@article{Stern, author = {Stern, Steven}, title = {Commentary on Andrew Morrison's >the breadth and boundaries of a self-psychological immersion in shame<}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 04 (1994), pp. 317-346.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 04 (1994), pp. 317-346.}, abstract = {This paper proposes a conceptual and clinical integration of contemporary psychoanalytic theories that emphasize the repetitive dimension of the transference (the repeated relationship) and those that stress the developmental or selfobject dimension (the needed relationship). Such an integration is accomplished by enlarging our conception of the communicative matrix that includes transference, projective identification, and countertransference. It is suggested that patients actively seek to enlist the therapist both in old pathogenic interactional scenarios and in new therapeutically needed relational configurations. Thus, contrary to recent criticisms of the developmental paradigm, the therapist does not have to look outside the transference-countertransference matrix for a model of the developmentally needed relationship: the patient communicates it through a creative, proactive form of projective identification. The work of Racker, Sandier, Winnicott, Bollas, and various self psychologists is reviewed and found to support this reconceptualization. The paper then examines the theory of analytic cure in the light of this integrated perspective. It is suggested that the most compelling theories take into account the analyst's >embeddedness< in the transference - countertransference while recognizing the importance of the analyst's >mastering the countertransference< as the basis for providing a new developmental experience. The therapeutic models of Racker, Bollas, and Newman are described as exemplary in this regard.}, language = {en} } @article{Stern, author = {Stern, Steven}, title = {Commentary on Mark Blechner's >working in the countertransference<: The value of naive directness in countertransference work}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 04 (1994), pp. 371-388.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 04 (1994), pp. 371-388.}, language = {en} } @article{Stern, author = {Stern, Steven}, title = {The American Impact on Psychoanalysis}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 12 (2002), pp. 693-714.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 12 (2002), pp. 693-714.}, abstract = {This paper addresses the postmodern critique of unified-self theories that argues that the self is not unified but multiple, not a static entity but in constant flux, not a separate center of initiative but intersubjectively constituted. The author proposes that there are two kinds of division in self-experience: the dissociative divisions of multiple-self theory, and a division, akin to the divisions between Freud's structural agencies, between what are here termed the >intersubjective self< and >primary subjective experience.< In contrast to dissociated self-states, which occur in different moments in time, these two dimensions of self-experience occur simultaneously indeed, what is most important about them is their relationship. The author suggests that it is this intrapsychic relationship, as it occurs in a given psychological moment, that determines the qualities of self-experience that are emphasized in unified-self theories: such qualities as cohesiveness versus fragmentation authenticity vs. falseness vitality versus depletion optimal versus nonoptimal self-regulation and agency versus feeling one is at the mercy of others. Furthermore, a major organizer of the intersubjective self is early identifications, especially >identifications with the other's response to the self.< The implications of these concepts for therapeutic action are discussed and illustrated with an extended account of an analytic case.}, language = {en} } @article{Stern, author = {Stern, Steven}, title = {The Analyst's Muse Commentary on Paper by Barbara Pizer}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 12 (2002), pp. 747-762.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 12 (2002), pp. 747-762.}, abstract = {The discussions by Pizer and Brandchaft are so different in tone and focus that I answer them separately. Pizer invites dialogue about the relationship between identification and dissociation, which I pursue further with him. I then briefly consider his therapeutic model, which emphasizes the negotiation of paradox, in the light of the identificatory divisions in self-experience that my model highlights. Finally, I address his concern that I bypassed the >crunch< of the repeated relationship in the case example of Jonathan. I argue that the stance I ultimately adopted was my way of bridging the paradoxes presented by Jonathan. Brandchaft couched his discussion as a dismissive attack, prompting me to defend myself while trying to engage in a dialogue about substantive issues. I respond to his criticisms regarding my epistemological position, my use of the concepts of identification and projective identification, and the process and outcome of my treatment of Jonathan. The bottom line is that the differences between our perspectives are not, as Brandchaft contends, those between an objectivist, causally >unidirectional< model and an intersubjective one, but rather those between two versions of intersubjectivity.}, language = {en} }