@article{Pizer, author = {Pizer, Stuart A.}, title = {A self-psychological perspective on Shabad's >resentment, indignation, entitlement<}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 02 (1992), pp. 215-240.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 02 (1992), pp. 215-240.}, abstract = {The negotiation of paradox may be considered as an essential vehicle of the therapeutic action of psychoanalysis. The paradoxes inherent to the psychoanalytic experience are considered here with particular reference to Winnicott's writings, which abound in, and require, paradox. These paradoxes are evident in the following juxtapositions: the subjectively conceived object versus the objectively perceived object personal isolation versus relatedness ruthlessness versus concern and dependence versus independence. In analysis, the framework for the transitional area of illusion is maintained through a continuing intersubjective process of negotiation, by which analyst and patient seek to straddle the paradoxes of their many-layered relationship. This ongoing process of negotiation carries both the potential for structure building and the delicate hope for a reworking of repetitions in the transference-countertransference construction. Exploration of these issues includes consideration of the analyst's and patient's coauthorship of metaphorical communications and a definition of the analyst's neutrality in terms of his responsibility to preserve the area of illusion for ongoing negotiation. Finally, detailed clinical material serves to illustrate the process of negotiation in the course of a treatment.}, language = {en} } @article{Pizer, author = {Pizer, Stuart A.}, title = {From the Consulting Room to Social Critique: Commentary on Papers by Neil Altman and Rachael Peltz}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 06 (1996), pp. 689-712.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 06 (1996), pp. 689-712.}, abstract = {This paper explores paradox and negotiation in the analytic process by focusing on an approach to clinical technique that seeks to optimize the therapeutic use of the potential in >potential space.< Specific elements of technique that serve to keep an intersubjective potential space open for ongoing negotiation between patient and analyst include the employment of metaphorical forms and subjunctive modes of language. Through the practice of playful and nonauthoritarian exchanges within the analytic duet, the patient may gain in both the accessibility and articulation of internal life, and develop the competence to straddle, rather than foreclose, the paradoxes inherent in a range of self-states and relational experiences. These techniques for negotiating potential space are illustrated in detail by excerpts from the analysis of >Donald,< whose earlier therapy was presented in a previous article.}, language = {en} } @article{Pizer, author = {Pizer, Stuart A.}, title = {On the >mere< fictions of psychoanalysis. Reply to Sass}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 09 (1999), pp. 061-068.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 09 (1999), pp. 061-068.}, language = {en} } @article{Pizer, author = {Pizer, Stuart A.}, title = {Reflections on effective provision. Commentary on John Lindon's >gratification and provision in psychoanalysis<}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 10 (2000), pp. 195-196.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 10 (2000), pp. 195-196.}, language = {en} } @article{Pizer, author = {Pizer, Stuart A.}, title = {Relational Trouble: Reply to Commentaries}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 10 (2000), pp. 247-259.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 10 (2000), pp. 247-259.}, language = {en} } @article{Pizer, author = {Pizer, Stuart A.}, title = {The American Independent Tradition: Loewald, Erikson, and the (Possible) Rise of Intersubjective Ego Psychology}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 12 (2002), pp. 715-725.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 12 (2002), pp. 715-725.}, abstract = {In this discussion of Stern's rich and thoughtful contribution to the dialogue between unified- and multiple-self theories, I refer to his earlier conceptualization of repeated and needed relationships. I thus highlight how his current model strikes me as shifting his emphasis toward identificatory factors, both in development and in clinical process, and away from the working through, or negotiation of, repetitions of relational configurations. Through Stern's clinical examples, I engage dialogue about how his construct of an >intersubjective self< relates to the qualities of multiplicity he accounts for in his theory. And I consider the implications for clinical technique of favoring identificatory influences over the analyst's living through the experience of transference repetitions with the patient and thereby introducing ameliorating responses from within, rather than from a stance more external to, embeddedness in transference-countertransference repetitions.}, language = {en} } @article{Pizer, author = {Pizer, Stuart A.}, title = {Sociorelational Psychoanalysis and Agency: Reply to Commentary}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 12 (2002), pp. 317-330.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues Vol. 12 (2002), pp. 317-330.}, abstract = {The author appreciates the careful reading and thoughtful reviews by Sue Elkind, Sam Gerson, and Howard Levine. Elkind's review particularly captures and articulates many of the key ideas in the book Building Bridges: The Negotiation of Paradox in Psychoanalysis and creatively applies concepts of negotiation, paradox, an inherently multiple >distributed self,< and metaphor in her own work consulting on treatment impasses. Gerson incisively focuses on the core idea of recognizing, accepting, and bridging differences and contradictions in personal, and national, perspectives he also articulates an understanding of the attempt of relational analytic writers to bridge the intrapsychic and the interpersonal with due recognition of each. The author replies extensively to Levine's comparison of Pizer's work with that of Semrad and other >classical< analysts and challenges Levine's premise that a relational perspective, grounded as it is in a two-person contextual psychology, ignores or devalues interpretation, insight, free association, and autonomous mental functioning. Quoting from clinical material in his book, Pizer presents the outcome of a >relational< analysis in terms of the patient's increased access to internal >potential space,< unconscious experience, curiosity, and reflectiveness about the mental life of self and other, and an increased ability to value personal experience in relationship and in solitude.}, language = {en} } @article{Pizer, author = {Pizer, Stuart A.}, title = {The Psyche as a Process}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues, Vol. 14 (2004), pp. 287-288.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues, Vol. 14 (2004), pp. 287-288.}, language = {en} } @article{Pizer, author = {Pizer, Stuart A.}, title = {The pure gold of natural language. Commentary on Michael J. Bader's >postmodern epistemology: The problem of validation and the retreat from therapeutics in psychoanalysis<}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues, Vol. 14 (2004), pp. 289-311.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues, Vol. 14 (2004), pp. 289-311.}, abstract = {This paper offers an intimate account of a long-term analytic process and a detailed presentation of one pivotal session to illustrate and explore the issues of love, dissociation, and discipline in a therapeutic relationship. Organized around the concept of impasse, this paper presents a relational perspective on the potential in transference and countertransference love to facilitate or curtail the forward progress of therapeutic work. Love may bring life or impasse to a person in analysis. One key to the dynamics of therapeutic love and impasse is the problem of weak dissociation (Stern, 1997) and the impact of the analyst's noticing, or not noticing, a moment in the onrush of familiar clinical process that is ripe for questioning. A new concept is introduced and elaborated in this paper that relates to the resolution of preoedipal and oedipal transference love: The paradoxical analytic triangle.}, language = {en} } @article{Pizer, author = {Pizer, Stuart A.}, title = {Why the search for causality will not go away. Reply to commentaries}, series = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues, Vol. 15 (2005), pp. 747-757.}, journal = {Psychoanalytic Dialogues, Vol. 15 (2005), pp. 747-757.}, abstract = {Replying to eight commentaries on my paper submitted by readers of this journal, I address such disparate issues as matters of training and supervision, theories of regression, the analyst's self-states, the patient's vital purpose, complexities of doing for the Other, and the question of what needs to be spoken (interpreted, formulated, declared) explicitly between patient and analyst. I further explore the meaning of my stating to my patient that I would not hug her in our analytic work ahead. And I respond to questions regarding my concept of the paradoxical analytic triangle.}, language = {en} }