In this essay, we pose the question of psychoanalysis and national character. We explore the Americanness of psychoanalysis in this country through an examination of the history of its emergence in the early and mid-20th century, and through an examination of the impact of pragmatism on the formation and evolution of psychoanalysis in the United States. We consider American models of change and the impact of theoretical movements such as feminism and queer theory. We explore a particular quality and meaning of unconscious phenomena through an examination of American visions of nature over the past century and a half. The impact of elements of national identity and dominant American ideas and practices on relational psychoanalysis is also addressed.
Reply to Schwartz
(2001)
We use a dialogue between supervisor and supervisee to explore a clinical process lived in parallel in an analysis and in a corrollary supervision. The clinical material is theorized in terms of relational and intersubjective processes in supervision, speech processes that may underlie transference, and countertransference phenomena. In the parallel process that arose between treatment and supervision, we examine the interplay of the patient's dynamics, the issues of power and safety in clinical and supervisory dyads, and some of the mechanisms that underlie transpersonal states.
A model of gender as a paradoxical and multidimensional structure is proposed. An extended critical reading of Freud's essay on a case of homosexuality in a woman undermines the notion of gender identity and sexual object choice as monolithic categories of experience. The Freud case is considered for its radical model of sexuality and gender, but also for its restrictive use of classical interpretation. Alternative interpretive lines and transference countertransference meanings are considered. With the use of contemporary clinical material, a model of gender identity and sexuality is proposed in which the unconscious and symbolic meaning of bodies and genders, rather than biological sex of the lover and the beloved, carries the interpretive weight.
The current reemergence of clinicians’ attention to the sequelae of childhood sexual abuse has been met by a powerful critical opposition. The criticisms often extend to many forms of psychotherapy and to psychoanalytic treatments of trauma. This article situates the debate in its historical context. It examines the use of eyewitness testimony and the work of Elizabeth Loftus in this controversy and makes a case for a more wide-ranging, careful, and critical reading of cognitive neuroscience and empirical studies of memory processes. The distinctions between clinical data, legal evidence, and research findings are considered. The essay also examines some of the challenges and problems in treating trauma and in considering the impact of real events in a relational and social constructionist psychoanalysis.