Review of Relational and Intersubjective Perspectives in Psychoanalysis: A Critique.

Abstract

JON MILLS (Ed.) Relational and Intersubjective Perspectives in Psychoanalysis: A Critique Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson, 2005, 384 pages (ISBN 1-4129-0405-6, US$60 Cloth) Reviewed by PAUL IAN STEINBERG Mills offers a substantial introduction sometimes employing lengthy cumbersome sentences. I question whether the practice of psychoanalysis has been forced to go underground and is exclusively for the rich and the elite, and whether contemporary psychoanalysis stresses consciousness at the expense of the unconscious and that therapy largely lacks originality. Part I, Theoretical Considerations, begins with Intersubjectivity: From Theory to Practice by Roger Frie and Bruce Reis. They examine psychoanalytic tenets of intersubjectivity and the philosophical premises on which they are based. They clearly outline the contribution of European philosophies to the concept of intersubjectivity, and thoughtfully discuss philosophical influences on Jessica Benjamin's, Thomas Ogden's, and Robert Stolorow's work, which follows an outline of their work on This chapter would be improved and more accessible to clinicians if clinical examples were provided. authors' critiques are balanced, although they offer a more involved discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of intersubjectivity then some clinicians might wish. Phenomenology of Intersubjectivity by Guy Thompson offers a historical review of the origins of the term intersubjectivity. Thompson employs long sentences that sometimes require multiple readings to be understood. His concern with intersubjectivity's philosophical roots and its lack of recognition among relationists is not that compelling to clinicians. This chapter is of more interest to academicians. Jim Frederickson's The Problem of Relationality raises important questions about what is original and what is inconsistent in the relational approach. His arguments are distant from clinical work. Sometimes he overstates his point, for example, regarding Stolorow and Orange's conflating of subjects with subjectivities. Frederickson makes too much of his criticism of Stephen Mitchell's acknowledge limited planet analogy. Peter Giovacchini's Subjectivity and the Ephemeral Mind is a frontal attack on the originality of work on Giovacchini argues futilely against gratuitous self-disclosure. He describes his very limited self-disclosure to a patient, appearing not to consider (never mind acknowledge) his contributions to the transference-countertransference matrix. This chapter, and one by Giovacchini's son, seems polemical. Giovacchini criticizes them for using legitimize as a verb, which is incomprehensible to me. Phillip Giovacchini, in Object Relations and Intersubjectivity, seems to misread the intersubjectivity literature as if it suggests that the functions and activities of analyst and analysand were identical. If this notion were true, analysts would not require training or personal analysis. Giovacchini writes as if the perspective of intersubjectivity is used in isolation, not as one of many useful developments in psychoanalysis; intersubjectivity enhances rather than supplants object relations theory. Giovacchini sees things in more either/or terms. Relational psychoanalysis is given short shrift in Part I; the book so far does not fulfil the promise of its title. Part II, Treatment Perspectives, begins with Frank Summers' Caution and Discovery in the Psychoanalytic Process. It is direct, clear, and enjoyable to read, an excellent chapter. Summers describes limitations in an interpretive approach. He uses Benjamin's concept of intersubjectivity to demonstrate helping patients change once insight is achieved, and describes theories of transitional space for the purpose of self-creation. Timothy Zeddies, in Moral Deliberation and Relationability in the Analytic Dyad, outlines problems with the relational approach in an unbiased manner, devoid of the polemic seen earlier. …