로그인 | 클럽홈 | Koreadaily

혁신라이프코칭연수원 ICC

http://club.koreadaily.com/icclifecoach
전체글보기 클럽방명록  ICC 공개 자료   ICP 안내 자료   코치 양성   현대갈등이론   전인격적 라이프 코칭 
 
  클럽정보
운영자 simonshin
비공개 개설 2016.07.20
인기도 62542
회원 55명
ICC 정보 
ICC 공개 자료 (35)
회원 자료 (5)
ICP 정보  
ICP 안내 자료 (40)
강의안 
정신분석의 핵심 개념 (8)
현대정신분석의 핵심 개념 (5)
코치 양성 (23)
진단과 평가 (14)
현대갈등이론 (18)
전인격적 라이프 코칭 (3)
무의식적 환상 (21)
현대정신분석의 개입 기법 (35)
정서적 의사 소통 (14)
정신분석 기법과 정신적 갈등 (23)
정신분석적 사례 이해 (25)
노인 상담 (40)
인간 발달 이론 (17)
영상 강의 (13)
방어 기제 (24)
정신분석의 역사 (25)
신경증이론 (1)
추천링크
ICC 대표 신현근 박사
한국임상정신분석연구소 ICP, Seoul Korea
ICC 영상 자료
Blanton-Peale 연구소, New York
 
TODAY : 98명
TOTAL : 90458명
정서적 의사 소통
작성자  simonshin 작성일  2017.08.12 08:23 조회수 95 추천 0
제목
 Dr. Paul Geltner 의 정서적 소통에 대한 소개 논문 1부  
 

과목: 정서적 소통 / 현대정신분석의 개입 기법

주제: 정서적 소통에 대한 소개 논문 1부

강사: 신현근 / 박혜원 / 김양자 교수

내용: “정서적 소통의 저자 Paul Geltner 박사가 쓴 스스로의 이론에 대한 소개 논문

교재: Geltner, P. (2013). Emotional communication: Countertransference analysis and the use of feeling in psychoanalytic technique. New York: Routledge.

 Introduction to the use of emotional communication in

countertransference analysis and technique.

Paul Geltner

 

The model of emotional communication  has many features in common with the current two-person psychologies such as Relationality and Intersubjectivity.  It pre-supposes a two-person psychology as a general model of human relatedness, conceptualizing all human relationships as the mutual interaction of two subjectivities.  It shares with these schools (and all psychoanalytic perspectives)  the idea that people involuntarily and unconsciously repeat problematic dimensions of their emotional life story with current people and that these repetitions form the transference in the psychoanalytic relationship.  Three ideas distinguish this model:

 

1)    Emotional communication, a channel of human communication in which information is conveyed from one person to another through the expression and experience of feelings, is a foundation of human relatedness.

2)    That repetitions in life, and in the transference, have an interpersonal dimension through which people tend to recreate their the early relationships by inducing old feelings, through emotional communication, with people in the present.  In the analytic relationship, the induced feelings form the objective countertransference.

3)    In order to loosen the repetitions hold on the patient, the analyst expresses specific feelings -- emotional communications -- in the context of the transference, to meet maturational needs and/or undo pathological defensive patterns.  Although these can sometimes be combined with interpretation, they can also function without interpretation.

            Like Intersubjectivity, this model views the dynamics that unfold in the analytic relationship as the primary emotional/intellectual focus of psychoanalysis.  Unlike Intersubjectivity, which views empathic immersion as the sole source of analytic understanding and therapeutic action, it posits that in addition to, and at times instead of, empathic immersion, there are other intellectual/emotional positions, linked to the transference, that provide a fuller analytic understanding and serve as the foundation of a greater range of therapeutic communication than afforded by empathic immersion alone.

            Like Relationality, this model holds that the analyst should relate to the patient from an emotional position within the transference, must enter into -- "discover himself" (p. 295) -- within the countertransference, and views these dimensions of the analysts feelings as shaped by the patients repetitions.  Unlike Relationality, which locates therapeutic action in the analysts struggle to find an authentic, interpretative voice that moves the analytic partners beyond the strictures of the transference-countertransference based relating, this model also provides emotional experiences that were missed in the patients childhood, and makes use of a greater range of types of relatedness than described by the Relational focus on analytic inquiry and dialogue.

            All three models agree that interpretations are, in Mitchells words, "complex relational events", not simply intellectual explanations of the patients emotional life, this model differs from the other two in not viewing interpretation -- defined broadly as an explicit intellectual explanation of some aspect of the patients emotional functioning -- as being a necessary element of the therapeutic action.

 

 

 

Emotional communication and cognitive communication

            There are two distinct yet interwoven channels of human communication: cognitive communication and emotional communication.  Although they are usually experienced as a unitary phenomenon in spoken language, these channels of communication function differently, and can be separated from each other.  Understanding the  patient requires understanding both components of their communications, and curing treating the patient requires attention to both components of the analysts communication.

            Cognitive communication is the distinctly human channel of communication.  It comprises the purely symbolic elements of language, words and grammar.  Many types of information - including facts, observations, commands, opinions, requests and questions - can be expressed through cognitive communication. Cognitive communication is effective to the extent that both people share the same language.   It is expressed and experienced as thought.  Cognitive communication expression is primarily deliberate and conscious, although it can have unconscious dimensions: it is received consciously, but again can have unconscious dimensions.

            Emotional communication, on the other hand, proceeds cognitive communication both evolutionarily and developmentally.  It is shared with non-human mammals and infants before the acquisition of language and conveys only one type of information - information about the sender’s feeling (or emotional state), including her intentions, desires, and impulses, and whether she experiences the receiver as similar to or differentiated from her.  It operates through the non-symbolic dimensions of spoken language such as tone, prosody, rhythm, and silence, as well as through non-symbolic facial expressions, postures, and gestures. The sender’s expression of feeling stimulates feelings in the receiver.  Communication is effective to the extent that the sender and the receiver share the same spectrum of human feeling.  Emotional communication is experienced as feeling for both the sender and the receiver.  Although emotional communication can be expressed deliberately and received consciously, it is often experienced unconsciously by both sender and receiver.

            Emotional communication is primarily goal-oriented or manipulative (Mitten  2006). It function is to have a specific impact on the receiver. This can be seen clearly in the first emotional communication that all healthy human infants express at birth: the anaclitic cry - the cry that signals distress in the context of physical and emotional dependency (MacLean 1990). The newborn’s cry serves not only to signal his need for nurturance and attention, it also elicits a specific cluster of feelings in the mother: sympathetic empathy with the newborn that enables her to understand his needs, and nurturing love that leads her to want to soothe his distress and satisfy his needs.  The mothers feelings are a logical and predictable response to the newborns cry, and they lead her express the specific cluster of the feelings he needs to experience in that moment - the feeling that his needs are known and will be satisfied and the feeling that he is loved - all of which are as crucial as the physical care the mother provides.  The mother may have, of course, other feelings as well, including feelings that conflict with what the baby is communicating and may interfere with her ability to respond in kind.  But as long as the babies cry elicits the nurturing feelings in the mother, its communication has been at least partially successful.

 

            This interaction, in which the baby’s emotional communication stimulates the cluster of nurturing feelings in the mother that, in turn, motivate her to meet the infant’s dependency needs, is an example of emotional induction. Emotional induction is the outcome of a successful emotional communication. It occurs when the sender’s emotional communication induces a feeling in the receiver that is logically and predictably related to the sender’s goals and intentions. It is analogous to a successful cognitive communication, which occurs when the receiver understands the sender’s language.

            What happens between the newborn and the mother is an example of one general type of emotional communication.  As we will discuss later, there are four other general types of emotional communication, and each general type has many different subtypes.  But all operate through the the process of the senders feelings inducing feelings in the receiver.

            Infancy is the only period when pure emotional communication, unmixed with cognitive communication, can be expressed.  After the acquisition of  language, emotional communication almost always intertwined with cognitive communication.  Sometimes the two communications are  convey the same information and reinforce each other.  "I love you" can be spoken in a clearly loving tone that induces the feeling of being loved in the receiver and supports the cognitive communication.  Other times they each convey different but seemingly unrelated information.  "I love you", can be spoken in a neutral tone that induces a feeling of anxiety in the receiver that isnt obviously related to what the sentence means.  And sometimes they convey  grossly contradictory information: "I love you" spoken in a hateful, sarcastic tone can induce a feeling of being hated, or hatefulness in the receiver -- the feelings being in complete conflict with the words. 

            The interplay of emotional communication with cognitive communication is the most commonplace of human experiences, infused in every moment of human relatedness.   No communication can be fully understood without understanding both components, but components function differently and can be separated.  This entwined structure accounts, in part, for the richness, the complexity, and the subtlety of human communication, and also its ambiguity, uncertainty, and the propensity for misunderstandings. 

Emotional communication and repetition

            All psychoanalytic schools accept the phenomenon of repetition. When linked to the tendency to repeat, unconscious emotional communication gives rise to a powerful dynamic; repetitions expressed through emotional communication actively recreate the emotional past in the interpersonal present by inducing old feelings in new people. Current people respond to the inducer just like the old ones did, seemingly automatically, usually without either person quite understanding or being aware of what is happening.

            Thus, one of the central implications of this model is that while all relationships are co-constructed by both parties in the relationship, not all dynamics are co-created equally or symmetrically in any given moment. Some are equally co-constructed, while others primarily shaped by emotional communication linked to one or the other persons repetitions.

 

 

Emotional communication in psychoanalysis

            The repetitive patterns of emotional communication established in childhood shape the patient’s emotional communication with the analyst, shaping the way the analyst and patient experiences themselves and each other. The psychoanalytic relationship is structured to allow the patient’s patterns of emotional communication to be activated, observed, and changed through the impact of the analyst’s interventions.

            Three primary interpersonal currents can be distinguished within the analytic relationship.

            The first current comprises the feelings, repetitions, and emotional communications that the patient contributes to the relationship. In this current, the patient’s contribution to the dynamic between them is maximal and the analyst’s is minimal. This current is the transference, in all of its expressions and manifestations.

            The second current comprises the analyst’s emotional contributions to the analytic relationship, including the feelings that the analyst induces in the patient. Some of these inductions are deliberate, through the analysts interventions, and others, derived from the analysts repetitions, are repetitive and involuntary.  In this current, the analyst’s contributions to the dynamic between them are maximal and the patient’s are minimal.

            The third current includes the feelings, dynamics, and inductions that grow out of the unique interaction between the patient and the analyst; it differentiates the analytic relationship from any of their other relationships. In this current, the contributions of the patient and the analyst are approximately equal, if not on a moment-to-moment basis, then over time.

Objective countertransference

            Objective countertransference is a feeling induced in the analyst that repeats a feeling that originated in the patients emotional life history.  It is a product of the first interpersonal current, the one shaped primarily by the patients repetitions -- transference -- and conveyed through emotional communication and induction.  (This concept is based on ideas formulated almost simultaneously by Racker (),Winnicott (), Spotnitz, Heimann, and Searles.  Of this group, it now appears that Rackers formulation    was the first and by far the most sophisticated.  The term objective countertransference, however, was coined by Winnicott and later adopted and developed more fully by Spotnitz.)

ju,        The objective countertransference feeling may have originally been something the patient felt. If the patient feels stupid, the analyst feels stupid.  Or it may have been a feeling that somebody had about the patient.  For example, the patients father always wanted to control the patients decisions, and now the analyst wants to control the patients decisions.   In either case, it is a feeling that either the patient or someone  from the patients life experienced in the past. Because the feeling is a repetition that predates the analytic relationship, the analyst’s feelings viewed as a manifestation of and an effect of the transference.  The patient’s contribution to the dynamic is largely active, and the analyst’s contribution is largely receptive.  It is most fruitfully understood in the context of the patient’s life - not the analyst’s.

            The objective countertransference is only one part of the analysts feelings about the patient.  However, it is of primary importance because it conveys dimensions of the patients experience that usually unconscious and often brings the problems that led the patient to seek analysis vividly into the analytic relationship.

Identifying and differentiating the objective countertransference

            How does the analyst determine which feelings are induced by the patient, which come from his own life story, and which are mutual here-and-now feelings?  First, it important to note that, except in rare situations, there is nothing special or striking about the quality of the feelings themselves.  Countertransference feelings feel just like any other feeling the analyst might have.  Furthermore, the analyst rarely experiences a feeling that is completely inconsistent with her own patterns of emotional communication; most objective countertransference overlaps with the analysts own feelings. The analyst shares much the same range and potential combination of feelings as the patient, in the same way they share much the same verbal vocabulary.  The analysts subjectivity is the medium in which the patients inductions are received and experienced; they are always marbled through the analysts own feelings.  The analyst cannot know which feelings are her own and which are induced purely by self-knowledge.

            Keeping in mind that an objective countertransference is a feeling that is consistent with the patients life history, objectivity can only be apprehended in the context of the patients life. The analyst has two sources of information about the patient: the content of the sessions, which includes everything the patient does and says in the sessions, and her feelings about the patient, which include, but are not limited to, the objective countertransference. The content of the sessions serves as the standard against which the countertransference is compared. The objective elements in the countertransference are consistent with the content of the sessions; the subjective and the mutual elements are not.

            The task of differentiating them is straightforward: First, study the countertransference. Then study the content of the sessions. Finally, compare the countertransference to the content, looking for areas of congruence - similarities, analogies, and patterns - in common. The objective countertransference seldom fails to become visible, provided the analyst looks at the material carefully -- provided the analyst allows the analytic process enough time to unfold.  Sometimes the parallels are immediately apparent.  Other times they take years to emerge.

            Consider the case of a man whose analyst realizes after several years that he is disappointed in him for not making more progress in the analysis. Part way through a session, the analyst realizes that he is impatient because the patient is so concrete. Nothing goes anywhere. The analyst asks a question like, “How did you feel when your wife wouldnt have sex with you?” – shes been rejecting him for months, and the patient responds, “It wasnt great, but it was okay.” He goes on to say blandly that what really bothered him was that it snowed that night, and he had to get out of bed 15 minutes early to shovel the walk. (This, the analyst thought with exasperation, after three years of analysis!) There doesnt seem to be anything that the analyst can do to get this patient to have a real feeling. The patient just lays there, a loyal lump, coming to his sessions regularly week in and week out, never getting anywhere.

            The analyst feels that he would like to help him, but also realizes that he has ignored the patient. The analyst has never mentioned him in supervision. He has to admit that the patient has no more presence in his mind than the not-so-good coffee he gets twice a week from the café next to his office.

            When he reviews the case, he remembers that the patient has seldom been treated warmly. His mother transparently preferred his older sister and repeatedly told him that she had always hoped for two girls. The father wanted a boy, but the patient wasnt the little macho the father expected. He was always anxious, always shy. His parents were both high-fliers - successful professionals who expected their children to follow suit. His sister did, but not him. He wasn’t the best in school. He wasnt great in sports. He wasnt very popular. Most people found him boring. He was passed over for promotions at work; he didnt get the girl of his dreams, and his wife has withdrawn from him.

            On the other hand, the patients life had not been totally bleak. He was his grandfathers favorite and often went to him for comfort. Some teachers liked him better than his sister, appreciating his sweetness and generosity more than her hard-edged competitiveness. He always had one close friend. His wife had been more loving before their baby was born.  And the analyst had liked him a lot and felt warmly towards him in earlier on in the analysis.  His feelings had shifted almost imperceptibly

            The analyst also knows that he can be impatient. He is a perfectionist himself, just like the patients father. He knows where it comes from. His mother was passive, and left him prey to his fathers insatiable demands. His father insisted that he produce, and he complied in spades: All As school, Ivy League college, the best graduate school. It was a nightmare from which he finally awoke only after a long, intense analysis (that the analyst thought was very successful analysis.) He expects less from himself than he used to, and he is able to be patient with his other patients. Hes gentle with his kids. He once sat with a schizophrenic for six months without asking anything of him. He knows how to contain in silence. He understands the patients pain. He is uncomfortable with how he feels.

            As a heuristic principle, an objective countertransference analysis places the analysts feelings in the context of what is known about the patients life, focusing on themes  common to his relationships. Many important people in the patients life were disappointed in him; the most immediately salient feature is the consistency of the analysts feelings and those of other people from his past.  This analysis also notes that that the patient also has a less frequent pattern of relating in which people have good feelings about him. However, the analysts disappointed feelings strongly suggest that this is not the repetition that the patient is experiencing in the treatment. Based on the consistencies with the patients other repetition, we hypothesize that the disappointment in the countertransference is probably an induction of the disappointment his parents felt towards him. 

            Working backwards from the countertransference to the transference, this suggests that the patient experiences the the analyst in the same type of way he experienced his parents when they are disappointed in him.  However, we dont know exactly what he felt in those moments.  We also dont know if the patient is conscious of this situation-- emotional communications linked to repetitions are usually (but not necessarily) unconscious.  But we do know that he hasnt verbalized them; rather, he "repeats, instead of remembering" (Freud), and in the process, involuntarily reproduces the toxic relationship of his childhood with the analyst  Because this model, unlike Freuds, the repetition includes the patients pattern of emotional communication and the feelings these induce.  The transference repeats not just the patients feelings from the past, but recreates the intersubjectivity of the patients relationships from the past. 

            It is not, of course, an exact replica of the original intersubjective context.  The patient is not the same person he was originally, and it will be heavily and inevitably marbled with the analysts personality as well.  But in these moments, an important theme from the patients life is repeated with the analysis, not just in the analysts mind but in their relationship as well.

            Its worth noting that the process is completely bidirectional.  The analyst unconsciously and involuntarily induces feelings in the patient as well.  However, the analysis is set up to minimize this and to maximize the patients contribution.  In a well functioning analysis, the distorting and destructive effects of this are (hopefully) minimal and eventually harnessed to move the process forward.  But when things go awry, they can go badly awry..

Types of transference and countertransference

            Any emotional state -- a feeling state, a repetition, a transference, a countertransference, or any emotional communication made within that state -- has two different components.  One of these -- the more obvious component -- is the specific feeling that the person experiences.  In the countertransference described above, the analysts primary specific feeling is disappointment.  Other examples of specific feelings are love, hatred, amusement, caring -- any particular feeling that a person can feel.

            The other component of any emotional state is the way another person is experienced within that state:  the relational mode.  There are two basic options<a href="https://d.docs.live.net/971847ccd4fc3573/DocumentOne/ICP/2017%201%EC%9B%94/%EC%A0%95%EC%84%9C/%EA%B0%95%EC%9D%98%EC%95%88%20-%20%EC%A0%95%EC%84%9C/%EC%A0%95%EC%84%9C%EC%A0%81%20%EC%86%8C%ED%86%B5%EC%97%90%20%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%20%EC%86%8C%EA%B0%9C%20%EB%85%BC%EB%AC%B8.docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" target="_blank">[1]</a>: differentiated or undifferentiated from the self.  In a differentiated mode, the other person is experienced as distinct, separate, or different from the self.  In an undifferentiated mode, the other person can be experienced as similar to, the same as, or a twin of the self.   These are two different ways of relating to and experiencing another person.  They structure how specific feelings -- anxiety, love, anger -- are felt in relationship to another person.  For example, if the patient is angry at the world, in an undifferentiated transference, he feels that the analyst is just like him -- and that she also feels anger at the world.   On the other hand, if he is in a differentiated transference, he experiences the analyst as different, and he might include the analyst as part of the world and feel angry at the her.  In one case the patient feels, consciously or unconsciously, that they share the same feeling.  In the other case, he feels that they are different, and might make the analyst the target of his feeling. 

            Types of countertransference and transference can be classified according to the relational mode.  In the example above, the analyst is disappointed in the patient, as a person different from himself; he is not disappointed in himself, and does not experience himself as sharing the patients feelings.  This is an example of a countertransference in a differentiated relational mode.

            We hypothesized that in the case described, this countertransference was a repetition of the parents disappointment in him, which the patient also experienced in a differentiated mode.  In this case, the interaction was pathogenic.  This type of differentiated mode is called the object mode.  In an object countertransference, the analyst experiences the patient as separate and has feelings that repeat what other people felt towards the patient in the past -- feelings that were detrimental to his development.  Working from the countertransference to the transference, we further hypothesize that the patient experiences the analyst in a similar way to the way he experienced his parents when they were disappointed in him.     

            Lets suppose, on the other hand, that the analyst experienced a countertransference  consistent with the less frequent repetition: he felt warmly towards the patient, proud of him, and wanted to take care of him.  He again experiences the patient as separate, having feelings, but in this case he feels the nurturing feelings that the patient needed to feel from a nurturing person as a child -- and still needs -- in order to grow and mature.  This is the anaclitic mode.  (The anaclitic relational mode is the earliest mode of human relatedness, as we have seen in the example of the crying newborn.) In an anaclitic countertransference, the analyst experiences the patient as separate and feels the feelings that the patient needs to get from him in order to mature.   We further hypothesize that the patient experiences the analyst as being nurturing and is receptive to receiving these feelings.

            Now lets suppose that instead of experiencing the patient as different from himself, he experiences him as the same and has the same feelings as the patient.  For example, the analyst thinks of times when he has been a disappointment to others, such as his father, and how he feels like a disappointment to himself.  He might feel strongly identified with the patient. Now the hypothesis would be that the patient experienced the analyst as being like himself, inducing the feelings that characterize his own self-state -- as opposed to feelings that somebody else had about him -- in the analyst.  This is the narcissistic mode.  In a narcissistic countertransference, the analyst experiences the patient as being similar to, a twin of, or merged with the patient and experiences feelings that are the same as or are analogues to what the patient feels, positive or negative. 

            Understanding the countertransference in the context of the patients life enables us to work backwards towards an understanding of the transference.  If, for example, the analyst feels fear, she looks at the content to see if the patient also feels fear, or is discussing something that might make him feel afraid.   If so, we hypothesize that the patient induced the anxiety, that he is repeating his own self experience with the analyst, and that they are in a narcissistic transference/countertransference configuration. 

            But suppose nothing suggests that the patient feels fear.   Is he talking about feelings that are different from the analysts but to which the analysts fear might be a logical response?  For example, the patient might angry, and the analyst might fear being the target of the his aggression. (Perhaps the patients mother became inordinately frightened when the patient was angry as child.)  In this case, we hypothesize that the patient induced fear, that the patient is repeating an experience of his mother fearing his anger; they are in an object transference/countertransference that repeats a pathogenic experience.

            Understanding the relational mode of the transference --  how the patient experiences and relates to the analyst --  reveals the global emotional context in which the analysts communications are understood.  In object transference, the patient has a strong tendency to experience, whether consciously or unconsciously, what the analyst says as aversive or pathogenic.   In the anaclitic mode, the tendency is to experience the analyst as nurturing.  And in the narcissistic mode, the patient tends to experience the communications as positive or negative depending on the patients feelings about himself, but in some way reinforcing or reflecting his sense of self.

            Of course, the patients relational mode isnt the only factor affecting the patients  experience of the analyst.  What the analyst communicates to the patient is equally important, and the analyst often has the ability to induce a change in the patients feelings.   But the relational mode of the transference defines the emotional context within which the analysts communications will be experienced.

            Most people have the potential to develop multiple transference/countertransference configurations in different relational modes.  Why is one transference rather than another activated in the analysis?  In the case described, why did the object transference/countertransference get activated rather than the anaclitic one?  This is hard, often impossible to determine.  Its possible that analysts propensity to get disappointed triggered (but did not create) the object repetition.  Or, the other way around.  In a sense, it doesnt matter.  Provided that patients experience of the analyst is indeed a repetition and not a feeling induced in the patient by the analyst -- in which case it is really an objective countertransference to the analyst rather than a transference -- the question of who initiated the interaction is not very important.

            What does this focus on the patients contribution to the countertransference offer?  Most importantly, it offers the analyst access to dimensions of the patients experiences that she cannot put into words, cannot remember, and cannot control.  In the narcissistic mode, it allows the analyst to feel essentially what the patient feels.  In the object mode, it enables the analyst to experience feelings that other people felt towards the patient at pathogenic moments in the patients life.  In the anaclitic mode, the analyst experiences the maturational feelings that the patient missed in his development, and still needs in order to continue to mature.  Because the patterns of emotional communication in the patients life are the same as those he brings to the analysis, understanding the countertransference experiences can help the analyst to better understand not just the transference, but also how the patients repetitions unfold with other people in his life.

            One might ask: why not focus equally on the contribution of the analysts own past, the dynamics of the analysts own subjectivity, to the countertransference?  Wouldnt that provide a more complete account of the what transpires in the room between them?

            Yes, it would provide a far more complete account.  However, the purpose of the countertransference analysis is to help the analyst understand the patient, not develop a complete account of their interaction. Focusing on the analysts subjectivity is often necessary to help the analyst understand herself, which may help her to control herself or to understand her mistakes, and it might be valuable for her own personal development.  But without contextualizing this information back to the patients life story, it doesnt add to the analysts knowledge of the patient.  In theory, there is no danger -- and much to be gained -- in exploring the analysts life story as extensively as the patients; in practice, it easily becomes a distraction from the primary analytic focus on the patients repetitions.  With the best of intentions -- the commitment to take responsibility for her part in the relationship -- the analyst inadvertently retreats from the patient and turns towards herself.  More seriously, during the (often very long) periods before consistencies between the countertransference and the content have emerged, its tempting explain the countertransference in terms of the analysts past.  This is almost always possible -- coincidences abound in every analytic relationship (we are, as Sullivan said, "more simply human than otherwise") -- with the consequence that potentially important dimensions of the patients repetitions get redefined as part of the analysts subjectivity and, again with the best of intentions, the patient is not heard.

            For analysts whose technique is based primarily on interpretation, this model offers another source of information about the patient that can be interpreted to the patient. For the analyst who is focused primarily on empathic understanding and responsiveness, even the non-empathic dimensions of the countertransference give the analyst a better idea of what the emotional environment in which the patient grew up. 

           But for the analyst who works in this model of emotional communication, the focus on the patients contribution to the countertransference offers the additional benefit that helps the analyst to find the feelings that the patient needs to experience within the relationship to loosen the repetition. This is not  to say that the feelings in the countertransference are the curative feelings.  Sometimes they are, but often they are not.  But what they do reveal is one type relational configuration -- usually the one that maintains and reinforces the repetitions -- which can be used as a point of reference to determine what feelings might be curative.



<a href="https://d.docs.live.net/971847ccd4fc3573/DocumentOne/ICP/2017%201%EC%9B%94/%EC%A0%95%EC%84%9C/%EA%B0%95%EC%9D%98%EC%95%88%20-%20%EC%A0%95%EC%84%9C/%EC%A0%95%EC%84%9C%EC%A0%81%20%EC%86%8C%ED%86%B5%EC%97%90%20%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%20%EC%86%8C%EA%B0%9C%20%EB%85%BC%EB%AC%B8.docx#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="" target="_blank">[1]</a> And many, many variations.  This only the most schematic of summaries.

 
 
 
 
이전글   다음글이 없습니다.
다음글   이전글이 없습니다.