Response to Steven Knoblauch

F. Summers
{"title":"Response to Steven Knoblauch","authors":"F. Summers","doi":"10.1080/15551024.2014.917466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I want to thank Steven Knoblauch for his thoughtful response to my article. Steven’s discussion opens what I consider to be a crucial discourse not only in self psychology, but also in contemporary psychoanalysis in general. In my view, the evolution of self psychology has resulted in two separate but intertwining themes: The value and limits of the concept of the selfobject and the relationship between conceptualization and the concrete experience of psychoanalysis. Although I only explicitly addressed the former in my article, Steven adroitly noted that I am implicitly raising the question of how one uses theory in psychoanalysis without “draining psychoanalytic work of its vital character.” These are both important questions, but they should not be conflated. The purpose of the article is to consider the development of empathy in the analytic process and to assess whether limiting the transference to any of the varieties of “selfobject” experience can result in the ability to be empathic. Included in that concern is the issue Steven raised as to what type of concept is most appropriate for psychoanalysis. Steven and I are in agreement that any notion of the analyst as function is to wiped off the analytic slate. However, for me that is only the start. Of course I agree with Steven that we should be careful to use concepts that retain the life blood of the emotional sturm und drang that we call psychoanalysis. And that was a leitmotif in my article. But, I want to say more than that. The deeper issue is whether seeing the transference solely through the lens of the selfobject conceptualization limits the analytic aim of developing empathy. Because the selfobject is never a person with her own experience, the patient does not make contact with the analyst’s mind and, therefore, the move to empathy is problematic. So, I am concerned not only with avoiding rarefied conceptualizations that Kohut termed “experience distant,” but also, and more importantly in this article,","PeriodicalId":91515,"journal":{"name":"International journal of psychoanalytic self psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15551024.2014.917466","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of psychoanalytic self psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15551024.2014.917466","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

I want to thank Steven Knoblauch for his thoughtful response to my article. Steven’s discussion opens what I consider to be a crucial discourse not only in self psychology, but also in contemporary psychoanalysis in general. In my view, the evolution of self psychology has resulted in two separate but intertwining themes: The value and limits of the concept of the selfobject and the relationship between conceptualization and the concrete experience of psychoanalysis. Although I only explicitly addressed the former in my article, Steven adroitly noted that I am implicitly raising the question of how one uses theory in psychoanalysis without “draining psychoanalytic work of its vital character.” These are both important questions, but they should not be conflated. The purpose of the article is to consider the development of empathy in the analytic process and to assess whether limiting the transference to any of the varieties of “selfobject” experience can result in the ability to be empathic. Included in that concern is the issue Steven raised as to what type of concept is most appropriate for psychoanalysis. Steven and I are in agreement that any notion of the analyst as function is to wiped off the analytic slate. However, for me that is only the start. Of course I agree with Steven that we should be careful to use concepts that retain the life blood of the emotional sturm und drang that we call psychoanalysis. And that was a leitmotif in my article. But, I want to say more than that. The deeper issue is whether seeing the transference solely through the lens of the selfobject conceptualization limits the analytic aim of developing empathy. Because the selfobject is never a person with her own experience, the patient does not make contact with the analyst’s mind and, therefore, the move to empathy is problematic. So, I am concerned not only with avoiding rarefied conceptualizations that Kohut termed “experience distant,” but also, and more importantly in this article,
对Steven Knoblauch的回应
我要感谢Steven Knoblauch对我文章的深思熟虑的回应。史蒂文的讨论开启了我认为不仅在自我心理学,而且在当代精神分析学中都是至关重要的论述。在我看来,自我心理学的演变导致了两个独立但相互交织的主题:自我客体概念的价值和局限性,以及概念化与精神分析的具体经验之间的关系。虽然我在文章中只明确地提到了前者,但史蒂文巧妙地指出,我含蓄地提出了一个问题,即一个人如何在精神分析中使用理论,而不会“耗尽精神分析工作的重要特征”。这两个问题都很重要,但它们不应该混为一谈。本文的目的是考虑移情在分析过程中的发展,并评估是否限制移情到任何种类的“自我客体”经验可以导致移情的能力。在这个问题中,史蒂文提出了一个问题,即哪种类型的概念最适合精神分析。史蒂文和我一致认为,任何将分析师视为功能的概念都将抹掉分析的石板。然而,对我来说,这只是一个开始。当然,我同意史蒂文的观点,我们应该小心使用那些保留了情感风暴的生命之血的概念,我们称之为精神分析。这是我文章的主题。但是,我想说的不止于此。更深层次的问题是,仅仅通过自我客体概念化的视角来看待移情是否限制了发展共情的分析目标。因为自我客体从来都不是一个有自己经历的人,病人不会与分析师的思想产生联系,因此,移情是有问题的。所以,我不仅要避免Kohut所说的“遥远的体验”,而且更重要的是,在本文中,
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信