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.     

Additive Theories of Rationality: A Critique

Additive theories of rationality, as I use the term, are theories that hold that an account of our capacity to reflect on perceptually‐given reasons for belief and desire‐based reasons for action can begin with an account of what it is to perceive and desire, in terms that do not presuppose any connection to the capacity to reflect on reasons, and then can add an account of the capacity for rational reflection, conceived as an independent capacity to ‘monitor’ and ‘regulate’ our believing‐on‐the‐basis‐of‐perception and our acting‐on‐the‐basis‐of‐desire. I show that a number of recent discussions of human rationality are committed to an additive approach, and I raise two difficulties for this approach, each analogous to a classic problem for Cartesian dualism. The interaction problem concerns how capacities conceived as intrinsically independent of the power of reason can interact with this power in what is intuitively the right way. The unity problem concerns how an additive theorist can explain a rational subject's entitlement to conceive of the animal whose perceptual and desiderative life he or she oversees as ‘I’ rather than ‘it’. I argue that these difficulties motivate a general skepticism about the additive approach, and I sketch an alternative, ‘transformative’ framework in which to think about the cognitive and practical capacities of a rational animal.     

The Challenge of Integrity: A Commentary on the Critique by Edwards and Lowis

Capps' idiographic analysis of Augustine's Confessions is discussed in terms of Allport's possible contradiction in stating idiographic goals while embracing nomothetic theory and techniques. The necessity of a methodological complementarity for this type of work is stressed to reduce subjective bias. The question of Augustine's religious orientation is then extended to include recent ideas. As interesting as idiographic treatments are, their most productive use may be for theory development to which nomothetic analyses are applied.     

Analyzing Multiplicity: A Postmodern Perspective on Some Current Psychoanalytic Theories of Subjectivity

Tensions between modernism and postmodernism in psychoanalytic theory and practice are evident in the allegedly “postmodern” view of subjectivity as not unified but plural. Suggesting that a thoroughgoing postmodern clinical practice does not exist at present, I distinguish between U. S. and European models of the postmodern multiple subject and between modern and postmodern varieties of pluralism in the current psychoanalytic theorization of subjectivity in this country, proposing that all such pluralist theories are in fact mixed models. I argue that these theories do not reflect objective, essential traits of selfhood but are complexly shaped by the cultural presuppositions and intrapsychic needs of the analyst; hence attempts to theorize subjectivity with reference to science (including developmental schemas) are problematic. Because a thoroughgoing postmodern pluralism cannot accommodate such concepts as agency and authenticity or a coherent narrative of the treatment process, clinical psychoanalysis, at least at present, inevitably includes major elements of the modernist approach, in which subjectivity is seen as unified. At this time of paradigm shift between modernism and postmodernism, therefore, it is important that pluralists decenter from their theories and respect the continuing influence of modernism on psychoanalytic theory and practice.     

模糊痕迹理论:对经典认知发展理论的挑战

近几十年来,推理和记忆的发展涌现出来的大量的实验结果对经典认知发展理论构成了挑战。对此,Reyna和Bminerd提出模糊痕迹理论试图解释以上研究成果。本文对该理论的核心内容和主要应用领域作了介绍。文末,对该理论作了简评。     

Commentary: Psychodynamics and Social Cognition—Notes on the Fusion of Psychoanalysis and Psychology

ABSTRACT Interest in linking psychoanalysis with scientific psychology waxes and wanes. In part, the difficulties have been caused by the preference of psychoanalysts for Freud's clinical theory (and its emphasis on narrative truth) as opposed to his metapsychology (with its requirement for historical truth). Even though contemporary scientific psychology evolved largely independently of psychoanalysis, the articles on object relations, transference, and defense published in this special issue show that the theory remains a source of inspiration, observations, and hypotheses.     

The Interplay of Subsymbolic and Symbolic Processess in Psychoanalytic Treatment: Commentary on Paper by Steven H. Knoblauch

Bucci's model of emotional communication, developed in the context of her theory of multiple coding and the referential process, is applied to Knoblauch's microanalytic report of his experience of the patient and himself and their interactions during a single session of an ongoing treatment. The referential process is a bidirectional function connecting the diverse sensory, somatic, and motoric representations of the subsymbolic system with imagery and words. The process operates partially and to varying degrees within both participants; in the case presented here, the dissociation among systems is severe, and emotional communication within the dyad occurs at first primarily in subsymbolic, bodily forms. Where gaps in the referential process exist for the patient, the analyst's own experience and associations operate to evoke new connections for her; we see this process in moment-by-moment glimpses of the analyst's experience and his interactions with the patient. Gaps in the reader's knowledge, and possibly the analyst's knowledge, of the patient are discussed.     

Psychotherapy Research and Psychoanalytic Practice: Commentary on Papers by Lester Luborsky and Hans H. Strupp

I discuss the views of Lester Luborsky (quite optimistic) and of Hans H. Strupp (less so) concerning the accumulating evidence for the favorable impact of psychoanalytic therapy research, as it has grown over recent decades, in shaping clinical psychoanalytic activity. I offer my perspectives on their views of the issues of (a) the effectiveness of psychoanalytic (psychodynamic) therapies vis-à-vis the varieties of nonanalytically based therapies; (b) long-term (time-unlimited) vis-à-vis short-term (time-limited) therapy, (c) the call for empirically supported treatments (ESTs), (d) the call for randomized clinical trials (RCTs), (e) the trend toward “manualization” of therapy approaches, and (f) the light that all these considerations can cast on the extent to which, and how, psychoanalytic therapy helps.     

Eternity and the Future: A Critique of the Plotinian Myth in Pannenberg’s Theology

For Pannenberg, the eschatological future is considered as the locus where the ultimate causation lies. Such an idea shapes Pannenberg’s doctrinal accounts of Christ and the Trinity in an idiosyncratic way. However, as this article will indicate, the idea is derived from the Plotinian myth that time can become a whole and so a vessel of divine infinity when it reaches the End. Dispensing with the faulty assumption but retaining the concept of the priority of the future, this article will argue that divine eternity as the totality can engage with history directly at any point of time, without a detour via the eschaton.