Back to Table of Contents
(such as the regulation of anxiety) are paired by the transmuting internalization of the function from the object into the self. This relationship between a self becoming cohesive through the activity of the selfobject has been referred to as a ‘one and a half person’ psychology. Two major revisions were made to this original conception. One was a shift from the language and conceptions of the structure hypothesis to an experience-near theory ( Lichtenberg , 1975, 1979, 1992). Addressing a sense of self, a sense of the object, and a selfobject experience of enlivenment and cohesion connected Self psychology to the subjectivity of intersubjectivity. The second far-reaching revision was the proposal by Robert Stolorow (1997) of intersubjectivity, inherent in all human relatedness and of the intersubjective field. In Stolorow’s broad conception (Stolorow 1997), the intersubjective field , which is located at the intersection of individual subjectivities, is at the center of the entire psychoanalytic framework as well as all human relatedness and all development. Individuals coalesce as precipitates of the field. The field functions in present, real time. Repetition strictly speaking does not occur (Katz 2013, p. 291). Here, the intersubjective field itself, and not the individuals that make it up, are the basic, indivisible ground of experience. This field is the functioning whole and is the object of psychoanalytic process (Stolorow and Atwood, 1989). In the psychoanalytic process, “The psychological field formed by the interplay of the patient’s transference and the analyst’s transference is an example of what we call an intersubjective system ” (Stolorow 2013, p. 383, original italics). Grappling with the contextualism and phenomenology versus metaphysics and metapsychology, Stolorow and Atwood (2013) made a remarkable statement: “As our ideas have evolved over the decades (Atwood & Stolorow, 1984, 1993; Orange, Atwood, & Stolorow, 1997; Stolorow & Atwood, 1992; Stolorow, Atwood, & Orange, 2002; Stolorow, Brandchaft, & Atwood, 1987), however, it has become apparent to us that we, too, have not escaped the metaphysical impulse. The concept of the intersubjective field - central in our theorizing for many years—itself shows a tendency to become objectified and universalized. Accordingly, we have tried to think through the embeddedness of this idea in the personal and collaborative contexts of our work together (Atwood & Stolorow, 2012) and thereby to transcend its potentially limiting influence on efforts to understand still unexplored realms of human experience. Metaphysics, arising as a response to the tragic finitude of our existence, cannot be permanently transcended, and there will accordingly never be a psychoanalytic theory that is completely metapsychology-free. The answer to the dilemma this poses for our discipline, however, lies in a shared commitment to reflection on the constitutive contexts of all our theoretical ideas, including the idea of context itself…” (Stolorow and Atwood 2013, p. 418-419). In analytic therapy, the intersubjective field of the interplay of subjectivities of analyst and analysand shifts the traditional emphasis on transference and countertransference to an expanded expression of the analyst’s subjective experience. This redefinition of the analyst’s role in the dyadic relationship creates a “more reciprocal (yet, still asymmetrical) subject-to- subject intimacy” (Lichtenberg, Lachmann, & Fosshage, 2016, p. 86-87). The subjectivity of intersubjectivity refers to the individual’s awareness of affects, intentions, goals, perspectives,
704
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online