[ Forum Central | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jule P. Miller III
Date: 22 Apr 1997
Time: 01:55:05
I completely agree with Stolorow's descriptions of the underlying flaws in classical conceptions of analytic neutrality. However, I do not agree that he has found a solution to those flaws. In fact, I believe he has created several myths of his own. One is the Myth of Empathic Knowing. In his theoretical system the analyst is constantly trying to juggle an understanding of his patient's subjectivity, his own subjectivity, and the interaction between them. Is that really possible? Can we truly know what is going on in another person or are we just fooling ourselves? It can be argued that we can only see in our patients what is in ourselves and no more. This is basically Stolorow's own arguement against neutrality taken to its next logical step. Second, there is the Myth of Decentering. Decentering oneself has a prominent place in Stolorow's writings. Is it possible? What does it mean? It seems to imply that we can somehow step outside of ourselves to see things from a new vantage point. This seems to me to be impossible for the same reasons as the previous example. In the end concepts such as neutrality and decentering can be understood best as metaphors that help us enter an affective-cognitive state that seems to be helpful in doing therapy. Although it has its particular appeals, Stolorow's system is no less a metaphor, no more logically pure than the one it intends to replace. Nevertheless, the more metaphors we have to help us maintain our cohesion as therapists, the more effective we can be.
[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]