The analyst's identification with his or her profession and its ethos may profoundly influence the patient's treatment in subtle and less subtle ways. A particularly noteworthy instance of this is the impact of the patient's knowing that he or she is the subject of the analyst's writings. I present illustrative material from a patient in intensive psychotherapy who had pronounced reactions, especially evident in her dream imagery, to my having written about her. This material and the issues it highlights are discussed from the vantage point of the analyst's professional self and psychoanalytic discourse, which together constitute a >third< dimension vis-à-vis the therapeutic relationship. I consider what a Lacan-inspired perspective (Muller, 1996) might contribute to a relational understanding of the impact of the analyst's professional aspect.
Reply to Panel Questions
(2001)
Dr. Fairfield makes a strong case that contemporary analytic theorists fail to live up to their apparent aspiration to present a thoroughgoingly postmodern conceptualization of the self. She argues instead in favor of a >hybrid< model – one that includes a dollop of modernism in the postmodernist brew. In this commentary, I critique the theorizing process inherent in psychoanalytic postmodernism, and then comment on and give a clinical example involving the self's >configurality.< I argue that we need to embrace the challenges of postmodernism without so privileging this position that we let it loosen our grasp of the realities of everyday clinical experience that might cause us to question postmodernism's tenets or values. Moreover, we must not assume that we can gauge the full impact of our >model of subjectivity< on the therapeutic process by knowing what we think we think.
Instead of dichotomizing psychic life as either intrapsychic or interpersonal, I suggest we think in terms of a continuum of self-experience from the most private or interior to the most public or exterior. I articulate four >domains< – phenomenologic, intrapersonal, interpsychic, and interpersonal – that constitute this spectrum of self-experience. Each domain lends a specific quality to one's internal life, and together (but in varying proportions) they constitute the psychic dwelling place unique to a given individual. This article illustrates how the variability among our patients in their habitual dwelling places may explain their diverse responses to differing analytic stances, interpretive approaches, and indeed, different analysts. A clinician's awareness of his or her own personal proclivity toward a more interior or more exterior orientation helps promote optimal contact with the patient's psychic life.
Introduction
(1997)
Post-Jungian Dialogues
(1999)