Grasping psychoanalysts’ practice in its own merits

Abstract

The central objective of this presentation is to reflect on the obstacles involved in the task proposed by the Chicago Congress, which is to explore convergences and divergences in psychoanalytic practice. The author discusses two major obstacles. First, the epistemological and methodological problems in relation to the construction of theory in psychoanalysis and especially the inaccessibility, in any reliable way, of what psychoanalysts really do in the intimacy of their practice. He proposes to separate, at least in part, theory from practice in psychoanalysis, in an attempt to grasp psychoanalysts' practice in its own merits. He then outlines a phenomenology of the practice of psychoanalysis, which reveals that, in their work with patients, analysts are guided more by practical reasons than theoretical reasons; that is, their interventions are predictions rather than explanations. Since these practical reasons need to be validated constantly in the analytic relationship based on their effects, he discusses the subject of validation in the clinical context of the core theory of therapeutic change in psychoanalysis, that is, the conditions required for clinical practice to satisfy the thesis of an inseparable union between gaining knowledge and cure. He ends by challenging the core of the psychoanalytic theory of change, arguing that it neither does justice to the practice of psychoanalysts nor to contemporary knowledge of processes and mechanisms of therapeutic change. Finally, he proposes that we detach practice from theory, in order to study the former in its own merits, utilising a plurality of methods ranging from systematic investigation to the recent methodology of the Working Party.

Distinguishing Psychoanalysis from Psychotherapy

“…For any critical observer the present situation is marked by ‘the failure of practice to inform theory’ (Fonagy, 2006) which logically leads to the most recent call of ‘studying practice in its own right’ (Jiménez, 2009). But of which practice are we talking?…”

Do We Need to Know What We are Doing? Discovering Our ‘Working Model’ of Psychoanalytic Practice Using the Comparative Clinical Method

“…We are very good at construing what the analyst might be doing or thinking as a consequence to or reaction to what we understand the patient to be doing. But we are far less able to think of the analyst as having a working model or theoretical framework in its own right, which informs the way his or her analytic work is actually carried out (Jimenez, 2009). This was evident from the difficulties I and my fellow participants experienced in each group in trying to address the questions posed to us by the two-step model.…”

Spontaneous “Cures”: Norman Reider’s Forgotten Paper, Part Ii

“…Or that it did not, or why it did or did not work? Aren't we then right back where we started (Jimenez 2009)?…”