@misc{Tabachnick, author = {Tabachnick, Norman}, title = {Review Richard D. Chessick: Emotional Illness and Creativity, A Psychoanalytic and Ph{\´e}nom{\´e}nologie Study}, series = {The Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 30 (2002), pp. 317-322.}, journal = {The Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 30 (2002), pp. 317-322.}, language = {en} } @article{Sugar, author = {Sugar, Max}, title = {Commonalities Between the Isaac and Oedipus Myths: A Speculation}, series = {The Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 30 (2002), pp. 691-706.}, journal = {The Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 30 (2002), pp. 691-706.}, language = {en} } @article{Strozier, author = {Strozier, Charles B.}, title = {Some practical implications of a social-constructivist view of the psychoanalytic situation}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 12 (2002), pp. 361-380.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 12 (2002), pp. 361-380.}, abstract = {A discussion of the apocalyptic dimensions of the World Trade Center disaster, this paper considers some first-hand reports of the towers burning and collapsing, as well as the author's own experience that day watching events unfold and discussing these horrors with his patients. Several conceptual ideas are developed, including the varied ways people experienced the disaster in terms of >zones of sadness< the organic nature of the way the disaster unfolded the language of the victims in terms of underlying rhetorical structures of response and psycho-historical considerations that suggest, in part, why the disaster was such a collective trauma.}, 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} } @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, Donnel B.}, title = {Language and the Nonverbal as a Unity: Discussion of >Where Is the Action in the >Talking Curefemininity,< are explained as an inability to >kill< the primal murderous father, as the mythological Primal Horde. Freud's description of sons' (group members') hypnotic love for their father leader (which, that when not reciprocated, turns into masochistic submission), seems pertinent for the understanding of the sons' >return< to an archaic, cruel father imago. >Regression< to the father is compared with classical maternal regression.}, language = {en} } @article{Spezzano, author = {Spezzano, Charles}, title = {The bilingual self - thoughts from a scientific positivist or pragmatic psychoanalyst? Reply to Massey}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 12 (2002), pp. 899-913.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 12 (2002), pp. 899-913.}, abstract = {This paper is a response to an essay by Drew Westen. The author agrees with many of Westen's arguments about problems in the psychoanalytic literature and adds that the psychoanalytic literature has always been a problem for psychoanalysis. If we think of psychoanalysis as an ongoing experiment, then its >trials< are all the analytic sessions that have been conducted. Our >literature< has never systematically drawn on those. Westen critically scrutinizes certain habits that, in his view, haunt our literature, but that we do not explicitly note or disown as conceptual contrivances we mean to get rid of, while they are often misguiding clinical thinking and practice. I suggest that a fascinating question riding below the waves of Westen's paper is why patients and analysts accept this situation. I suggest that we all treat psychoanalysis as wisdom, art, relationship, skill, and something other than the application of established scientific findings because we recognize and accept it as that kind of human activity. It is unclear if patients care whether or not their analysts are scientists, but it is clear that analysts are not optimistic about sifting the research literature and finding clear clues to more effective clinical thinking, work, or writing.}, language = {en} } @article{Silvio, author = {Silvio, Joseph R.}, title = {A Streetcar Named Desire - Psychoanalytic Perspectives}, series = {The Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 30 (2002), pp. 135-144.}, journal = {The Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 30 (2002), pp. 135-144.}, language = {en} }