Back to Table of Contents
discharge is understood as some kind of emptying of energy potential, in a closed system or out of it.” (Loewald 1972/80, p 242).
III. Cc. View from French Canada: French Approaches To Intersubjectvity As Related To The Reception Of USA Intersubjective Orientation The reception of the US intersubjective orientation in French psychoanalysis is inseparable from the ongoing debates between North American (US) psychoanalysis – as well as, to a lesser degree English-speaking analysis worldwide – and French speaking psychoanalysis. French analysts view the British psychoanalytic school as a bridge between the US and French psychoanalysis. This became more visible as Winnicott and Bion became significant references in the work of prominent French analysts. Overall, there are three approaches to intersubjectivity reflective of different trends in the reception of the USA (mostly Self Psychology and Relational) intersubjective orientations, in French psychoanalysis: 1) a general refusal of the interpersonal/relational paradigm in psychoanalysis, based mostly in Lacan; 2) a metapsychological approach of the psychoanalytic situation based on the affirmation of the interpersonal nature of the formation of the sexual unconscious, as per Laplanche’s Theory of Generalized Seduction; and 3) a qualified acceptance within the dialectic between the intersubjective and intrapsychic dimensions of the mind of Green, Roussillon, and other ‘integrationists’. The critiques differ according to the psychoanalytic orientations of their author. They deal with issues having both to do with the psychoanalytic method and with metapsychology. Those coming from orientations closer to classical French psychoanalysis tend to focus on the fact that relational approaches have left out the primary content of the unconscious, more precisely primal fantasies, such as castration and Oedipus. So doing they have overlooked the structuring role of the differences of sexes and of generations on the formation of psychic life. In the intersubjective orientation, countertransference becomes disclosure and its analysis implies that the analyst share his affective experience of the session with the patient. Thus, the symmetry between analysts and analysand induced by the intersubjectivists’ technique and the mutuality of the relation they are fostering prevent the symbolizing function of the Oedipus complex from manifesting itself and from setting in motion a genuine analytic process. On the contrary, in classical analysis, the psychoanalytic frame is designed to point to the Oedipal situation notably through the asymmetry of the relation, which is designed to evoke the difference of generation. These elements are essential for allowing unconscious processes to express themselves. According to the critics linked to the classical approach, the relational orientations have gotten around the complexities of unconscious processes and forgotten about the resistance of these processes to evolution and to educational methods (Anzieu-Premmereur, in: Durieux et Fine, 2000). Other critics, coming from various analytic orientations, raise a more general questioning of the whole turn taken by North American (US) psychoanalysis, including its hermeneutic, socio-constructivist and narrative approaches (Kahn, 2014). These critics object
380
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online