[ Forum Central | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Daniel Gaynor, M.A., L.M.H.C.
Date: 02 Apr 1998
Time: 23:25:38
I'd like to respond generally to this topic, which I find very interesting. I have read some of the discussion but not all of it, so please bear with me if any of my points are not relevent to all of the comments. I am not a psychoanalyst but have studied psychoanalytic theory particularly self psychology in some depth. I have always been intrigued by the idea of neutrality from both a therapeutic and clinical research (ie. data gathering) point of view. It seems unneccesary to restate the many reasonable objections to considering any human observer of the psychological field, capable of neutral objectivity. At this point in the development of human knowledge this seems obvious and irrefutable. Nevertheless we belabor the point and in so doing reveal within ourselves a vestige of the very confusion which we seek to clarify. Going back to Kohut, he distinguishes between two distinct methods of observation. Empirical observation of the physical world, a method appropriate to the subject matter, and introspective empathic the method appropriate to the psychological field. To the extent that analytic neutrality refers to an objective observer, it is not only impossible but not even desireable. At this point in our knowledge, the introspective empathic method is the only method available to us capable of allowing us to percieve the psychological field. Acknowledging our own subjectivity as therapists and the limitations imposed upon us by this fact (including the limits of the intersubjective/ introspective empathic approach)is the first essential step in accurate clinical understanding. I feel no more need to justify or rationalize this approach in contrast to "analytic neutrality" than I do to explain why I use a hammer rather than a wrench to bang in a nail. Since our own personal, experientially based, psychic configuations, of neccesity shape our observations and interpretations of the clinical situation the best we can hope for, is to behave in the clinical situation in such a way that we minimize our interference and aid in the cultivation of the process of the unfolding of the mental life of the client/patient. This is where I think of Kohut's concept of the average expectable experience. Within the context of the mutual understanding between the therapist and client that the therapist is a professional with specialized training in helping people who have entrusted themselves to his or her care, it becomes clearer what an acceptable range of responses might be. This may not constitute neutrality. It certainly doesn't constitute objectivity. However it might very well provide conditions which promote or at least permits the expression of another's self.
Another point is about the interpretive process. In my reading of Kohut, interpretations become the therapist mode of expressing empathy. Experience near empathy corresponding to the first part of a two part interpretive sequence, ie.,the understanding phase, and experience distant empathy which corresponds with the second, explaining phase of an interpretive process. Empathic interpretations mirror the client in the here and now and also over time in depth. As long as our interpretations remain tentative and open enough to accomodate novel configurations of meaning, I believe they are neccesary and helpful.
[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]