@article{TanseyBurke, author = {Tansey, Michael J. and Burke, Walter F.}, title = {Commentary on Frank's >action, insight, and working through< from the perspective of Freudian analysis}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 04 (1994), pp. 349-352.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 04 (1994), pp. 349-352.}, language = {en} } @article{Tansey, author = {Tansey, Michael J.}, title = {Clinical choices and the theory of psychoanalytic technique: Commentary on papers by Mitchell and by Davies}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 04 (1994), pp. 139-152.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 04 (1994), pp. 139-152.}, abstract = {Since the middle of this century, countertransference theory has steadily evolved to a point where we now find abundant references in our literature involving extremely useful self-disclosive examinations of a broad spectrum of potentially disruptive countertransference responses. Our collective attitude of openness and even excitement at the potential usefulness of such responses in deepening our understanding of our patients, ourselves, and the nature of our work has been profoundly beneficial. And yet despite our advances from the early days of psychoanalysis when powerful countertransference was viewed strictly as an impediment, an atmosphere of disapproval and dread continues to pervade the phenomenon of erotic countertransference, which in turn contributes ironically to the alarming incidence of sexual abuse of patients by therapists of every orientation and level of experience. The roots of our collective intolerance are explored, beginning with Breuer's treatment of Anna O and Jung's entanglement with Sabina Spielrein. Case material is presented involving erotic countertransference, and a position is taken regarding future directions that are vital to our profession.}, language = {en} } @article{Tansey, author = {Tansey, Michael J.}, title = {A White Therapist, an African American Patient - Shame in the Therapeutic Dyad: Commentary on Paper by Neil Altman}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 02 (1992), pp. 305-316.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 02 (1992), pp. 305-316.}, abstract = {There is substantial and often heated debate concerning the true nature of psychoanalytic expertise. The position is taken that no such characterization will ever attain anything approaching universal consensus. Conclusions that are drawn concerning the nature of psychoanalytic expertise are unalterably influenced by underlying fundamental assumptions concerning emotional development, psychopathology (when that term is even used), and what is needed for useful change to come about. This paper explores the nature of psychoanalytic expertise as it is conceptualized and understood within the three models articulated by Mitchell (1988) that have dominated psychoanalytic theorizing: the drive-conflict model, the developmental-arrest model, and the relational-conflict model. Special attention is paid to considerations of asymmetry and mutuality in the analytic relationship.}, language = {en} }