Action in connection with the therapeutic process is often equated with acting out. The subtle behaviour that belongs to ?the complicated system of transmitting and receiving unconscious signals? (Sandler), with which the patient attempts to make the analyst behave as the object of transference or to fulfill an unconscious desire, is also described as acting out or micro-acting out (Treurniet). This fine-grained action, however, means nothing; it is not symbolic or communicative action. Its intention is, rather, to trigger effects and induce interactions. It occurs not only on the side of the analysand but also on that of the analyst, and is part of the unconscious communication in the therapeutic process. Presented here are some of the various interactive ways and means with which the analyst is prompted into unconscious action and certain, unnoticed, ways in that he turn ?treatsfithe patient. The analyst's action responses can bear the character of interpretations with which he may unintentionally reveal how he regards the behaviour of the patient.
Satjagraha als Wissenschaft
(1999)
The forming and early development of the Swedish Society for Holistic Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis is described. The influence of the personal background of those who formed the society, the general zeitgeist in which the society unfolded and the specific circumstances in the field of psychotherapy and psychoanalysis in Sweden at the actual time is paid attention to. The significance of Dr. Harold Kelman as a supervisor and teacher during the forming years is underlined. The forming of the International Federation of Psychoanalytic Societies (IFPS) is mentioned as an important matrix for the growth of the society.
This article, which analyses a crime that took place in the city of Brasilia in 1997, is based on two separate and correlated hypotheses. Firstly, this crime reveals a fact about psychic structure: the >real< dimension irrupts through acts. Therefore, psychoanalytical practice must contemplate the >real< dimension. Secondly, we would like to pose two questions. Is it necessary for today's psychoanalysts to be aware of and involved with contemporary events? If the analyst ignores modern dialectics, what kind of symbolic involvement can he establish with the lives of the people he analyzes? Being committed to contemporary symbolic culture signifies that we must relinquish the comfortable division between good and evil. Acts of violence, performed by human beings, necessarily indicate both >enjoyment< and >truth<. In the symbolic dimension, we understand and comprehend; in the symbolic dimension, we are reasonable. But, not all acts fall within this pacifying register. If we consider these two aspects: on one hand, the analyst's responsibility to the patient, in regard to symbolic commitment and, on the other hand, the irruption of violent and senseless acts, this would mean that as analysts, we find ourselves lacking a certain neutrality, contrary to the position defended by some analysts.