Back to Table of Contents
Psychology and Relational perspective practitioners (Gerson, 2004), whose clinical unit of attention was interpersonal (below). Another substantial revision of Freudian metapsychology during 1960’s – 1980’s comes from Hans Loewald , self-identified as Ego psychologist, whose influence as a transitional figure, connected to Winnicott and Jacobson, but also to Heidegger, was subsequently widely recognized as contributing to receptivity of US Classical analysis towards intersubjectivity in its many versions. Loewald stressed the essential role of object relations in both psychic formation as well as the change brought about through analysis. Stolorow would later express agreement with Loewald’s (1960/80) clinical conception of “the analyst as a transforming object who invites syntheses of new modes of experiencing object relationships” (Stolorow, 1978, 317). In his methodological revision of Ego psychology developmental theory, Loewald regarded the psychic structure of the instincts as originating in the interaction of the infant with its human environment (mother) (Loewald, 1978a,b/80). In viewing instincts/drives as the product of interaction Loewald extends Jacobson’s thesis that the instincts were a link between the infant’s self and its objects. Going further, Loewald identifies interaction as the critical aspect in the internalization of the subjective representation of the self and other , highlighting the interaction as a basic building block of the mind . Just as was the case for Winnicott in the UK, Loewald and Jacobson in the US can be seen as the forerunners of the intersubjective movement, Some writers (Schwartz 2012) see the explosion of intersubjectivity in 1980’s as an elaboration of developments that were under way in psychoanalysis since at least 1950s, when Heimann and other early Kleinians , Racker , and in a different way Ferenczi and Balin t led the way in bringing attention to countertransference as a central element of clinical psychoanalysis. In this context, intersubjective approach would be one of several outgrowths of that development. This line of development is especially relevant for intersubjectivity of contemporary Relational theories and, differently, for theories of unconscious communication in North American post-Kleinian and post-Bionian orientations (below). Yet, while onceptually enriching, Klein’s focus on internally generated phantasies, dominating the mind of all individuals, patients as well as analysts, throughout life, were viewed initially by some Ego psychologists as well as many Intersubjectivists in the US as devoid of any acknowledgement of the importance of the external environment. Appreciation and influence of the concepts relevant to inter-subjectivity coming out of French psychoanalysis were delayed due to translational lag, but even when subsequently translated, US Intersubjectvists often viewed French thinking as controversial in that it further expanded the ‘reification’ of the unconscious. However, there is a qualified acceptance of French thinking among the wider psychoanalytic community in the US, as the intersubjective construction of drives is better understood. From 1990’s, Wilfred Bion ’s intersubjectively relevant conceptualizations of communicative ‘projective identification’ and ‘containment’ (see the separate entries CONTAINMENT and PROJECTIVE IDENTIFICATION) as well as Ogden ’s analytic ‘third’ are increasingly embraced in the US, especially in the West Coast (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle) where Bion worked, wrote and taught in the latter part
449
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online