Back to Table of Contents
The recognition of relational patterns, reflective of unconscious, fantasied expectations, dreads, and/or traumatic repetitions, is an interpretive strategy distinguishing this directed approach from that of the sustained and diffuse openness to emergent process for the purpose of elaborating unconscious fantasy. The theorists associated with this particular attentional mode include (but are not limited to) Freudian and Neo-Freudian theorists, Kleinian and neo- Kleinian theorists (e.g., LaFarge, 2000, 2017), interpersonal/relational theorists (Sullivan, 1940) and ego psychological theorists (Jacobs, 1986, 1991; Poland, 1996). Arnold Modell’s view of affects and the complementarity of biologic and historical meaning (1978), Heinz Hartmann’s and Ernst Kris’ (Hartmann & Kris, 1945) genetic approach in psychoanalysis could be grouped here as well. This approach may also lead to interventions that aim to correct, repair, and/or integrate traumatically dissociated parts of the self where split-off or dissociated self-states can emerge. However, the turn to the analysand’s historical narrative (a narrative that continues to evolve through the analytic process) can subsequently guide the associational links. At the level of abstract theorizing, a polemic has arisen where traditions utilizing this approach can be viewed as delimiting unconscious fantasy production, resulting in an impoverishment of unconscious fantasy in favor of identifying historical repetitions. (Though erroneous, since historical reconstruction is always inextricably shaped by unconscious fantasy [see Erreich, 2003], this is the argument put forth). For articulation of this polemic, see Foehl (2013a, b); Donnel B. Stern (2013a, b); Ferro and Civitarese (2013a, b) among other discussants in a two-part panel. Foehl (2013a, b) emphasizes the common context in which interpersonal and field theories evolved, particularly in relation to the writings of Merleau-Ponty. He suggests an epistemological pluralism that would invite working from diverse perspectives . In contrast, Stern (2013 a, b) identifies essential distinctions between interpersonal and Bionian field theorists, asserting that Bionian field theorists do not take into account the analyst’s symmetrical participation (i.e. ‘relational engagement’, ‘mutuality’) in the field. Interpersonal field theory (Stern 2013a, b) emphasizes the unconscious involvement not only on the level of a fantasy, but also on the level of the analyst’s conduct in the course of treatment. III. Ab. Diffuse Attentional Set In contrast, the second stance revolves around a diffuse attentional set in relation to emergent process. This mode of listening engages an unfocused receptivity that is primarily aimed at expanding the play of unconscious process, encouraging its emergence in all its forms so as to facilitate the growth of the mind. This attentional set is one of patience, openness, waiting, and tolerance of uncertainty in relation to what may emerge. Unconscious processes can take any form and are assumed to be ubiquitous in the here-and-now experience. This mode of listening corresponds to Freud’s evenly hovering attention, Bion’s listening without memory or desire (1988), and Ogden’s (2005) immersion in reverie.
717
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online