The relationship between psychoanalytic theory and psychoanalytic practice is highly complicated. In this paper, the author presents case material from the psychoanalysis of a man with social anxiety. In the process, the analyst came to be perceived as a version of a blank screen. At the same time, the analyst noted a discrepancy between the patient's attitude on and off the couch. Further work revealed that this splitting in his attitude had its root in the patient's relationship with his parents during his childhood. It was crucially important that the analyst did not take his perceived blankness as a technical success but that he understood the patient's reaction contextually, taking his past relationships with his parents into consideration. The author then discusses theoretical issues related to the blank screen concept. Finally, the author discusses the importance of understanding the two aspects of analytic theorizing, that is, the prescriptive and descriptive aspects.
Neutrality is a most important concept, yet a controversial one. Theorists of different analytic schools have defined it in their own terms, leaving behind them a legacy of disparate and often contradictory formulations. In this paper, the author reviews briefly some of these ideas about neutrality. Then, from a contemporary interpersonal/relational perspective, the author takes a new look at the idea of neutrality. The author points out how unacknowledged discrepancies among these ideas get in the way of understanding and so complicate analytic discourse, and argues that useful work with this concept requires that analysts differentiate between two aspects of neutrality, specifically operational neutrality and intentional neutrality. The theoretical discussion is followed by a case vignette illustrating the clinical usefulness of this differentiation.
Preface
(2014)
Of all the great dualities of human experience, >good and evil< have been the most instrumental in shaping the beliefs, rituals, and laws of >Homo sapiens<. The polarization of our nature into >good and bad< and anthropomorphic externalizations of these impulsions have been with us for millennia, providing inspiration for magical rites, representational forms, and the cornucopia of dramas, narratives, and artworks to which they give expression. Furthermore, whereas all religions advocate for good, the particular narratives of evil underlying the traditions of Western culture come to us from the Bible. However, good and especially evil are theological and moral, not psychological, constructs. With Freud's death instinct, and later Fromm's necrophilous character, the darker shadow of human nature became definitively secularized. After an introduction and historical/developmental overview of select theorists, this paper adopts a strictly psychoanalytic frame of reference in the exploration of what renders some human beings capable of doing inhuman things. Looking at behaviors manifesting through the psychodynamics of character structure and severe personality disorders, the breakdown of empathy and defacement of the >other< in the creation of an enemy is discussed. In conclusion two clinical portraits are offered, illustrating how primitive emotions and defenses, superego pathology, and latent schizoid, narcissistic, and projective mechanisms provide fuel and rationalization for malignant aggressive, duplicitous, and sadistic behaviors.
The author suggests attachment theory as a theoretical framework for psychoanal-ysis, based on ethology, alternative to Freud’s drive model. He points out the affinity between attachment theory and the American interpersonal-cultural approach. He regards psychopathology as due to the thwarting of innate behavioural tendencies due to an unnatural culture.