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.
In this memorial essay, the professional life and work of Emmanuel Ghent are discussed and assessed. His work in establishing the relational track, his multidisciplinary interests, some influences on his life and thought, the impact of Eastern philosophy and its system of practice and thought are briefly reviewed. Emmanuel Ghent's writings – his seminal papers on masochism, on relational perspectives, on paradox, and on motivation are discussed. Ghent's commitment to change, to uncertainty, and to supporting the generativity of students, analysands, and colleagues is noted.
This discussion addresses key points of contact and difference in the work of Eigen and Grotstein, each of whom holds unique and highly dramatic and enigmatic views of unconscious life. Their views can be framed as relational. They each cite Bion as an important influence but develop distinct sensibilities. In conceptualizing the unconscious, each author must tangle with difficulties with language and representation. Using a clinical example, I point out four aspects of my work on the unconscious: that unusual links of body and mind are posited that the unconscious is historical that the unconscious also contains transhistorical forces and processes and, finally, that unconscious life handles time in unusual and nonrational ways. Eigen's interest in process and Grotstein's interest in mental structures are contrasted. The ethical implications of work on the unconscious are suggested.
In this commentary I address the functions of gender and of bodily state as a way of managing memory, affect, and interactions. I consider the status of alters as narrative or as historical truths. Graham Bass's case illuminates problems and potentials of touch and the inevitability of intersubjectively constructed enactments.
This essay combine's clinical vignettes and an edited set of postings on an Internet discussion of the events of September 11 and their aftermath. I raise questions about how a psychoanalytic inquiry coordinates with other ways of understanding terrorism and trauma and about our complex relationships as clinicians, citizens, witnesses, and actors. I consider the movement from shock to reaction to analysis. I try to weave critical analysis and affective processing I was interested in the difficulty of clinical work in conditions of ongoing uncertainty and shared anxiety. These observations are interspersed with clinical material from experiences in the consulting room and in volunteer work.
This paper is a response to a critique by C. Brooks Brenneis of the written account of a clinical enactment that featured countertransference dissociative effects in treatment and in supervision. The response focuses on the need to analyze power in overlapping clinical dyads, the effect of transpersonal transmission of affect states and disavowed experience, and the relation of power dynamics to transference and to meaning making.
Reply to commentary
(2000)