Congratulations to our IIPT (analytic) graduate Michele Kwintner and our Core (object relations) graduates, and our clinical consultation program graduates.
Congratulations to our IIPT (analytic) graduate Michele Kwintner and our Core (object relations) graduates, and our clinical consultation program graduates.
Imagine a young African American man raised proudly by his mother, and now the first generation to go to college. Why might he fall victim to depression and academic failure? What effect does the context of poverty, violence and drug abuse have on such a young man? Dissociating himself from the pain, he breaks from his past. As soon as he sees the possibility of success, he feels the shame of separating from his roots and hurting the loved ones from whom he is growing apart. It is hard for a man in that situation to stay true to himself and aggressively develop his potential, and hard for his mother to believe he will be safe in a world that targets and disables aggressive young Black men. The trauma of slavery generations back reaches far into future generations. How do we stop its transmission?
Featured speaker Dr. Janice Gump addressed the destruction of the attachment bond transmitted across generations and the enslavement that squashed healthy ambition and creativity in young African American men as a result of which mothers are therefore highly protective of their sons. Dr. Gump’s writings and presentation, the clinical presentation by Andrew Price, and discussion in the audience in large and small group affective learning processes alerted us to the impact of enslavement on the United States. White, Black, Hispanic and Asian therapists attending the workshop were privileged to learn from one another as we grappled with the issue of how we contribute to the problems of race. This is so important for therapists, because we have shared the position of the African American male client, all of us struggling with the issues of race, and all of us unable to freely address the obvious.
We were grateful for a meaningful experience at IPI in which we could voice our concerns and think together about race relations from an object relations perspective. Several people expressed their appreciation for the group conversation, saying they have been needing opportunities like this and had never experienced anything like it. One person said, “We need to have circles like this all over the world….it’s the only way we’re going to make progress.”
Thursday Feb 1,2018
Jeanne Magagna is speaking about working with parents to help their difficult and unhappy children. Of course parents expect the child therapist to be trained in child development and parent effectiveness preparation. But no matter how well trained, the therapist cannot help the child without the parents. She NEEDS the parents to help her treat their child. Together they can build a thinking space where the parents can observe their child more fully, develop a shared narrative of their child and her role in the family, and make links from their experiences as children to their child’s life now. From there, parents at home create a daily routine review of their child’s day, and they can all explore the connections among the child’s experiences and the family history and social setting. In this way the parents build a sturdy emotional cradle in which they hold their child. Feeling secure in this loving, reflective parental cradle, the child grows in self regulation, curiosity and connectedness.
Saturday Feb 3, 2018
We heard from the Scharffs about a brief encounter with a Chinese family. The index patient was a boy who could not make any decision or speak up for his own choices, caught between the unresolved differences of his parents. We heard the therapists describe working with them in an academic setting with a translator and a large audience. They spoke about the boy’s symptom as a distillation of family dynamics and they showed how playing spontaneously with him and his sister could help the boy to find a voice. Then Li Zhen and Mary Morgan discussed the cultural context and the treatment/teaching setting. We usually think of treatment as an intensely private matter but even in this strange setting a therapeutic exchange could occur. Mary Morgan pointed to the importance of the therapists’ internal setting enabling them to relax, engage in word and play, and make a safe, containing therapy space. Li Zhen viewed this family as one that represents not just the parents’ internal conflict but also the generational conflict between grandparents who live by Confucian principles of filial piety and young people who are looking for a way to live in the new China.
Sunday Feb 4, 2018
As the discussion on settings and modalities continues, differences among various approaches are becoming clear. The therapist of an under-5 year old may usefully also do parent counseling or couple therapy with her parents. Others see this as a distortion of the frame. Some of us who begin work with a couple will see only the couple. Others will see whichever part of the couple shows up for the appointment. Those couple therapists with a family orientation may include the children (or even a newborn) for some sessions to explore the couple-as-parents, work on coalitions that replace the vital marital bond, and relive childhood experience that can inform current couple relating. Those with a couple orientation would never break the couple frame like that.
Today Rich Zeitner showed that even though we hold a firm frame for meeting with a couple, we may find ourselves doing individual therapy in the presence of the partner, a difficulty encountered when one partner is identified as mentally ill. It is as though two people are living in one person, said Leora Benioff, and Mariangela Mendes de Almeida advised attending to the theme and the affect that connects them rather than to the projections of internal object relations. Mary Morgan reminded us that a projective identification system like this exists to protect the couple from aspects of themselves that they are frightened of. Mary Morgan reminds us that therapist needs to be patient in allowing the defensive process to continue until it is no longer needed. Damian McCann responded that the modifications in the frame can be an acting out, an acting-in of the transference for subsequent analysis, or a spontaneous or surprising intervention that reflects a shift in the therapist that could release the couple from their entrapment in paranoid-schizoid functioning to depressive concern.
The take away message is that various ways of maintaining and modifying the frame can be helpful or destructive, but the main point is that the therapist needs to examine the impact of any shifts in the frame and use it for therapeutic understanding.
Another way to think about the value and meaning of a change in modality or setting is to consider it in terms of whether the therapist is expressing a defensively caretaking function or a truly adaptive containing function. We might also ask if the change made is an innovative movement forward or a regression to a traditional modality out of guilt.
There are individual, couple and family levels of organization. We can intervene at any level but we need to keep in mind what we are doing and where we are going. We want to keep a multiocular vision on individual, couple and family in any of these treatment settings.
And technical considerations aside, within the secure setting we create we are subject to unexpected external forces, liable to error, but willing to acknowledge mistakes and make reparation. We identify with our preferred settings, work from an internal setting that is firm but flexible when deviations are called for, and feel free to engage as a thinking, feeling human being.
IPI faculty members presented a number of panels, presentations, and precongress workshops at the International Psychoanalytical Congress in Buenos Aires in July 2017. At one of those panels, David Scharff and Lea Setton invited Roberto Losso, Juan Tubert-Oklander and Joaquín Pichon-Rivière, to join them in presenting the ideas and applications of the late Enrique Pichon-Rivière (photo 1 and 2).
Later they gathered to celebrate the launch of their edited book The Linked Self in Psychoanalysis: The Pioneering Work of Enrique Pichon-Rivière edited by Roberto Losso, Lea Setton, and David Scharff, in English for the first time. (London: Karnac 2017) (Photo 3).
Enrique’s ideas are so original, and his early development so fascinating, that I wanted to share them widely, especially with young people who haven’t a clue about what a therapist or psychoanalyst actually does, or how an analytic approach can help. So I got the idea of writing the story of Enrique as a story to read to our children and grandchildren.
Enrique Pichon-Rivière and his theory of the link.
By Jill Savege Scharff
Once upon a time, there was a little French boy called Enrique who lived in Switzerland and France. When he was four years old, his parents took him with them on a long journey. They left their high class life in Europe and went to live during his youth for the next 17 years with the Guaraní tribe in the jungle of northern Argentina. Enrique saw scary pumas, jaguars, alligators, and snakes in that rainforest, but he learned to stay still and not be frightened.
Enrique spoke French with his upper class parents, but he learned the Guaraní language too, so he got along with the local children, played ball with them, and knew their way of life. When he was eight years old he had to leave the jungle, speak Spanish all the time, and go to school in the town. But he always remembered his time in the primitive world of the jungle.
When Enrique grew up he became a doctor and a psychoanalyst. Most of his friends were psychoanalysts, even his wife. A psychoanalyst is a kind and thoughtful person who helps us put our worries and bad memories into words and doesn’t get upset by our strong feelings. After talking with the doctor for a while, we have a new experience of ourselves in this new relationship. We then feel more confident in ourselves and get along better with our friends, our family, and our teacher or boss.
Enrique noticed that psychoanalysts have problems too, and need help with how they think about things. For example, too many psychoanalysts that he met thought about only one patient at a time, and that person was usually just a grown-up. They forgot about the people we all live with, the children and families, and the world we inhabit together. But not Enrique. He saw the total picture.
Enrique thought about everyone. He helped families to be healthy, talked to boys and girls about their worries, taught other therapists, and even helped companies and their workers to be successful. He always remembered his early life in the jungle, and cared about all people, rich and poor, and every level of society.
He saw the world as being like a soccer field where everyone had an important part to play (even the ball) to make a good game. Every family is like a soccer field in which the children and the parents and the grandparents and aunts and uncles all teach the children how to play and run around with them They all take turns to kick the ball, receive a pass, defend the goal, and learn every position to play their part in the team.
Noting that we live in groups and can’t exist without others, Enrique made his theory of the link. He said that a baby is born into el vinculo, a link that is there waiting to welcome the baby to the world and deal with the impact of the new family member on that world. Our family and our community shape who we will become, and equally we shape our family and our culture. Meeting with a psychoanalyst creates a new link, which changes the original link, and lets us recover our balance.
Here is another of Enrique’s ideas about the link. The past, the present and the future are part of the link. They are in our minds all the time, even when we are not thinking about how they affect us. So it is important to remember what happened before we were born, even before our parents were born, and to look outside our own family to our place in school and wider community, if we want to know who we are. When one of us is suffering, he realized, that one is not the only one with a problem. That one is actually the spokesperson for a hidden group problem. With help from a psychoanalyst, that one can lead the way to solving an unrecognized mystery in the family or community.
Enrique was an original thinker. His ideas were ahead of his time. But he had a problem. Although he loved to teach, he didn’t take enough time to write down his ideas. So he didn’t get full credit for being such a pioneer. Although his students loved his ideas and wrote down what they remembered, they did it in Spanish only. Sadly Enrique’s ideas remained unknown to psychoanalysts in Europe and North America.
That is where The International Psychotherapy Institute (IPI) enters the story. Lea Setton, IPI faculty member and IIPT supervising analyst, read all of the Spanish journal articles by and about Enrique and his theory. She consulted Roberto Losso, IIPT adjunct faculty member, and together they chose the best parts and translated them roughly into English. Then their colleague Judith Filc in New York perfected the translation. Added to that, well known psychoanalysts who had known Enrique before he died wrote in English about their memories of him and what they learned about his ideas. David Scharff, IPI Board Chair, faculty member and IIPT supervising analyst helped them put together all these papers and arranged for them to be published as a book The Linked Self in Psychoanalysis: The Pioneering Work of Enrique Pichon-Rivière edited by Roberto Losso, Lea Setton, and David Scharff (London: Karnac 2017). So now psychoanalysts who can’t speak Spanish can read the book in English and appreciate the powerful vision of this clever Argentine psychoanalyst and his theory of the link. That is the story of how Enrique Pichon-Rivière can now be known to people in Europe and North America — thanks to IPI.
Photos courtesy of Caroline M. Sehon
Text by Jill Savege Scharff
Jill Savege Scharff
Following the success of the International Congress in couple and family psychoanalysis on the frame in Washington DC, USA, the International Psychotherapy Institute (IPI) collaborated with the Family and Couple Psychoanalysis Committee of the International Psychoanalytic Association (IPA), the Madrid Psychoanalytic Association, Sociedad Española de Psicoanálisis (IPA member), the International Association of Couple and Family Psychoanalysis (IACFP) and the Spanish Federation of Psychotherapy Associations (FEAP) and the IPA’s CAPSA program to promote inter-regional analytic dialogue. The 4-day Congress organized by David Scharff and Elizabeth Palacios (Chair and member respectively of the IPA committee on couple and family psychoanalysis) featured case presentations, short papers on the role of interpretation in family and couple psychoanalysis using object relations, link theory and classical Freudian concepts, videos of family therapy, discussant responses, and lots of audience discussion, all with simultaneous Spanish/English translation. IPI faculty Carl Bagnini, Caroline Sehon, Jill and David Scharff and Janine Wanlass and adjuncts Hanni Mann-Shalvi, Elizabeth Palacios, and Karen Proner were joined by other presenters, discussants, and session chairs from Spain, Caracas, Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Greece, London, Beijing, Members of the audience came from 19 countries in North and South America, China, Australia, Israel, and Europe.
Presenters Diana Norsa and Anna Nicolò (Rome), Tim Keogh (Australia), and Lia Cypel (Sao Paulo), gave theoretical papers to kick start the conversation on interpretation in assessment and couple and family psychoanalysis. David and Jill Scharff, and John Zinner (Washington, DC) shared videos of their family therapy with young children and adolescents respectively (subtitled in Spanish) which gave everyone the same clinical experience of the object relations family therapy approach as an object for contemplation and debate. Alicia Monserrat (Madrid) and Elizabeth Palacios (Zaragoza) presented their work with a two-mom family raising two sons whose dissonance they avoided by looking to the boys for mothering. “Oh no,” said one son. “Not MORE mothers!” Mary Morgan (London) presented the complex and creative field of couple interpretation and Karen Proner (New York) addressed the issue of detecting and interpreting underlying pain in the couple relationship, while Pedro Gil and Carmen Monedero (Madrid) and Eric Smadja (Paris) presented couple cases illustrative of couple relationship development, dynamics and interpretation in therapeutic action. Moving through the developmental stages, Antonia Llairó (Barcelona) presented family therapy with a 4-year-old in an emotional mess over the arrival of her newborn brother, Janine Wanlass (Salt Lake City) movingly described helping a family with young children deal with their blocked grief, and Monica Vorcheimer (Buenos Aires) recreated vivid dialogue to illustrate adolescence and family relationships and chaired a clinical exercise using a novel design of spontaneous responses to a-historical fragments.
The whole experience sharpened the lens on global perspectives in the field of couple and family psychoanalysis in which on the one hand there is a structured, empirical approach that follows the expression of object relationships in current experience, gathers them in the transference and understands the historical antecedents, and on the other hand a deconstructed approach that values the creation of the here-and-now moment divorced from the search for causality. We have much to learn from one another as we continue to put our thoughts into mutually enriching dialogue and eventually into print to reach a wider audience and extend the conversation. Contributors to the Committee’s first volume greatly appreciated Valentin Barenblit’s elegant salute to the launch of Family and Couple Psychoanalysis: A Global Perspective (Karnac 2017) edited by David Scharff and Elizabeth Palacios.
The Congress was well received, as shown in many participant comments:
IPI can now look forward with confidence to continuing the conversation with the IPA committee on couple and family psychoanalysis at the next at the next International Congress in collaboration to be held at the Rockville Hilton at the IPI weekend, February 2018.
The website editor gratefully acknowledges permission from Karnac to adapt Jill Scharff’s Madrid congress report from Couple and Family Psychoanalysis (September 2017).
by Andi Pilecki
In 1933, an exchange of letters between Freud and Einstein in which they discussed the nature of human aggression, destruction and the potential for peace, was published under the title, “Why War”. Today, in the after shocks of an election that has the nation and the world reeling, we might ask, “Why Trump? “
As I read Norberto Carlos Marucco’s paper, “Between Memory and Destiny: Repetition” (2007) in preparation for the upcoming IPI conference, I was gratefully reminded of the role psychoanalysis might play in unraveling this most pressing question. Trump is one man, and he could have never reached this position without tapping into and exploiting the reservoirs of a desperate, divisive cultural moment. We might think of him as an unfortunate symbol of the kind of repetition Marucco elucidates, one born out of traumas that have yet to be adequately remembered and worked through. Marucco presented this paper at the IPA Congress in Berlin, and began by drawing a link between the relevance of this location and its history, and the analytic work of “tearing down walls” in order to facilitate the work of transformation. This reference could not be more startlingly resonate, as the United States has just elected a man who placed building another wall at the centerpiece of his campaign rhetoric.
Marucco draws our attention to the influence of the death drive on repetition, saying that this drive, “leaves its trace through the most subtle and destructive effects, namely, the perversity of leadership, the loss of social points of reference, and the degradation of altruistic cultural ideals and identifying bonds, which leads to intense feelings of helplessness and social exclusion” (p. 310). Like many other therapists, in the days following the election I felt like a first responder to a traumatic event. One after another, patients described feeling stunned, heartbroken, depressed, and angry, as they worked their way through these early stages of grief. My holding capacity felt strained and compromised, as I struggled with similar feelings. For so many, suddenly the ‘altruistic cultural ideals and identifying bonds’ that have expanded over these last 8 years crashed down around us, and in one devastating moment, we regressed back to a level of ‘helplessness and social exclusion’ that had seemed only the day before a fading vestige of the past.
Apparently, this was a naïve assumption. We must now ask ourselves: What has not been remembered or worked through? What has yet to be healed, and as a result, now emerges as repetition? We might find clues to these questions in the jubilant support Trump has received from white nationalists and the Ku Klux Klan, groups that suddenly feel they once again have a legitimate place within the mainstream political and social sphere of our country. Of course, this is a moment that can only be understood through an honest analysis of intersecting factors, of which race is one aspect. As a white American, however, I believe we now have a mandate to face and to undermine white supremacy in ways that we have apparently yet to achieve. I would never suggest that every person who voted for the new president-elect is an ardent racist. In fact, I think it is absolutely essential that we resist the temptation to rely on such polarized thinking. I do believe, however, that as a country we have failed to adequately remember, work through, and heal from the legacy of racism that contaminates the deepest roots of the American psyche and its intuitions.
In describing how we might interrupt repetition compulsion, Marucco argues that, “acknowledging trauma and culturally historicizing it plays a key role” (p. 311). He goes on to suggest that contemporary psychoanalysis owes a debt to culture when it comes to facilitating this process. I tend to agree with him. In our consulting rooms, under significant attacks on linking, feeling and thinking, we tenaciously hold space for the work of remembering and working through, for ‘acknowledging trauma’ and helping patients make connections between past and present. We can only hope that such connections enable a more fully awake engagement with a future that is more than mere repetition, one in which our patients continue to develop a capacity for growth. Is this not the same hope that we have for the country, for the world?
I feel galvanized to seize upon this as, what educators call, a “teachable moment”. What does this election have to teach us about repetition and the return of the repressed on a cultural level? What might we as a psychoanalytic community have to offer in terms of a contributing to a long overdue, honest dialogue about race, white supremacy, and the transgenerational trauma of slavery and colonization? What do we have to account for within our own community when it comes to race? I have often wondered why there is such scant discussion of these issues within analytic spaces. Perhaps this absence has something to do with who is at the table, and who is not. Maybe before we can reach out to the world in an attempt to generate such links, we must look within, at what we ourselves may be repressing, and therefore, repeating.
I can say that, as a queer person, I have felt unsettled and alienated by the often heteronormative assumptions underlying so much analytic literature. I am not sure we have fully reckoned with the history of homophobia and heterosexism in our field. Few people in my generation know that there was a time, not too long ago, when training institutes would not permit openly gay trainees to become analysts. Analytic perspectives on homosexuality were not only informed by, but also informed the broader cultural lens. This speaks to the power we had, and I believe still have, when it comes to informing social and cultural narratives, which certainly have a real impact on peoples’ lived experiences.
In the days following the election, stories poured in across the country of black and brown children being bullied by white classmates, of white supremacist vandalism, of LGBTQ people being chased and attacked, and of LGBTQ suicide hotlines reporting a surge in calls. On the other hand, people are reaching out to one another and organizing, inspired by a renewed commitment to justice in the face of bigotry. What is our task as a psychoanalytic community as we reflect upon this moment? What might our unique perspective reveal about restoring a capacity to think and experience empathy in a time where thinking and empathy are under attack? As Marucco reminds us, in the midst of international atrocities, Freud found the ingredients to examine life and our essential nature as human beings. May we continue to carry this torch forward with a renewed faith in the transformative power of psychoanalysis not only on an individual, but also a cultural level, and may we begin with ourselves.
Freud S (1933). Why war? Standard Edition 22, p. 199-215.
Marucco, N.C. (2007). Between Memory and Destiny: Repetition. Int. J. Psycho-
It is sad for me to tell you of the death of a pioneer of American psychoanalysis, Harold F. Searles, M.D. (1918-2015).
Dr. Searles was a Training and Supervising Analyst at the Washington Psychoanalytic Institute and President of its Society (1969-1971) in Washington DC, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Georgetown University Department of Psychiatry, and Consultant in Psychiatry for The National Institute of Mental Health. World-wide, mental health professionals know Harold Searles from his collected seminal papers on schizophrenia and borderline conditions and on the use of countertransference as the key to understanding the clinical situation.
Prior to his retirement to California, Harold worked in private practice of psychoanalysis at the Air Rights building in Bethesda, Maryland. In the 1950s and 60s, he had worked at Chestnut Lodge in Rockville, Maryland where his understanding of psychosis was influenced by Frieda Fromm-Reichmann. Incorporating ideas from the interpersonal and British object relations schools, Harold was a crucial force in moving the field of psychoanalysis in the United States beyond ego psychology.
Locally, we knew Harold as an astute clinician and supervisor who took delight in acknowledging feelings that others disavowed. He thought that patient and analyst share immense ambivalence about being together. They try to avoid establishing an oceanic symbiotic relationship, the very thing that Harold regarded as the core phase in the treatment of neurotic and psychotic patients. He found that the analyst who consciously strives to help his patient recover and grow is unconsciously equally devoted to keeping him ill, especially when the patient shows any signs of improvement. In this way the analytic couple can continue in a mutually dependent, consciously frustrating but unconsciously gratifying relationship, thus delaying recovery and the eventual loss of the analytic relationship. Harold urged analysts to take responsibility for these intensely ambivalent feelings, and engage in a process of reflection in which we would welcome our unusual and private emotional responses as relevant data to help us understand the subtle modes of interaction between analyst and patient. As the symbiotic phase gives way to mature relatedness, analyst and patient emerge, each having been healed by the other.
I was assigned to Harold for supervision during my training at the Washington Center for Psychoanalysis. My clinic case paid $20 a session and Harold charged me the same. Rather than making me at ease, he pointed out that I seemed ambivalent about entering supervision. I agreed that I was nervous because his reputation as a clinician of devastating insight in demonstration interviews had preceded him. He smiled slyly at that reply, went into his office closet, and removed a folder from his file cabinet. He wanted to show me the letters of rejection he had received from academic journals, despite his work having been translated into many languages. He then inquired about my situation. I told him that I had left my parents in Scotland to live in London, then moved to Washington to marry my husband, and was now working part-time, while caring for young children. Asked about my other interests, I mentioned theatre and writing, but with young children and analytic training, I had less time for writing or acting. That reminded him of his married daughter, an actor who had made the reverse journey from her parents in the United States to live in London with her husband. Harold was tickled that her husband had played the role of Dr. Who. After all Harold felt that he himself had been playing the part of Dr. Who in every analysis. We shared a chuckle at that, and I began to relax. With that personal basis established, I proceeded to present my case.
Getting through 4 sessions of analysis in one supervision hour meant that I had to summarize some parts of each session. One day I reported material that let me make an interpretation I was pleased with, and then I told Harold that the patient went on about various boring things for a good while. Harold pounced. “A good while? So, you thought it was good that the patient was boring so you wouldn’t make any progress.” This intervention about our shared ambivalence led to a deep understanding of my participation in this patient’s fantasy of fusion, its purpose being to avoid Oedipal guilt.
Harold was so immersed in clinical work and writing that I was stunned when he announced his retirement. “It is something I always promised Sylvia. She has put up with my work all these years, and now it is time for her.” I was used to Harold speaking uncompromisingly about his sadism and hatred, and now I was surprised and touched to hear him as comfortably speaking of loving commitment. Harold and Sylvia retired to California. I mourned Harold’s departure then, and I feel the loss again now. Assigning his articles on supervision as some of the readings for the supervision seminar at the International Institute for Psychoanalytic Training lets me stay close to his ideas and share them with a generation that did not know him. I am pleased that Psychiatry, the journal of the Washington School of Psychiatry, devoted a recent issue (78(3):199-291, Fall 2015) to Harold’s 1955 paper “The Informational Value of the Supervisor’s Emotional Experience.” Discussants include Dick Fritsch, Rick Waugaman, and Bob Winer of the Washington Center for Psychoanalysis. Mike Stadter of the International Psychotherapy Institute contributed his thoughts on the use and overuse of the reflection process.
Although work and psychoanalysis had seemed to be his life, Harold lived on for many years after his retirement, until his death at the age of 97. I am told that Harold is survived by his daughter, two sons, five grandchildren, and eight great grandchildren. The International Psychotherapy Institute joins with other institutions, colleagues, former patients, and trainees in mourning the loss of one of the most remarkable contributors to psychoanalysis and in expressing our sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Submitted by Jill Savege Scharff, MD
At Saturday’s open workshop, Virginia Ungar presented a version of the keynote paper she gave at the IPA Congress in Boston 2015. She set her remarks in the social and cultural context of our age, characterized by the questioning of authority and current knowledge and the declination of the paternal function. Add to that the proliferation of offers of relief for emotional disorder and the preference of young people for constant connectedness and instant response, and the result is a diminution in the value of psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysts, now more sensitive to their surroundings, are moving out of their isolation and adjusting the analytic setting to respond to new modes of communication with reality. Then the analytic setting can continue its essential role as the analytic device that allows the transference to unfold.
Coming from an analytic tradition infused with the concepts of Klein, Bion and Meltzer, Ungar noted that the assumption of the prevalence of hostility at the beginning of life had the effect of skewing the focus of the analytic intervention towards the interpretation of hostility across the full repertoire of anxieties. This has led to the genesis of closed circuits of a paranoid nature and the loss of receptivity to the various a aggressive and libidinal impulses expressed in the transference.
Ungar presented her own “aesthetic model” of interpretation, a model, that, depending on observing and describing, not explaining, conveys an attitude of reflection and conjecture. She presented a session from the period of her own training years ago and one from a later treatment. Comparing her technique in each situation, we saw the movement from the traditional Kleinian approach towards her own aesthetic model. In the first, she was interpreting from a position of certainty informed by theory and in the second she was using theory to reflect on her own responses and allow the patient to discover meaning for herself.
We’ve been fascinated this weekend at IPI by Dr. Björn Salomonsson’s account of his psychoanalytic treatment of infants with their parents. To develop an effective theory and technique for helping infants in distress we need to look beyond attachment research and developmental theory to include analytic theory and technique in our approach. It’s easy to believe that the analyst’s words communicate understanding to the parent. But Dr. Salomonsson believes that he can communicate directly with the baby. Many argue that you can’t analyze a baby because analysis is a talking therapy and babies can’t understand words. Others have argued that they do. But here it is important to distinguish between the lexical and the linguistic. True, babies do not understand the words but they respond to the patterns of the language, words, the rhythm of the speech, the affective tone, the authenticity and integrity of the analyst’s interest and reach the baby and give meaning to the experience. The analyst recognizes the baby’s distress, offers calm interest and concern, and conveys hope that the unmanageable distress can be understood and coped with through a process of co-thinking between baby and analyst and between baby and parent. The analyst recognizes the competence and responsibility of the baby to become a partner in the process of recovery.
– Jill Savege Scharff, M.D.
Add your email to be notified about Programs, Videoconferences, and Psychodynamic Weekends