Nonlinear dynamic systems theories offer useful approaches for understanding psychoanalyses: One of the most distinctive and appealing features of psychoanalytic thinking is its focus on mental processes that defy categorization and linear explanation. Analytic therapists tolerate uncertainty, find meaning in apparently disordered communication, and embrace the unexpected twists and turns that emerge from intimate attention to the ordinary complexities of everyday life. These are hallmarks of a psychoanalytic sensibility that spans various theoretical persuasions. Non-linear dynamic systems theory embodies the same sensibilities: It emphasizes such descriptors as pattern, complexity, flux and flow, the interplay of ambiguity and order, stability and instability, and the natural value of uncertainty and generative chaos. Although systems theory may appear esoteric and overly intricate, it can be approached in an intuitive, experience-near way so as to offer a language and an imagery that underlie everyday clinical thinking. Its metaphors and aesthetics can help analysts become more precise, spacious, and immediate about basic assumptions that tend to be taken for granted. In addition to tracing this conceptual path, this paper provides a brief account of the history of nonlinear thinking in psychoanalytic theorizing and offers clinical examples.
Louis Sander's bold and ambitious theoretical synthesis deserves careful attention from psychoanalysts of all persuasions. Sander's cutting-edge approach draws on infant observation research, nonlinear dynamic systems theories, and current biology, physics, and other >hard< sciences. He is rethinking the psychoanalytic approach to psychic structure, motivation, and therapeutic action. In so doing, he updates Freud's project of linking psychoanalysis with scientific paradigms, but without reductionism, epistemological naivete, or an implicit antipsychological attitude. Sander emphasizes the dynamic relationships between elements in systems. His method draws parallels between the different levels of the functioning of natural systems, starting with the basic >biological< level of cells and organs and moving toward the psychic and interpersonal phenomena that are of greatest interest to psychoanalysts. In this way, he opens a window for a broad and inclusive >relational metapsychology.<
Reply to Panel Questions
(2001)
Lachmann's paper is reviewed as an essential statement of the implications of empirical infant research for psychoanalytic theory and technique, oriented by his intersubjectivist self-psychological perspective. His essay reflects the extent to which this application has come to maturity. This commentary elaborates several of his points: that infancy, basic psychopathology, and primitivity are not analogous the emphasis on continuity in development and the importance of social reciprocity and adaptation in early relationship and development. I note theoretical resonances to other psychoanalytic orientations, including developmental ego psychology, British object relations theory, contemporary Kleinian thinking, and, especially, the contemporary American relational movement. Lachmann's clinical approach is then discussed as fitting into the overall relational emphasis on reciprocity and direct engagement in psychoanalysis. Within a framework of broad agreement, I wonder if Lachmann overemphasizes affirmative and idealizing selfobject relations at the expense of other transferences and mutual influence patterns. Finally, the theory of motivational systems is reviewed as an important innovation that does not go far enough in integrating dynamic systems theory.
Introduction
(1997)