Refine
Language
- English (2)
Document Type
- Articles (2) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Year of publication
- 2001 (2) (remove)
This paper on Bollas is part 2 of a series presenting the work of three contemporary theorists whose ideas are associated with the intersubjective turn in psychoanalysis. Part 1, on Benjamin, appeared in an earlier issue of Psychoanalytic Dialogues (Vol. 10, No. 1) Part 3, on Ehrenberg, will appear in a subsequent issue. The present paper presents the work of Christopher Bollas and attempts to show how his ideas have evolved in a more intersubjective direction over time without losing touch with what is paradigmatically psychoanalytic. Although our own authorial positioning is never quite declared, as our intention was to write a representational text characterizing Bollas's thinking regarding the issue of intersubjectivity, we have come to realize the unannounced selectivity of our interpretive position or biases – biases that never quite speak their name yet, as in all unnamed/disclaimed actions, exert their influence throughout. Not surprising for a paper on the intersubjective turn. Nevertheless, it should be noted that our intent was to foreground Bollas's theorizing as related to the intersubjective turn in its own right – indeed, to get lost in the dense foliage of his rich and generous theoretical-clinical thinking, as he in turn gets lost in the underground maze of his patient's inner world. What should be stated from the outset is that the tradition of cosmopolitan humanistic learning can be heard like the overtones of a gorgeous chord throughout all of Bollas's deeply thoughtful work and illustrates the layerings of self resounding in the conscious-unconscious psyche. Indeed, Bollas serves as one of the most creative interlocutors of unconscious processes, superbly adequate to the task of sleuthing the twists and turns of the unconscious as lived out through the self's idiomatic ways of being in the world.
Reply to Louis A. Sass
(2001)
In this brief. Reply to Bollas's commentary on our paper about his work, the cycles of intersubjective dialogue endlessly sustaining should be apparent. We begin with an example of the form – content distinction and attempt to use it as a springboard for further disentangling some of the nuances of Bollas's intersubjective theorizing. Bollas's emphasis on form over content as a means of conceptualizing the analyst's contribution to the analytic process is indeed compelling. We all know from both sides of the couch the profoundly different meanings and messages that an analyst's mien invites: whether she's abrupt, verbose, meditative, tranquil. Yes, the medium is the message, and, thus, whether the analyst conveys a message through the effects of form that Bollas points out, such as >We have all the time you need for the nuances of unconscious figuring< versus >This is hot – we hafta figure it out now< surely does have an effect on the psychic material produced in the analytic process. We go on to add to Bollas's discussion of form by considering the particularities of form and how these too affect the analytic process.