The analyst's countertransference to the psychoanalytic process1

There is countertransference, not just to individual patients, but to the process of psychoanalysis itself. The analytic process is a contentious topic. Disagreements about its nature can arise from taking it as a unitary concept that should have a single defi nition whereas, in fact, there are several strands to its meaning. The need for the analyst's free associative listening, as a counterpart to the patient's free associations, implies resistance to the analytic process in the analyst as well as the patient. The author gives examples of the self‐analysis that this necessitates. The most important happenings in both the analyst's and the patient's internal worlds lie at the boundary between conscious and unconscious, and the nature of an analyst's interventions depends on how fully what happens at that boundary is articulated in the analyst's consciousness. The therapeutic quality of an analyst's engagement with a patient depends on the freeing and enlivening quality, for the analyst, of the analyst's engagement with his or her countertransference to the analytic process.     

Countertransference: Our new royal road to the unconscious?

In this paper I am tracing the history of countertransference and how it has informed the current debate about self‐disclosure as a pivotal instrument of analytic work. Now that the analyst's “subjective factor”; has been understood as a central influence on the analysand and as a vital source of information about the analysand's intrapsychic life, I argue that certain currents in the relational school of psychoanalysis confuse the analyst's subjectivity with his personality. While becoming more “real”; with a patient may enliven a stale analytic dialogue, it ought not be confused with, or take the place of, an analysis of unconscious desires and phantasies. I claim that a two‐person psychology can exist only within a tripartite structure in which the analyst does not lose sight of his complex function of being the carrier, observer, and conveyor of the unconscious currents holding both participants in check.     

Self‐analysis and the development of an interpretation

In spite of the fact that Freud's self‐analysis was at the centre of so many of his discoveries, self‐analysis remains a complex, controversial and elusive exercise. While self‐analysis is often seen as emerging at the end of an analysis and then used as a criteria in assessing the suitability for termination, I try to attend to the patient's resistance to self‐analysis throughout an analysis. I take the view that the development of the patient's capacity for self‐analysis within the analytic session contributes to the patient's growth and their creative and independent thinking during the analysis, which prepares him or her for a fuller life after the formal analysis ends. The model I will present is based on an over lapping of the patient's and the analyst's self‐analysis, with recognition and use of the analyst's counter‐transference. My focus is on the analyst's self‐analysis that is in response to a particular crisis of not knowing, which results in feeling intellectually and emotionally stuck. This paper is not a case study, but a brief look at the process I went through to arrive at a particular interpretation with a particular patient during a particular session. I will concentrate on resistances in which both patient and analyst initially rely upon what is consciously known.     

On the edge: The psychoanalyst's transference1

Countertransference is a central topic in analytic work and in the literature. The concept of countertransference includes a basic question which has been understood in different ways. The author attempts to differentiate between the psychoanalyst's transference and his countertransference in the analytic process. It is hard to draw a line between them; analysts are always on the edge. The analyst's transference will be explored and described using three approaches: narcissism, regression profile and the analyst's phase of life. Regression profile is a new concept developed by the author, which may help us to understand the core of the analyst's transference in the analytic situation. She illustrates the topic by clinical vignettes.     

Marco Conci interviews Stefano Bolognini

Abstract

This paper suggests that the understanding of intersubjectivity, which refers to “the dynamic interplay between the analyst's and the patient's subjective experiences in the clinical situation”, is crucial for psychoanalytic work. The analyst's inner experiences, from the first moment that he or she thinks about or meets the patient, belong to an intersubjective situation. Not only are these experiences a valuable channel through which the inner experiences of the patient can be understood, but—as Theodore Jacobs puts it—they are often complementary to that which comes from the patient. The author tries to illustrate the above through the study of the analytic process in the psychoanalytic therapy of a severely disturbed patient. This therapy from its very early phase led to the reawakening of some of the analyst's old conflicts. The patient's difficulties in tolerating the limits of the analytic setting and using free association are discussed, as are his enactments. The analyst's close observation of the interaction between her and the patient, the permanent engagement with her countertransference, and the use of her inner experiences with the patient helped her to contain the enactments, defined the nature of her interventions, and contributed to the analytic process.     

God of the hinge: treating LGBTQIA patients

This paper looks at systems of gender within the context of analysis. It explores the unique challenges of individuation faced by transsexual, transgender, gender queer, gender non‐conforming, cross‐dressing and intersex patients. To receive patients generously we need to learn how a binary culture produces profound and chronic trauma. These patients wrestle with being who they are whilst simultaneously receiving negative projections and feeling invisible. While often presenting with the struggles of gender conforming individuals, understanding the specifically gendered aspect of their identity is imperative. An analyst's unconscious bias may lead to iatrogenic shaming. The author argues that rigorous, humble inquiry into the analyst's transphobia can be transformative for patient, analyst, and the work itself. Analysis may, then, provide gender‐variant patients with their first remembered and numinous experience of authentic connection to self. Conjuring the image of a hinge, securely placed in the neutral region of a third space, creates a transpositive analytic temenos. Invoking the spirit of the Trickster in the construction of this matrix supports the full inclusion of gender‐variant patients. Nuanced attunement scaffolds mirroring and the possibility of play. Being mindful that gender is sturdy and delicate as well as mercurial and defined enriches the analyst's listening.     

THE ANALYST'S WAY OF BEING: RECOGNIZING SEPARABLE SUBJECTIVITIES AND THE PENDULUM'S SWING

Whether the analyst finds the patient's emerging transference affectively tolerable or intolerable plays an important role in the analytic couple's negotiation of the configuration that the transference‐countertransference relationship ultimately assumes. If the analyst is deeply repelled by transference‐related roles to which he is assigned, patient‐ascribed attributions, or projection‐drenched interactions, he may react in violent protest, engaging in enactments that say more about his separable subjectivity than about the intersubjective situation. While there has been a recent trend to view enactments as a crucial aspect of psychoanalytic technique, this trend risks overlooking the way in which the analyst's way of being comes into play in the treatment.     

Fromm's Spirited Values and Analytic Neutrality

The analyst and the patient must feel enough hope to sustain their active effort. A significant aspect of the analyst's role is inspiring hope. This seems to require that the analyst take a life-affirming position that violates traditional notions of analytic neutrality. Yet, in facilitating the patient's full self-expression, we do not want to lose the benefits of neutrality. Fromm's work can inspire us to try to integrate an attitude of spirited hope with interpretations whose content neutrally encourages the patient to reveal his whole self.     

THE VALUE OF UNCERTAINTY

The author discusses some of the characteristics of Roy Schafer's contributions to psychoanalysis that he finds most valuable, such as his openness to uncertainty, his anti‐reductive view of analytic constructions, his unique formulation of the analyst's role, and his close attention to how the patient engenders particular emotional reactions in the analyst. The author also presents a clinical vignette illustrating the value of the analyst's tolerance of uncertainty in the face of the patient's push for interpretations, explanations, and reassurance.     

BORGES IN MY OFFICE: THE ANALYSIS OF A MAN DWELLING OUTSIDE OF TIME

This article weaves together two threads: the intricacies of the analysis of a difficult‐to‐reach yet extraordinary patient and the literary works of Jorge Luis Borges, which played a significant role in the analysis as a source of inspiration, enriching the analyst's reverie and opening up new psychic spaces. The authors demonstrate the analyst's recourse to several of Borges's stories in order to enrich his own inner world and to better understand the analysand. Some of these stories are briefly presented through the analyst's dialogue with them, and there is a discussion of their function in facilitating the process of working through issues of time, memory, mortality, and identity, contributing to the enhancement of the patient's ability to come face to face with the unwanted, split‐off parts of his self and of reality.     

THE TRIADIC INTERSUBJECTIVE MATRIX IN SUPERVISION: THE USE OF DISCLOSURE TO WORK THROUGH PAINFUL AFFECTS3

The use of the psychoanalyst's subjective reactions as a tool to better understand his/her patient has been a central feature of clinical thinking in recent decades. While there has been much discussion and debate about the analyst's use of countertransference in individual psychoanalysis, including possible disclosure of his/her feelings to the patient, the literature on supervision has been slower to consider such matters. The attention to parallel processes in supervision has been helpful in appreciating the impact of affects arising in either the analyst/patient or the supervisor/analyst dyads upon the analytic treatment and its supervision. This contribution addresses the ways in which overlapping aspects of the personalities of the supervisor, analyst and patient may intersect and create resistances in the treatment. That three‐way intersection, described here as the triadic intersubjective matrix, is considered inevitable in all supervised treatments. A clinical example from the termination phase of a supervised analysis of an adolescent is offered to illustrate these points. Finally, the question of self‐disclosure as an aspect of the supervisory alliance is also discussed.     

Field of Vision: Radical Uncertainty and the Analyst's Conduct: Commentary on Paper by Donnel B. Stern

There is a relationship between biography and theory. The analyst's ideas or formulations about his patients—theories really—must be determined, to some degree, by the certain and uncertain impact of his own history. Harry Stack Sullivan brought psychoanalysis squarely into the ambit of the relational/historical world by insisting that the mind is thoroughly and inherently social. In doing so, he staked a claim for the link between history, that is, social experience, and personhood. Our personalities and our theories are social-historical constructions. In relation to this, some differences between the interpersonal/relational and Bionian concepts of field theory are provided. One important difference pertains to the role of the analyst's conduct. Two meanings of conduct—to behave or to organize behavior—are at the center of what distinguishes the interpersonal/relational view of the analyst's position in the field from the Bionian view. For the relational analyst, action in the analytic field, including enactment, is conduct, and conduct is always bidirectional. The analyst, then, is a medium to alter, to reconstruct the self. He does not provide experience, he is experience. The form of an analytic exchange gives shape to the field and its content.     

From “disciplined subjectivity” to “taming wild thoughts”: Bion's elaboration of the analysing instrument

Abstract

Freud encouraged the analyst to use his unconscious “as an instrument of the analysis,” but did not elaborate on how this should be done. This recommendation opened the door to a consideration of unconscious communication between the analyst and patient as an intersubjective exchange. Both Wilfred Bion and Erik Erikson emphasised the importance of the analyst's intuition, and the author compares and contrasts these two approaches. Erikson advocated a more cautious attitude regarding the analyst's subjectivity, while Bion promoted a broader application of the analyst's various private reactions to the analysand. A brief vignette from the analysis of a five-year-old boy is offered to illustrate the importance of the analyst's reveries, the mutual process of containment and transformation between analyst and patient, and the co-creation of an analytic narrative.     

A psychoanalytical phenomenology of perversion1

After stating that the current tasks of psychoanalytic research should fundamentally include the exploration of the analyst's mental processes in sessions with the patient, the author describes the analytical relation as one having an intersubjective nature. Seen from the outside, the analytical relation evidences two poles: a symmetric structural pole where both analyst and patient share a single world and a single approach to reality, and a functional asymmetric pole that defines the assignment of the respective roles. In the analysis of a perverse patient, the symmetry‐asymmetry polarities acquire some very particular characteristics. Seen from the perspective of the analyst's subjectivity, perversion appears in the analyst's mind as a surreptitious and unexpected transgression of the basic agreement that facilitates and structures intersubjective encounters. It may go as far as altering the Aristotelian rules of logic. When coming into contact with the psychic reality of a perverse patient, what happens in the analyst's mind is that a world takes shape. This world is misleadingly coloured by an erotisation that sooner or later will acquire some characteristics of violence. The perverse nucleus, as a false reality, remains dangling in mid‐air as an experience that is inaccessible to the analyst's empathy. The only way the analyst can reach it is from the ‘periphery’ of the patient's psychic reality, by trying in an indirect way to lead him back to his intersubjective roots. At this point, the author's intention is to explain this intersubjective phenomenon in terms of metapsychological and empirical research‐based theories. Finally, some ideas on the psychogenesis of perversion are set forth.     

Bion's Notes on memory and desire – its initial clinical reception in the United States: A note on archival material

While Bion's 1967 memory and desire paper reflected a crucial episode in his clinical thinking during his epistemological period, it was also central to his evolution as a Kleinian psychoanalyst who worked with seriously disturbed adult patients. The author explicates and contextualizes these claims with a new archival document, the Los Angeles Seminars delivered by Bion in April 1967, and the full‐length version of Notes on memory and desire. Bion here instigated a radical departure from years of theory‐laden work when he made his clinical work and ideas accessible to a new audience of American Freudian analysts. While this new group was keenly interested to hear about Bion's clinical technique with both borderline and psychotic patients, there were varied reactions to Bion's ideas on the technical implications of the analyst's abandonment of memory and desire. Both the Los Angeles Seminars and Notes elicited responses ranging from bewilderment, admiration to skepticism amongst his audience of listeners and readers. These materials also however allow for a more complete and systematic presentation of important ideas about analytic technique – and while his ideas in this domain have been long valued and known by many psychoanalysts, this contribution stresses the crucial aspect of the reception of his ideas about technique in a particular American context. American analysts gained a much more explicit idea of how Bion worked analytically, how he listened, formulated interpretations and factored in the analyst's listening receptivity in the here‐and‐now. The author concludes with a consideration of the importance of Bion's American reception in 1967.     

Moments of Therapeutic Impasse: Commentary on Jody Messler Davies's “Whose Bad Objects Are We Anyway? Repetition and Our Elusive Love Affair with Evil”

Davies contributes to the development of relational theory by formulating and illustrating what occurs during especially difficult moments in an analytic exchange. In understanding enactments, Davies importantly underscores the contribution of both the analyst's and patient's “bad objects.” This author attempts to build bridges between Davies' language and concepts anchored in object relations theory and this author's language and concepts based in contemporary or relational self psychology, including the integration of cognitive psychology. In addition, this author delineates the use of the “empathic,” “othercentered,” and “analyst's self” listening/experiencing perspectives to explicate the case material and to provide alternative understandings and pathways for psychoanalytic work. The thesis set forth is that the use of different listening/experiencing perspectives expands choice for the analyst when working in difficult moments of the clinical exchange.     

State of the Hope: The New Bad Object in the Therapeutic Action of Psychoanalysis

Until recently, most psychoanalytic conceptualizations of the analyst as a new object have tended to equate newness with good experience and safety. Recent papers in the relational literature have explored not only the therapeutic value, but also the inevitability of the patient's experience of the analyst as bad, as well as the analyst's participation in this experience. This author examines the multifarious nature of hope, goodness, and badness in the clinical situation. The patient gets to know not only elements of his or her own self that are held by the analyst, but also ways in which the patient holds elements related to the particulars of the analyst's person in the analytic situation. Shifts in American psychoanalysis regarding conceptualizations of the analyst as a new object are examined. Limitations of a bifurcated approach to goodness and badness in clinical conceptualizations are also explored.     

Incognito or not? the patient's subjective experience of the analyst's private life

This paper examines the meaning for the patient of the analyst's personal life and personality which are ostensibly banished from the consulting room. The therapist has a not‐always‐so‐secret “secret life”; that the patient is supposed to “not know”; about. Yet, more or less unconscious perceptions, impressions, and fantasies about extratherapeutic aspects of the analyst are omnipresent and significantly color the psychoanalytic enterprise.

Moreover the analyst as a person generally plays a critical and underacknowledged role in the patient's experience of the endeavor. Constructing multiple overlapping images of the analyst and of the analytic relationship, the patient discovers himself or herself in the matrix of these relationships with various images of the analytic other. The analysand is motivated to make sense of the analyst as wholly as possible, the better to place into context the analyst's interventions. The patient's resulting view of the analyst's subjective experience acts as a lens that filters and subtly alters the meaning of the analyst's communications.

I illustrate these points by relating my work with a patient whose dreams uncannily picked up on a (consciously) unknown aspect of my private life—my having a handicapped son. The treatment thereafter centered on the patient's identification with my child (as someone “disabled") and on the meaning of her having dreamt something so personal about her therapist.     

First‐Person Authority and Self‐Knowledge as an Achievement

相似文献   

Danger and safety: The analyst as analytic subject

Abstract

This paper considers questions of danger and safety in the analytic relationship in light of the contemporary recognition of analysis as a co-participatory process. In the interest of safety, the psychoanalyst has the responsibility to be persistently curious, particularly about the problems derived from his contact with the analysand. Information about the analyst's impact must be taken to heart; it must be experientially considered. As the process unfolds, the analyst presumes that a portion of its effect will be negative. The analyst aspires not to preempt all negative impact but to create an analytic environment in which the analysand's conscious and unconscious communications about impact may be attended to. The analyst's ability to receive such information is crucial in the establishment of a reliable process capable of addressing and surviving the unanticipated dangers that inevitably emerge and securing the analysand for further self articulation. The analyst can simultaneously attend to being the analyst and being a subject of analysis by regarding all communications from the analysand as representing, at least in part, interpretations of the analyst and the analyst's participation. Illustrative material is presented.