{"title":"Beyond Kohut: From Empathy to Affection","authors":"Daniel A. Perlitz","doi":"10.1080/15551024.2016.1178045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article concerns the analyst’s affection for her/his patient and its importance in the therapeutic process. The analyst’s affection, when available, can act as a vitalizing enactment (Fosshage, 2007) but more importantly acts as a vitalizing, implicit foundation for the ongoing interaction between analyst and patient. The dearth of discourse in psychoanalytic literature on the analyst’s affection and the reluctance to overtly declare its importance is noted. In the currently evolving “paradigm shift from explicit conscious cognition to implicit unconscious affect” (Schore, 2011, p. 77), there is a recognition that there is an underpinning of emotion to all human interaction, and as such, it is incumbent upon us to at all times monitor our own affect state, including whether we feel affection and its nuances if present. Self psychologists tend to valorize empathy but doing so without considering the contribution of the analyst’s emotion, including the quality of his/her affection, which is an important part of the emotional spectrum, unduly constricts our consideration of the intersubjective field of analyst and patient. I postulate that the analyst’s ongoing empathy, in the context of a hermeneutics of trust, is not only the optimal psychoanalytic path to understanding but also leads to changes in the emotional organization of the analyst so as to facilitate the possible emergence of the analyst’s affection. As well, the good-enough satisfaction of the analyst’s selfobject needs contributes to the development of the analyst’s affection. Given its importance, it is advisable to monitor the state of our affection for our patients and determine how to proceed if our affection is not possible. “Affectionate understanding” is a term that better bridges our theoretical language with the felt quality of affection.","PeriodicalId":91515,"journal":{"name":"International journal of psychoanalytic self psychology","volume":"11 1","pages":"248 - 262"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15551024.2016.1178045","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of psychoanalytic self psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15551024.2016.1178045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Abstract
This article concerns the analyst’s affection for her/his patient and its importance in the therapeutic process. The analyst’s affection, when available, can act as a vitalizing enactment (Fosshage, 2007) but more importantly acts as a vitalizing, implicit foundation for the ongoing interaction between analyst and patient. The dearth of discourse in psychoanalytic literature on the analyst’s affection and the reluctance to overtly declare its importance is noted. In the currently evolving “paradigm shift from explicit conscious cognition to implicit unconscious affect” (Schore, 2011, p. 77), there is a recognition that there is an underpinning of emotion to all human interaction, and as such, it is incumbent upon us to at all times monitor our own affect state, including whether we feel affection and its nuances if present. Self psychologists tend to valorize empathy but doing so without considering the contribution of the analyst’s emotion, including the quality of his/her affection, which is an important part of the emotional spectrum, unduly constricts our consideration of the intersubjective field of analyst and patient. I postulate that the analyst’s ongoing empathy, in the context of a hermeneutics of trust, is not only the optimal psychoanalytic path to understanding but also leads to changes in the emotional organization of the analyst so as to facilitate the possible emergence of the analyst’s affection. As well, the good-enough satisfaction of the analyst’s selfobject needs contributes to the development of the analyst’s affection. Given its importance, it is advisable to monitor the state of our affection for our patients and determine how to proceed if our affection is not possible. “Affectionate understanding” is a term that better bridges our theoretical language with the felt quality of affection.
本文关注精神分析师对病人的情感及其在治疗过程中的重要性。分析师的情感,当可用时,可以作为一个充满活力的制定(Fosshage, 2007),但更重要的是作为一个充满活力的,隐含的基础,为分析师和病人之间的持续互动。精神分析文献中缺乏关于分析师情感的论述,并且不愿意公开宣布其重要性。在当前不断发展的“从显性意识认知到隐性无意识情感的范式转变”(Schore, 2011, p. 77)中,人们认识到,所有人类互动都有情感的基础,因此,我们有责任随时监控自己的情感状态,包括我们是否感受到情感及其细微差别。自我心理学家倾向于评估共情,但这样做没有考虑分析师的情绪的贡献,包括他/她的情感的质量,这是情绪谱的重要组成部分,过度限制了我们对分析师和患者主体间领域的考虑。我假设,在信任解释学的背景下,分析师持续的共情不仅是通往理解的最佳精神分析途径,而且还会导致分析师的情感组织发生变化,从而促进分析师情感的可能出现。同样,分析师自我客体需求的充分满足有助于分析师情感的发展。考虑到它的重要性,明智的做法是监测我们对病人的感情状态,并决定如果我们的感情不可能,如何进行。“深情的理解”是一个更好地将我们的理论语言与情感的感觉质量联系起来的术语。