Refine
Language
Document Type
- Articles (455)
- Reviews (54)
- Books (33)
- Forewords (7)
- Interviews (7)
- Dissertations (6)
- Event Reports (4)
- Collections (3)
Year of publication
- 2000 (569) (remove)
What Is Psychoanalysis?
(2000)
The patient's containment of the analyst's affect occurs in a broad range of situations that extend far beyond the more visible instances when the analyst is directly expressive of his or her own affects. This paper begins to explore how patients help analysts contain various kinds of affects within the analytic process, particularly more routine and less heroic types of containment. Although this containment is generally a far less prominent feature of analytic work than is the containment provided by the analyst for the patient, it is omnipresent. Routine elements of containment that the patient provides for the analyst involve working with the knowledge of the limits of the other – including the possibility that in a long-term treatment the patient will often get to know quite well some of the quotidian aspects of the analyst's personality and its relation to the patient's conflicts. Mutual aspects of containment are extremely important in the expression and titration of anger and disappointment, desire, hope, humor, and the negotiation of psychic possibility within the analytic dyad.
Reply to commentary
(2000)
Reply to Commentaries
(2000)
Kein Haben ohne Sein
(2000)
Fremder in der Gesellschaft,
(2000)
Reply to Commentaries
(2000)
This symposium addresses a psychoanalytic lacuna: race. The papers it comprises, drawn from both clinical and academic precincts, pick up the thread of social commentary that runs through the psychoanalytic fabric. Here Psychoanalytic Dialogues joins other like-minded efforts to position the psychic and the social, the clinical and the cultural, in the same discourse, and to consider the painfulness of political inequity amid therapeutic intimacy. These essays demonstrate the clinical and intellectual benefits of the engagement with the disciplines characteristic of psychoanalysis in the previous generation. They also reveal how the evolution of psychoanalytic practice itself potentiates recognition of psychoanalytically marginalized dimensions of society and culture that constitute subjectivity and inform everyday clinical life.
This commentary addresses two themes: parallels between religious and psychoanalytic education and the question of group survival in a world of competitive groups, whether religious (>strict< vs. >weak<) or psychoanalytic (differing psychoanalytic approaches). >Strict< religious education involves teaching both critical thinking and identification with the particular religion. This blend of critical thinking and identification with psychoanalysis is crucial in psychoanalytic education. We want to graduate students who see themselves as psychoanalysts rather than as being >interested< in psychoanalysis. This goal is accomplished when students have close, positive experience with personal analysts, supervisors, and teachers who are strongly committed to psychoanalysis but in a manner that encourages students to think critically and find their own psychoanalytic perspective. With regard to the second theme, I discuss how our narcissistic commitment to one or another psychoanalytic model interferes with open integration of new insights. Individual analysts privately integrate competing ideas in their own idiosyncratic ways. When these individuals publicly represent competing psychoanalytic groups, however, they tend to emphasize differences among these groups. They then find ways to appropriate new ideas as extensions of their own evolving tradition. In this way, a theoretical school is able to integrate new developments while preserving its own identity.
After a brief exploration of Hegel's writing on the formation of self-consciousness, including the place of religiosity in this formation, the article examines Kojeve's response to a Hegelian homo religiosus, followed by a counter-response to Kojeve's atheism through a peculiar, Jaspersian reading of Erich Fromm's discussion of the >X< experience. Finally, it will be argued that the desire for mutual recognition, and humanity's yearning for transcendence, are essential experiences in the formation of self-consciousness.
Reply to commentary
(2000)
This. Reply to the commentaries by Corbett, Hansell, and Stern explores whether Lacan's concept of the real can – or should – be translated into more readily recognizable terms. It extends our previous discussion of impossibility by arguing that not all ideas and experiences can be brought within the realm of the known and familiar. We suggest that impossibilities of meaning should not be understood primarily in phenomenological terms, and we demur from the assessment that our concept of impossibility offers nothing for clinical work. Claiming that what resists meaning also impedes relationality, we encourage relational theorists to address the nonrelational processes that subtend relationality, including the relation between analyst and patient. We acknowledge that the theory of impossibility – or what we now call >negative mediation< – raises a fundamental challenge to relational theory, but we insist that disruptions of relationality need not be considered pathological. Taking into account the nonrelational may enhance rather than impoverish relational psychoanalysis.
Reply to commentary
(2000)
This paper offers an antiessentialist, psychoanalytic account of gender by arguing against Butler's deconstructive critique of gender essentialism. We develop an alternative to Butler's conception of gender as performative by focusing on those aspects of gender that resist meaning and representation. Using Lacan's concept of the real, we argue that any viable theory of gender must account for the limit conditions of cultural discourses that constitute subjectivity and sociality. Once gender is understood in terms not of proliferating possibilities for meaning, but of a certain impossibility of meaning, then gender's bearing on human relationality requires reconceptualizing. Claiming that various cultural narratives about gender (including traditional psychoanalytic narratives) should be recognized as symptomatic attempts to come to terms with a fundamental impossibility at the heart of sexual difference, we conclude by suggesting ways in which psychoanalysis may productively illuminate the failures of meaning that structure human relationality.
Review Steven D. Axelrod: Work and the Evolving Self: Theoretical and Clinical Considerations
(2000)
Review Funk, R.: Erich Fromm Bildmonographie (Polish translation): Wielobarwny swiat Ericha Fromma
(2000)
Reply to commentary
(2000)
As Freud's privileged theory of unresolved grief, melancholia presents a compelling framework to conceptualize registers of loss and depression attendant to both psychic and material processes of Asian American immigration, assimilation, and racialization. Freud initially formulates melancholia as a pathological form of individual mourning for lost objects, places, or ideals. However, we propose a concept of melancholia as a depathologized structure of everyday group experience for Asian Americans. We analyze a number of Asian American cultural productions (literature and film) as well as two case histories of university students involving intergenerational conflicts and lost ideals of whiteness, Asianness, home, and language. Exploring these analyses against Klein's notions of lost objects, we propose a more refined theory of good and bad racialized objects. This theory raises the psychic and political difficulties of reinstatement and the mediation of the depressive position for Asian Americans. In addition, this theory suggests that processes of immigration, assimilation, and racialization are neither pathological nor permanent but involve the fluid negotiation between mourning and melancholia. Throughout this essay, we consider methods by which a more speculative approach to psychoanalytic theory and clinical practice might offer a deeper understanding of Asian American mental health issues.
Reply to Barnaby Barratt
(2000)
Mehr Fromm als Freud,
(2000)
Abschied von der Habgier
(2000)
W rozwoju psychoanalizy, której początki sięgają przełomowego dzieła Zygmunta Freuda >Die Traumdeutung. Über den Traum< z roku 1900, można obserwować bogatą dynamikę zjawisk, sporów i nurtów. W kolejnych dekadach zaznaczył się podział na psychoanalizę ortodoksyjną, czyli Freudowski styl uprawiania psychologii, i koncepcje dysydentów, jak np. Karola Gustawa Junga (psychologia analityczna) czy Alfreda Adlera (psychologia indywidualna). Stanowisko Fromma określa się jako analityczną psychologię społeczną. Różnice między dysydentami a Freudem widać już w samym pojęciu nieświadomości. Dla Freuda nieświadomość jest przede wszystkim dominującą funkcją aparatu psychicznego jednostki pierwotnie samowystarczalnej. To sfera ukryta przed okiem świadomości, ale potężna, irracjonalna, która składa się z energii libido, treści wypartych i treści tłumionych. W tzw. drugiej topice psychiki z roku 1932 Freud wyróżnił tu jeszcze trzy struktury, czyli Id, Superego i Ego, którym przypisał różny stopień świadomości – wyłączając Id jako żywioł całkowicie nieświadomy. Nie wchodząc w szczegóły i pomijając koncepcje Junga, a także Adlera – wypada nam skupić się na definicji nieświadomości w ujęciu Fromma. Otóż mówi on o tzw. nieświadomości społecznej, która bezpośrednio relacjonuje jednostkę z kontekstem międzyludzkim. Jednocześnie amerykański psycholog odwołuje się do pism Freuda jako źródłowej inspiracji dla swojej perspektywy badawczej, co umiejętnie wydobywa Robert Saciuk, który >Rewizję psychoanalizy< … przełożył na język polski i zaopatrzył na końcu w informatywną notatkę o autorze, w której trafnie podkreśla Freudowski rodowód myśli Fromma, a mówiąc bardziej konkretnie – jego zakotwiczenie w twórczej inspiracji pracy ojca psychoanalizy, pt. Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, w której czytamy.
The Transforming Power of Affect. A Model for Accelerated Change. New York (Basic Books) 2000.
(2000)
Reply to Commentaries
(2000)
Reply to commentaries
(2000)
Reply to commentaries
(2000)
This article discusses the role of philosophy in humanistic psychology. Specifically, the author draws on concepts from Erich Fromm, Carl Rogers, Socrates, and others. The author discusses what it means to be human, the characteristics of the self, and the division between feeling and thought. Finally, the author concludes with some speculations on dialogue between persons, especially the interactions between therapist and client.
Die Existenzweise des Seins
(2000)
Repères autobiographiques
(2000)