Pub Date : 2016-05-27DOI: 10.1080/15551024.2016.1178049
Joye Weisel-Barth
A t the High Holiday service last fall, the new Jewish Reform prayer book, Mishkan HaNefesh, changed a central ancient prayer. Instead of the original plea, “Inscribe me in the Book of Life,” it now reads, “Inscribe me in the Book of Life Well-Lived.” On first hearing this I wondered, “How does one begin to identify and evaluate a well-lived life?” I thought again of this question as I read Paul Ornstein’s lovely and surprisingly profound memoir titled simply Looking Back: Memoir of a Psychoanalyst. If you want to know what a life well lived looks like, read this book. Still the book raises many questions for me. What are the ingredients of a welllived life? From our own lives, from our history as psychoanalysts, from analytic theory, and from child and family literature, we have gleaned ideas about the foundational experiences that inform positive human functioning. Selfobject experience, affective attunement, mentalizing experience, and positive parental vision—we are persuaded that these foster in children conditions for psychological growth and development and a solid sense of self. Yet, how do these ingredients combine with experience, and what are the quickening agents that propel a person toward a well-lived life? That is, what is the mysterious alchemy that transforms these ingredients into a realized life? Finally, how as analysts do we foster such a process in the adult lives of our patients? Although we have some directions here, this terrain is still somewhat murky. Using Paul Ornstein’s story, this review will inquire into these questions.
{"title":"What Is a Life Well Lived? A Review of Looking Back: Memoir of a Psychoanalyst by Paul Ornstein With Helen Epstein","authors":"Joye Weisel-Barth","doi":"10.1080/15551024.2016.1178049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15551024.2016.1178049","url":null,"abstract":"A t the High Holiday service last fall, the new Jewish Reform prayer book, Mishkan HaNefesh, changed a central ancient prayer. Instead of the original plea, “Inscribe me in the Book of Life,” it now reads, “Inscribe me in the Book of Life Well-Lived.” On first hearing this I wondered, “How does one begin to identify and evaluate a well-lived life?” I thought again of this question as I read Paul Ornstein’s lovely and surprisingly profound memoir titled simply Looking Back: Memoir of a Psychoanalyst. If you want to know what a life well lived looks like, read this book. Still the book raises many questions for me. What are the ingredients of a welllived life? From our own lives, from our history as psychoanalysts, from analytic theory, and from child and family literature, we have gleaned ideas about the foundational experiences that inform positive human functioning. Selfobject experience, affective attunement, mentalizing experience, and positive parental vision—we are persuaded that these foster in children conditions for psychological growth and development and a solid sense of self. Yet, how do these ingredients combine with experience, and what are the quickening agents that propel a person toward a well-lived life? That is, what is the mysterious alchemy that transforms these ingredients into a realized life? Finally, how as analysts do we foster such a process in the adult lives of our patients? Although we have some directions here, this terrain is still somewhat murky. Using Paul Ornstein’s story, this review will inquire into these questions.","PeriodicalId":91515,"journal":{"name":"International journal of psychoanalytic self psychology","volume":"11 1","pages":"293 - 299"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15551024.2016.1178049","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60011359","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-05-27DOI: 10.1080/15551024.2016.1178046
B. Bradfield
This article offers a narrative description of a challenging psychotherapeutic process from the vantage point of the author’s subjective experience. The treatment process, which evoked extreme states of fear and shame, ultimately culminating in a physical collapse, is considered from a self psychological perspective as well as a neo-Kleinian perspective. Projective identification, viewed herein as a bidirectional phenomenon, is considered in terms of its potential to expand and enrich our understanding of certain forms of selfobject transferences. Various iterations of coalescence and disjunction between the therapist and the patient are described, which reveal the dismantling and uniting influences of fear, shame, and destructuralization during the therapeutic process.
{"title":"Encounters on the Yellow Brick Road: Navigating Mutual Experiences of Fear, Shame, and Destructuralization Along the Therapeutic Path","authors":"B. Bradfield","doi":"10.1080/15551024.2016.1178046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15551024.2016.1178046","url":null,"abstract":"This article offers a narrative description of a challenging psychotherapeutic process from the vantage point of the author’s subjective experience. The treatment process, which evoked extreme states of fear and shame, ultimately culminating in a physical collapse, is considered from a self psychological perspective as well as a neo-Kleinian perspective. Projective identification, viewed herein as a bidirectional phenomenon, is considered in terms of its potential to expand and enrich our understanding of certain forms of selfobject transferences. Various iterations of coalescence and disjunction between the therapist and the patient are described, which reveal the dismantling and uniting influences of fear, shame, and destructuralization during the therapeutic process.","PeriodicalId":91515,"journal":{"name":"International journal of psychoanalytic self psychology","volume":"11 1","pages":"263 - 275"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15551024.2016.1178046","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60011117","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-05-27DOI: 10.1080/15551024.2016.1178043
Jill Gentile
By viewing attachment theory in terms of its implicit semiotics of desire, we discover an avenue for reconciliation between attachment theory and contemporary psychoanalysis. My discussants, Ringstrom and Slavin, both affirm this quest, joining in articulating a dialectical conception of how attachment and desire, relationship and drive, mutually constitute each other. Ringstrom elaborates my thesis particularly in relation to his own signature theorizing on couples’ treatment and calls attention to the conundrum of insistent demand and the “Pandora’s Box” of mutuality of desire. Slavin contextualizes my call within a larger existential framework, linking exploratory probings to mortal terrors. Both discussants highlight how high the stakes are in any genuine encounter between the known and the still unknown. Yet, by encompassing the erotics of the Oedipal triangle and its dialectics of the familiar-stranger, a more robust conception of attachment security emerges situated in a third space between drive and attachment, existential dread and relational connection, desire and reunion, even as we discover their inextricable union.
{"title":"The Erotically Reconceived Familiar Stranger: Reply to Ringstrom and Slavin","authors":"Jill Gentile","doi":"10.1080/15551024.2016.1178043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15551024.2016.1178043","url":null,"abstract":"By viewing attachment theory in terms of its implicit semiotics of desire, we discover an avenue for reconciliation between attachment theory and contemporary psychoanalysis. My discussants, Ringstrom and Slavin, both affirm this quest, joining in articulating a dialectical conception of how attachment and desire, relationship and drive, mutually constitute each other. Ringstrom elaborates my thesis particularly in relation to his own signature theorizing on couples’ treatment and calls attention to the conundrum of insistent demand and the “Pandora’s Box” of mutuality of desire. Slavin contextualizes my call within a larger existential framework, linking exploratory probings to mortal terrors. Both discussants highlight how high the stakes are in any genuine encounter between the known and the still unknown. Yet, by encompassing the erotics of the Oedipal triangle and its dialectics of the familiar-stranger, a more robust conception of attachment security emerges situated in a third space between drive and attachment, existential dread and relational connection, desire and reunion, even as we discover their inextricable union.","PeriodicalId":91515,"journal":{"name":"International journal of psychoanalytic self psychology","volume":"11 1","pages":"239 - 247"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15551024.2016.1178043","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60011346","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-05-27DOI: 10.1080/15551024.2016.1178045
Daniel A. Perlitz
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。
{"title":"Beyond Kohut: From Empathy to Affection","authors":"Daniel A. Perlitz","doi":"10.1080/15551024.2016.1178045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15551024.2016.1178045","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":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15551024.2016.1178045","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60011048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-05-27DOI: 10.1080/15551024.2016.1178042
P. Ringstrom
This discussion of Jill Gentile’s magma opus article “Between the Familiar and the Stranger: Attachment Security, Mutual Desire, and Reclaimed Love” notes her important and original contribution in wedding attachment theory and contemporary psychoanalysis. It is further noted that she very convincingly shows that attachment theory is insufficient without taking up the complexities of desire—so critical to contemporary psychoanalysis—while the latter is insufficient taking up the criticality of security in attachments, that is, in both developmental relationships and psychoanalytic pairings. It is also noted, however, that Gentile is opening up even further the Pandora’s Box in contemporary psychoanalysis wherein the traditional pillars of technique, abstinence, neutrality, and anonymity give way to the unruliness of therapist self-disclosure, removing the boundary from disclosing therapeutic desire. Where the profession of desire is to some degree wedded to any burgeoning sense of security, this creates a potential dilemma for the analyst when in fact he/she does not “desire” the patient, at least not in the manner that he/she longs for, or more to the point, comes to demand. This is then discussed in terms of the literature on “double binds,” “relational knots,” and “crunches,” all of which relate to intrinsic problems that emerge largely around collisions of desire in analysis.
{"title":"Discussion of Gentile’s “Between the Familiar and the Stranger: Attachment Security, Mutual Desire, and Reclaimed Love”","authors":"P. Ringstrom","doi":"10.1080/15551024.2016.1178042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15551024.2016.1178042","url":null,"abstract":"This discussion of Jill Gentile’s magma opus article “Between the Familiar and the Stranger: Attachment Security, Mutual Desire, and Reclaimed Love” notes her important and original contribution in wedding attachment theory and contemporary psychoanalysis. It is further noted that she very convincingly shows that attachment theory is insufficient without taking up the complexities of desire—so critical to contemporary psychoanalysis—while the latter is insufficient taking up the criticality of security in attachments, that is, in both developmental relationships and psychoanalytic pairings. It is also noted, however, that Gentile is opening up even further the Pandora’s Box in contemporary psychoanalysis wherein the traditional pillars of technique, abstinence, neutrality, and anonymity give way to the unruliness of therapist self-disclosure, removing the boundary from disclosing therapeutic desire. Where the profession of desire is to some degree wedded to any burgeoning sense of security, this creates a potential dilemma for the analyst when in fact he/she does not “desire” the patient, at least not in the manner that he/she longs for, or more to the point, comes to demand. This is then discussed in terms of the literature on “double binds,” “relational knots,” and “crunches,” all of which relate to intrinsic problems that emerge largely around collisions of desire in analysis.","PeriodicalId":91515,"journal":{"name":"International journal of psychoanalytic self psychology","volume":"13 1","pages":"226 - 238"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15551024.2016.1178042","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60011287","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-05-27DOI: 10.1080/15551024.2016.1178041
M. O. Slavin
I view Gentile’s attempt to see desire and attachment as inherently working together from an existential–adaptive perspective and how, as I see it, they must work together dialectically—both developmentally and as a complex system (Coburn, 2015). A clinical–developmental narrative illustrates the larger context within which these dialectical tensions between attachment and desire enable us to probe, evaluate, and create the realness and trustworthiness of all intimate relationships—from birth onward throughout the lifecycle and in the treatment setting (Slavin and Klein, 2013).
{"title":"Desire and Secure Attachment: An Adaptive Dialectic—Discussion of Jill Gentile’s “Between the Familiar and the Stranger: Attachment Security, Mutual Desire, and Reclaimed Love”","authors":"M. O. Slavin","doi":"10.1080/15551024.2016.1178041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15551024.2016.1178041","url":null,"abstract":"I view Gentile’s attempt to see desire and attachment as inherently working together from an existential–adaptive perspective and how, as I see it, they must work together dialectically—both developmentally and as a complex system (Coburn, 2015). A clinical–developmental narrative illustrates the larger context within which these dialectical tensions between attachment and desire enable us to probe, evaluate, and create the realness and trustworthiness of all intimate relationships—from birth onward throughout the lifecycle and in the treatment setting (Slavin and Klein, 2013).","PeriodicalId":91515,"journal":{"name":"International journal of psychoanalytic self psychology","volume":"11 1","pages":"216 - 225"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15551024.2016.1178041","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60011132","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-05-27DOI: 10.1080/15551024.2016.1178039
Jill Gentile
This article explores the idea that relationships of attachment security are simultaneously relationships of mutual desire. Seen through this lens, separation and reunion behavior become increasingly psychologically charged: infant and mother as well as patient and analyst must revisit their willingness to expose their desire in each encounter. By recognizing that personal agency is vital to both healthy attachment and romantic desire, we can begin to appreciate the dawning of romantic desire, not so much as promoting “separation-individuation” as often conceived, but as exerting a gravitational pull to revisit an original love—one that is now erotically reconceived. We reclaim an original love but now in a relational context between mother and the Other, the pre-Oedipal and the Oedipal, the familiar and the stranger.
{"title":"Between the Familiar and the Stranger: Attachment Security, Mutual Desire, and Reclaimed Love","authors":"Jill Gentile","doi":"10.1080/15551024.2016.1178039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15551024.2016.1178039","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the idea that relationships of attachment security are simultaneously relationships of mutual desire. Seen through this lens, separation and reunion behavior become increasingly psychologically charged: infant and mother as well as patient and analyst must revisit their willingness to expose their desire in each encounter. By recognizing that personal agency is vital to both healthy attachment and romantic desire, we can begin to appreciate the dawning of romantic desire, not so much as promoting “separation-individuation” as often conceived, but as exerting a gravitational pull to revisit an original love—one that is now erotically reconceived. We reclaim an original love but now in a relational context between mother and the Other, the pre-Oedipal and the Oedipal, the familiar and the stranger.","PeriodicalId":91515,"journal":{"name":"International journal of psychoanalytic self psychology","volume":"11 1","pages":"193 - 215"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15551024.2016.1178039","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60010967","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-05-27DOI: 10.1080/15551024.2016.1178048
C. Watkins
In this article, I examine the question “What are some essentials of a self psychology perspective on the supervisory process?” I subsequently make an effort to (1) identify and review self psychology supervisory materials that have appeared over the last 35 years; (2) determine the primary messages, salient themes, and crucial features that define those materials; and (3) use that resulting information to then provide a springboard for considering a more contemporary, contextualized perspective about self psychology supervisory practice. Review results are organized around two crucial areas of emphasis: (1) supervisee learning and (2) the supervisor as selfobject. The primary review conclusions are (1) supervision can most fundamentally be viewed as a disruption-construction process where the supervisee builds a practice self; (2) the supervisor–supervisee learning alliance and supervisor listening perspectives, mirroring, idealization, and empathy substantively contribute to and make increasingly likely that practice self-construction; and (3) the concept of fit now increasingly defines a contemporary self-psychology vision of supervision, where continuing collaborative effort is made to tailor an experience that best matches the unique nature of each supervisor–supervisee dyad and patient–supervisee–supervisor triad. If there is one preeminent practice principle to bear in mind, it would be this: self psychology supervision is forever energized when optimally customized and thoughtfully contextualized.
{"title":"Self Psychology and Psychoanalytic Supervision: Some Thoughts on a Contextualized Perspective","authors":"C. Watkins","doi":"10.1080/15551024.2016.1178048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15551024.2016.1178048","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I examine the question “What are some essentials of a self psychology perspective on the supervisory process?” I subsequently make an effort to (1) identify and review self psychology supervisory materials that have appeared over the last 35 years; (2) determine the primary messages, salient themes, and crucial features that define those materials; and (3) use that resulting information to then provide a springboard for considering a more contemporary, contextualized perspective about self psychology supervisory practice. Review results are organized around two crucial areas of emphasis: (1) supervisee learning and (2) the supervisor as selfobject. The primary review conclusions are (1) supervision can most fundamentally be viewed as a disruption-construction process where the supervisee builds a practice self; (2) the supervisor–supervisee learning alliance and supervisor listening perspectives, mirroring, idealization, and empathy substantively contribute to and make increasingly likely that practice self-construction; and (3) the concept of fit now increasingly defines a contemporary self-psychology vision of supervision, where continuing collaborative effort is made to tailor an experience that best matches the unique nature of each supervisor–supervisee dyad and patient–supervisee–supervisor triad. If there is one preeminent practice principle to bear in mind, it would be this: self psychology supervision is forever energized when optimally customized and thoughtfully contextualized.","PeriodicalId":91515,"journal":{"name":"International journal of psychoanalytic self psychology","volume":"11 1","pages":"276 - 292"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15551024.2016.1178048","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60011227","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-05-27DOI: 10.1080/15551024.2016.1178051
P. Ringstrom
T here are any number of psychoanalytic volumes that are impressive achievements in the exploration and development of metapsychological theory, or compendiums on clinical practice chock full of case illustrations, or more personally ascribed pieces that speak of the autobiographical influences in shaping the author’s psychoanalytic weltanschaung. Seldom, however, is there a volume that pulls together all of these elements and most importantly writes about them in plain English. Christina Kieffer’s newest volume Mutuality, Recognition, and the Self: Psychoanalytic Reflections (Kieffer, 2014) achieves all of this and more through sewing together a host of articles she has published over the past three decades. The dimensions of depth and breadth of the volume are measured in terms of a rich evolution of psychoanalytic theory, admittedly biased in terms of the contemporary influences of self psychology and relational psychoanalysis. Because both have also been influenced by such theories as complexity theory (and its sister theories chaos and nonlinear dynamic systems theory), Kieffer covers these too, but most importantly she never loses sight of the psychoanalytic traditions, the shoulders upon which all contemporary psychoanalytic theory stands when one takes an evolutionary perspective regarding progressions in psychoanalytic thinking. In so doing, Kieffer’s volume is assiduously ecumenical and I would say fair, and that comes through whether one agrees with everything
{"title":"A Review of Mutuality, Recognition, and the Self: Psychoanalytic Reflections by Christine C. Kieffer","authors":"P. Ringstrom","doi":"10.1080/15551024.2016.1178051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15551024.2016.1178051","url":null,"abstract":"T here are any number of psychoanalytic volumes that are impressive achievements in the exploration and development of metapsychological theory, or compendiums on clinical practice chock full of case illustrations, or more personally ascribed pieces that speak of the autobiographical influences in shaping the author’s psychoanalytic weltanschaung. Seldom, however, is there a volume that pulls together all of these elements and most importantly writes about them in plain English. Christina Kieffer’s newest volume Mutuality, Recognition, and the Self: Psychoanalytic Reflections (Kieffer, 2014) achieves all of this and more through sewing together a host of articles she has published over the past three decades. The dimensions of depth and breadth of the volume are measured in terms of a rich evolution of psychoanalytic theory, admittedly biased in terms of the contemporary influences of self psychology and relational psychoanalysis. Because both have also been influenced by such theories as complexity theory (and its sister theories chaos and nonlinear dynamic systems theory), Kieffer covers these too, but most importantly she never loses sight of the psychoanalytic traditions, the shoulders upon which all contemporary psychoanalytic theory stands when one takes an evolutionary perspective regarding progressions in psychoanalytic thinking. In so doing, Kieffer’s volume is assiduously ecumenical and I would say fair, and that comes through whether one agrees with everything","PeriodicalId":91515,"journal":{"name":"International journal of psychoanalytic self psychology","volume":"11 1","pages":"300 - 309"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15551024.2016.1178051","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60011731","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-02-25DOI: 10.1080/15551024.2016.1141605
Joye Weisel-Barth
I t’s always a pleasure to have a dialogue with Steven Stern. A dialogue with him begins with the sense that I have a partner, who not only has the capacity, but genuinely wants to meet me on my wavelength and imagine my perspective. Therefore, as in this response, I usually end up feeling well understood. Then, because Steve pushes himself to think hard about things, I can trust him to push me also to think harder than I usually do and to open up new perspectives for me. That’s true of his review of my “Courting the ‘Real’” article. In his efforts to illuminate the complexity of the analyst’s tasks, he causes me to think more deeply both about the nature and creation of “analytic objects” and the many meanings of “going in close.” Both of these issues deserve full article responses. But here I want to write about some ways that Steve’s discussion has stimulated my own thoughts about the stories we psychoanalysts tell. I want to think out loud about my lingering puzzlement: why our analytic stories often feel too simple, static, reductive, or missing the strangeness and surprise of great literature, real life, and certainly the experience of working in analytic space. The first thing that occurs to me is that in trying to illustrate our ideas about clinical action, dyadic processes, and the goals of therapeutic interaction, we usually overstate our positions. We adopt simple story lines that miss important complexities, particularly the complexities of interactive changes over time. Certainly as meaning-making creatures lusting for coherence, we adore good stories. For example, in psychoanalysis, we have a myriad of established, well-loved—and in my view oversimplified—stories. Among them are the “libido story”—too much of it and you’re a psychological goner; the
{"title":"Thinking About Our Psychoanalytic Stories: Response to Steven Stern","authors":"Joye Weisel-Barth","doi":"10.1080/15551024.2016.1141605","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15551024.2016.1141605","url":null,"abstract":"I t’s always a pleasure to have a dialogue with Steven Stern. A dialogue with him begins with the sense that I have a partner, who not only has the capacity, but genuinely wants to meet me on my wavelength and imagine my perspective. Therefore, as in this response, I usually end up feeling well understood. Then, because Steve pushes himself to think hard about things, I can trust him to push me also to think harder than I usually do and to open up new perspectives for me. That’s true of his review of my “Courting the ‘Real’” article. In his efforts to illuminate the complexity of the analyst’s tasks, he causes me to think more deeply both about the nature and creation of “analytic objects” and the many meanings of “going in close.” Both of these issues deserve full article responses. But here I want to write about some ways that Steve’s discussion has stimulated my own thoughts about the stories we psychoanalysts tell. I want to think out loud about my lingering puzzlement: why our analytic stories often feel too simple, static, reductive, or missing the strangeness and surprise of great literature, real life, and certainly the experience of working in analytic space. The first thing that occurs to me is that in trying to illustrate our ideas about clinical action, dyadic processes, and the goals of therapeutic interaction, we usually overstate our positions. We adopt simple story lines that miss important complexities, particularly the complexities of interactive changes over time. Certainly as meaning-making creatures lusting for coherence, we adore good stories. For example, in psychoanalysis, we have a myriad of established, well-loved—and in my view oversimplified—stories. Among them are the “libido story”—too much of it and you’re a psychological goner; the","PeriodicalId":91515,"journal":{"name":"International journal of psychoanalytic self psychology","volume":"11 1","pages":"136 - 141"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15551024.2016.1141605","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60010700","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：