Complexity and Risk in Relational Therapy: Discussion of Joye Weisel-Barth’s “Courting the ‘Real’ and Stumbling in ‘Reality’”

S. Stern
{"title":"Complexity and Risk in Relational Therapy: Discussion of Joye Weisel-Barth’s “Courting the ‘Real’ and Stumbling in ‘Reality’”","authors":"S. Stern","doi":"10.1080/15551024.2016.1141604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this courageous and conceptually rich article, Joye Weisel-Barth shares her experience with her patient, Lara, in which a spontaneous, well-intended decision at a moment of heightened emotional connection led, unpredictably, to later events which caused the treatment to collapse. Weisel-Barth’s article invites reflection regarding both the complexity and risks involved in the analytic therapist’s greater participatory freedom—a core element in contemporary relational thinking, broadly defined. I consider what happened between Weisel-Barth and Lara from four points-of-view. The first has to do with the mutuality-asymmetry dialectic first named by Lew Aron (1991), developed more fully by Wally Burke (1992), and later canoninzed by Irwin Hoffman (1998). The second concerns what Madeleine and Willy Baranger (1961–1962) first recognized as the necessary ambiguity of the analytic situation. Related to that is the necessary complexity of the analyst’s subjectivity-as-analyst. And the fourth set of considerations, informed by Rachel Peltz’s (2012) article, “Ways of Hearing: Getting Inside Psychoanalysis,” concerns what it means to “go in close” in an analytic relationship, with particular reference to contemporary relational and Bionian approaches.","PeriodicalId":91515,"journal":{"name":"International journal of psychoanalytic self psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15551024.2016.1141604","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of psychoanalytic self psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15551024.2016.1141604","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In this courageous and conceptually rich article, Joye Weisel-Barth shares her experience with her patient, Lara, in which a spontaneous, well-intended decision at a moment of heightened emotional connection led, unpredictably, to later events which caused the treatment to collapse. Weisel-Barth’s article invites reflection regarding both the complexity and risks involved in the analytic therapist’s greater participatory freedom—a core element in contemporary relational thinking, broadly defined. I consider what happened between Weisel-Barth and Lara from four points-of-view. The first has to do with the mutuality-asymmetry dialectic first named by Lew Aron (1991), developed more fully by Wally Burke (1992), and later canoninzed by Irwin Hoffman (1998). The second concerns what Madeleine and Willy Baranger (1961–1962) first recognized as the necessary ambiguity of the analytic situation. Related to that is the necessary complexity of the analyst’s subjectivity-as-analyst. And the fourth set of considerations, informed by Rachel Peltz’s (2012) article, “Ways of Hearing: Getting Inside Psychoanalysis,” concerns what it means to “go in close” in an analytic relationship, with particular reference to contemporary relational and Bionian approaches.
关系治疗的复杂性与风险——论乔伊·韦塞尔-巴斯的“追求‘真实’与在‘现实’中跌跌撞撞”
在这篇充满勇气和丰富概念的文章中,乔伊·韦塞尔-巴特与她的病人劳拉分享了她的经历。在这篇文章中,一个自发的、善意的决定,在高度情感联系的时刻,不可预测地导致了后来的事件,导致了治疗的失败。Weisel-Barth的文章引发了对分析治疗师更大的参与性自由的复杂性和风险的反思,这是当代关系思维的核心要素,广义上来说。我从四个角度考虑Weisel-Barth和Lara之间发生的事情。第一个是相互-不对称辩证法,最初由卢·阿隆(1991)提出,后来由沃利·伯克(1992)进一步发展,后来被欧文·霍夫曼(1998)认定为经典。第二个问题涉及玛德琳和威利·巴朗格(1961-1962)首先认识到的分析情境中必要的模糊性。与此相关的是分析师作为分析师的主体性的必要复杂性。Rachel Peltz(2012)的文章《倾听的方式:进入精神分析》(Ways of Hearing: Getting Inside Psychoanalysis)提出了第四组考虑,它关注的是在分析关系中“接近”意味着什么,特别提到了当代关系和Bionian方法。
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
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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