger-Bohleber methodology as an objective evaluative instrument to assess the quality of psychoanalytic treatment. Preliminary study results were obtained through interviews conducted with seven analysts and their respective patients, three of whom were treated with psychoanalysis (three or more sessions per week, for a duration of no less than one year) and four with psychotherapy (one or two sessions per week, for a duration of no less than one year). Patients were found to be eager to participate, and no adverse experiences were reported by analysts, patients or the research team. In addition to the interviews, further data were obtained through review of mailed-in questionnaires completed by 21 patients. The authors present both preliminary observations regarding the methodology as a whole, as well as the detailed results of one specifi c case subject treated with psychotherapy. Review of study fi ndings supports the utilization of this methodology as an evaluative instrument which may ultimately advance current knowledge of the process and outcome of psychoanalytic treatment.     

The educational boundary1

In this contribution, the authors defi ne and discuss the educational boundary in analytic training, which they believe is an often neglected and useful concept in psychoanalytic education. The framework on which their discussion rests includes the recent attention of psychoanalysts to issues of boundaries and ethics. Their understanding of how clinical work affects the mind of the analyst educator, as well as the ways the personalities of various analysts affect their dealings with faculty peers and students, are the other cornerstones of their discussion. The authors contend that many of the institutional problems encountered in the training of analysts can be better understood when viewed through the prism of the educational boundary. They present examples which illustrate several of the ways psychoanalytic educators complicate the training experience of candidates, offer specifi c explanations as to why analysts struggle as they try to manage their educational interventions, and indicate in a discussion of potential remedies that those behaviors might be avoided if the educational boundary is in focus. They also provide an example of how the educational boundary can be more effectively managed.     

Our Literature as the Problem Child of Psychoanalysis Commentary on Paper by Drew Westen

This paper is a response to an essay by Drew Westen. The author agrees with many of Westen's arguments about problems in the psychoanalytic literature and adds that the psychoanalytic literature has always been a problem for psychoanalysis. If we think of psychoanalysis as an ongoing experiment, then its “trials” are all the analytic sessions that have been conducted. Our “literature” has never systematically drawn on those. Westen critically scrutinizes certain habits that, in his view, haunt our literature, but that we do not explicitly note or disown as conceptual contrivances we mean to get rid of, while they are often misguiding clinical thinking and practice. I suggest that a fascinating question riding below the waves of Westen's paper is why patients and analysts accept this situation. I suggest that we all treat psychoanalysis as wisdom, art, relationship, skill, and something other than the application of established scientific findings because we recognize and accept it as that kind of human activity. It is unclear if patients care whether or not their analysts are scientists, but it is clear that analysts are not optimistic about sifting the research literature and finding clear clues to more effective clinical thinking, work, or writing.     

Psychoanalysis and schizophrenia: a cautionary tale

The history of psychoanalysis and schizophrenia is used as an example of psychoanalytic theories of etiology that have not stood the test of time. Those theories pointed to three main factors: very serious inadequacies in the caretaking person; the presence of these inadequacies so early, during the preverbal period, that they led to the impairment of early object relations, the development of psychic structure, and basic ego functions; and the absence of underlying biological abnormalities. Today, many analysts are still reluctant to acknowledge biological etiological factors for other psychiatric conditions. For illnesses such as borderline conditions and various severe character disorders for which biological factors are still much in doubt, analysts are today proposing etiological formulations similar to those once advanced for schizophrenia. These formulations may indeed prove correct for these disturbances, but analysts are urged to heed the cautionary tale of psychoanalysis and schizophrenia.     

Psychoanalysis in conjunction with medication: a clinical research opportunity

The increasingly common practice of introducing medication into the analytic relationship is of practical and theoretical concern to analysts. Pharmacological agents and their somatic effects, it is argued, may be seen as a research equivalent to brain lesions, long favored tools in correlating brain with mind function, while psychoanalytic process data may be seen as a fine-tuned instrument for studying the subjective and emotional processes that reflect the underlying brain effect. A method of naturalistic study of psychoanalytic process both with and without a psychopharmacological agent is described and illustrated in two patients. The potential of this method for providing data useful in understanding the mechanism of action of psychoactive medications and of individual variations in response is explored. Both patients, treated with stimulant for ADHD, showed striking differences in self- and object representation, defense, affect, and cognition that correlated with analytic periods on and off the medication. The implications of these observations for understanding both the action of the medication and the fundamental functional disruptions in the condition are explored as well.     

Access to psychoanalytic ideas in American undergraduate institutions

To determine the prevalence of teaching about psychoanalytic ideas in the undergraduate curricula of 150 highly ranked colleges and universities, a software-based search was conducted to find references to psychoanalytic content in published course catalogues. Results showed that psychoanalytic ideas were represented somewhere in the curricula of most (though not all) of these schools, and that overall there were many times more courses featuring psychoanalytic ideas outside psychology departments than within them. The data also suggest that there are regional differences in the likelihood an undergraduate will encounter psychoanalytic ideas at these schools. Though psychoanalytic ideas are available in some form in most of these schools' psychology departments, the average number of courses per school is small. At the same time, psychoanalytic ideas have found applications in many areas of the humanities and social sciences. The nature of the presentation of psychoanalytic ideas in these areas, however, may often be unfamiliar to clinically oriented analysts, as seen in examples of the courses that were found. Challenges and opportunities of the current academic climate vis-à-vis organized psychoanalysis are described and various suggestions made regarding how analysts can engage the academic world to its benefit.     

The elusive concept of the psychoanalytic process

Although the term psychoanalytic process is frequently used, there is no consensual definition of its meaning. Some authors use it to designate a recognizable set of experiences within psychoanalysis. Others, a majority, use it as a synonym for the entire psychoanalytic experience, describing in detail what analysts do to achieve their goals. A range of views may be found between these extremes. A distinction is drawn here between the structure and content of the psychoanalytic process, which is regarded as a specific, definable entity--a red thread--within the psychoanalytic treatment experience as a whole, consisting of a microprocess and a macroprocess. The former is predominantly an amalgam of the patient's and the analyst's highly subjective experiences and entanglements, while the latter is predominantly an amalgam of the infantile and childhood origin of the patient's difficulties, as well as the analyst's conception of these difficulties based on a preferred theory. These ideas are used to formulate a definition of the psychoanalytic process based on clinical experience and are traced here primarily through lessons learned from a patient, Mr. K, over the course of a long and arduous analysis.     

Relational Psychoanalysis and the Inner Life: Commentary on Cooper,Corbett, and Seligman

Relational analysts know that their experience feels private and contemplative during a significant portion of their working hours. A consideration of the inner life, both the analyst’s and the patient’s, is part of relational praxis. Yet relational analysts also recognize that they are continuously involved with their patients, even at those very same quiet moments. Cooper, Corbett, and Seligman recognize both these parts of relational clinical work and argue that both are necessary. Making this argument explicit is important for its own sake, but also because analysts from other schools sometimes write as if there is no place in relational clinical practice for a quiet consideration of the inner life. Two examples of such criticism are offered, in both of which relational analysts are described as being too focused on social interaction and too little on the inner life. I offer my own version of the kinds of arguments about privacy and contemplation offered by Cooper, Corbett, and Seligman. I then make the case that all psychoanalytic theories come with risks of excess. Relational and interpersonal theories come with the risk of an overenthusiastic embrace of clinical interaction, whereas more intrapsychic theories carry the risk of attending too little to the impact on their patients of present-day relatedness—which is just as likely to have unconscious roots as the inner life.     

“Expanding the Frame”: Reply to Commentary

In responding to a discussion by Susi Federici-Nebbiosi of “When the Frame Doesn't Fit the Picture,” I further consider the ways in which analysts and analysands together create the best conditions for their work. I emphasize that analytic work best fulfills its potential when it grows out of a collaborative search for ways of constructing the psychoanalytic situation that are most fully and subtly responsive to the unique qualities and circumstances of each patient and analyst. Implications for psychoanalytic training of an intersubjective model of frame construction are briefly considered.     

Why Analysts Need Their Patients’ Transferences

This lead article to the Special Issue of the American Journal of Psychoanalysis, celebrating Charles Rycroft's life and work, was originally published in 1993. It is republished here with the generous encouragement and permission of Rycroft's widow, Jenny Pearson. This article is part of many, written by Rycroft on the psychoanalytic process and the role of projective identification in psychoanalytic training relationships. Here, Rycroft continues his thoughts in his previous paper, “On Ablation of Parental Images” (I965–1973), on the illusion of having created oneself. In the process of ablation of one's parental images and a search for replacement of them, the psychoanalyst is vulnerable to enact grandiose phantasies to become the new omnipotent parent in the analytic relationship. An overemphasis on the role of the transference can contribute to such phantasies of both analysts and their patients, interfere with the healthy growth of candidates, and become a process in which candidates surrender their healthy judgements and individual voices. The challenge in psychoanalytic training relationships is to reach a state of independence of thought, while at the same time achieve an ability to recognize the immense debt all analysts have to their analysts, teachers and even patients.     

The case for neuropsychoanalysis: Why a dialogue with neuroscience is necessary but not sufficient for psychoanalysis

Recent advances in the cognitive, affective and social neurosciences have enabled these fields to study aspects of the mind that are central to psychoanalysis. These developments raise a number of possibilities for psychoanalysis. Can it engage the neurosciences in a productive and mutually enriching dialogue without compromising its own integrity and unique perspective? While many analysts welcome interdisciplinary exchanges with the neurosciences, termed neuropsychoanalysis, some have voiced concerns about their potentially deleterious effects on psychoanalytic theory and practice. In this paper we outline the development and aims of neuropsychoanalysis, and consider its reception in psychoanalysis and in the neurosciences. We then discuss some of the concerns raised within psychoanalysis, with particular emphasis on the epistemological foundations of neuropsychoanalysis. While this paper does not attempt to fully address the clinical applications of neuropsychoanalysis, we offer and discuss a brief case illustration in order to demonstrate that neuroscientific research findings can be used to enrich our models of the mind in ways that, in turn, may influence how analysts work with their patients. We will conclude that neuropsychoanalysis is grounded in the history of psychoanalysis, that it is part of the psychoanalytic worldview, and that it is necessary, albeit not sufficient, for the future viability of psychoanalysis.     

An Independent Theory of Clinical Technique Viewed Through a Relational Lens: Commentary on Paper by Michael Parsons

This discussion of Michael Parsons's exposition of the Independent Tradition's clinical theory of technique compares and contrasts the British Independent and American Relational perspectives in regard to their approach to technique. In this discussion I will consider the question whether, given strong object relational influences on relational psychoanalytic theory, we are able to locate systematic differences in the way that Independent and Relational analysts attempt to work, to be with, and to relate to their patients in the psychoanalytic situation. Overlapping historical roots of the two traditions are considered, along with apparent differences in the ways in which the contributions of common ancestors, such as Ferenzci, are applied. I suggest that the integration of American Interpersonal School ideas with Object Relations theory in American Relational Psychoanalysis led to a different therapeutic sensibility, different ways of thinking about and participating in the analytic process from those that are reflected in the Independent Tradition as Dr. Parsons describes it. The discussion includes an imaginative reconsideration of clinical process along relational lines, in an attempt to clarify different emphases in technique between the two schools.     

Vicissitudes of ideas of cure in analysands and their analysts: a longitudinal interview study

This longitudinal prospective study focuses on analysands' and analysts' implicit ideas of how psychoanalysis might help analysands' psychological problems. Seven analysands and their analysts were periodically interviewed. Single ideas of cure from 75 interviews were inductively categorized. Nine distinct types of cures emerged, representing the wished-for goals of psychoanalysis, as well as the actions to achieve the wished-for changes. Each category might comprise more or less utopian ideas of wished-for cure as well as ideas of an attainable, more limited cure, or combinations of these. The utopian ideas of wished-for cures persisted throughout the psychoanalytic process for more than half the analysands and analysts. The abandonment of these ideas was related to the experienced outcome of psychoanalysis. The relation between the theories of one analysand and her analyst is explored in depth in a case study with special emphasis on the analytic process. The study suggests that the psychoanalytic process might profit from the analyst's observance of such incongruities and an openness to work through them.     

An Overview of Joseph Sandler's Key Contributions to Theoretical and Clinical Psychoanalysis

Joseph Sandler was instrumental in bringing about what Ogden (1992) has termed the “quiet revolution” in psychoanalytic theory over the past several decades. His accomplishments reflected his capacity to combine empirical research skills with the highest order of understanding of psychoanalytic theory. From the more traditional frame of reference acquired through his analytic training, Sandler gradually evolved a complex integration of ego psychology and object relations theory that has become increasingly dominant. Throughout this process, Sandler strove to keep theory tied to clinical activity. While most analysts pay lip service to the intimate relationship of theory and practice, Sandler, using the Hampstead Psychoanalytic Index as his framework, researched the applicability of psychoanalytic concepts to the clinical setting. This resulted in reconceptualizations of some of the basic building blocks of psychoanalysis. His training as an experimental psychologist gave him a fresh perspective on traditional concepts, which he supported and altered on the basis of empirical research. His immersion in child development at the Anna Freud Centre also influenced his intellectual development.     

Psychoanalytic developmental theory: a contemporary reconsideration

Psychoanalytic developmental theory has never enjoyed a broad consensus among psychoanalytic thinkers. In today's postmodern era, its relevance and basic premises are even more in question as a legitimate part of psychoanalytic theorizing. Part of the problem has been (1) the serious errors perpetrated historically in the name of psychoanalytic developmental theory and (2) its current state of disarray in the wake of piecemeal efforts to rectify these errors. Nonetheless, its presence is discernible in every psychoanalyst's theory and clinical work, whether or not it is acknowledged or brought into a cohesive theoretical frame. The point of view of "intersubjective ego psychology" (Chodorow 2004), embraced by a growing number of analysts interested in development, offers a more flexible and inclusive paradigm for psychoanalytic developmental thinking in order to preserve its rightful place in contemporary psychoanalysis.