Back to Table of Contents
Scarfone (2010) has extended reflection upon the quality of the analyst’s listening in his notion of ‘ passibility ’, referencing Jean Laplanche’ (1993) concept of ‘ hollowed - out transference ,” a form of transference by which the analysand unknowingly deposits his actualized relationship to the enigma of his infancy. The form of this transference is itself deposited in another ‘hollow’ of the analyst’s ‘inviting (seductive) neutrality’ aimed at opening new mental spaces for the analysand. (See also separate entries INTERSUBJECTIVITY, SETTING, OBJECT RELATIONS THEORIES, THE UNCONSCIOUS, TRANSFERENCE, COUNTERTRANSFERENCE)
III. TRANSLATING FIELD THEORIES INTO CLINICAL PRACTICE
This section discusses what the analyst actually does when translating field theory into practice. To this end, Andrea Celenza (2019, 2022) proposed a description of two listening stances that are associated with different attentional sets. These sets reside at a relatively low level of abstraction and are experience-near. The two attentional sets are: 1) a directed attentional set aimed at the identification of conscious or unconscious repetitious patterns, and 2) a diffuse attentional set receptive to emergent phenomena for the purpose of elaborating unconscious fantasy. While these attentional sets are combined in everyday practice, they can be prioritized differently among various theoretical models. In the variety of field theory models (e.g., Italian Bionian Field Theory, various play therapies), a diffuse attentional set is prioritized. In field theory models, particular modes of transference and their development are also facilitated, depending on the intention and goals in the analyst’s mind. These attentional sets can be correlated with different types of transferences, evoking different types of clinical material that correspond to the analyst’s goal and/or phases in treatment. The various steps in elaborating unconscious fantasy and how it is used illustrate the utilization of this diffuse attentional mode of listening. These two modes of listening are distinguishable for heuristic purposes, but in clinical practice, they are not so clearly separable. At any given moment, it may not be possible to differentiate the two modes of analytic listening as these modes tend to oscillate. When one mode is actively prioritized in a more sustained way, however, differences evoked in the clinical material can be discerned and thereby coordinated with different analytic goals. Celenza purposely uses the language of attentional sets to underscore the purposive action and mode of readiness in the analyst’s mental state, highlighting what the analyst’s stance is at any particular clinical moment. Furthermore, this terminology aligns with contemporary neurophysiological studies which identify these sets as divergent and governed by different neurophysiological substrates. Below is her account of such attentional sets, expanded for the purposes of this entry.
714
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online