On ‘Affirming “That’s not psycho‐analysis!”’

Berman, Emanuel

doi:10.1111/j.1745-8315.2010.00349.x

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The other ingredient of my affective response was, I believe, a joining with him and a supporting of him, through identification, in a true unconscious grief reaction. This, I believe, was similar to the "sadness" of affect in the therapist, of which Adelaide Johnson (forthcoming) and Michael Balint (1950) have written. As he unloaded his sadism, free from fear of loss of control, and of any fear of retaliation, I believe that this man's ego was finally and permanently freed of the binding of this sadism into his superego.…”

Section: I C L I N I C a L M At E R I A Lmentioning

confidence: 58%

Countertransference

Tower

2023

J Am Psychoanal Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: I C L I N I C a L M At E R I A Lmentioning

confidence: 58%

Countertransference

Tower

2023

J Am Psychoanal Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Loyalists' main worry is that psychoanalysis, once exposed to another, alien direction, will not manage its own tradition's mainstay, like bringing the unconscious to consciousness. As a result, the profession, it is feared, may cave in before superficial, intense, and fast therapies [e.g., Blass ( 2010 ) and Berman ( 2010 ), response]. Psychoanalysis's motivation for maintaining the tradition's mainstay in therapeutic theory and practice consists of many reasons (some mentioned above).…”

Section: Psychoanalysis and The Extra-analytic Othermentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychoanalysis and Interdisciplinarity With Non-analytic Psychotherapeutic Approaches Through the Lens of Dialectics

Herzovich

Govrin

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychoanalysis, in its purist mainstream sense, tends to be considered as an isolationist discipline that steers clear of interdisciplinary connections with other psychotherapies. Its drive for purity does not open up to influences that cast as alien and a threat to its core principles. We refer to Hegelian dialectics in an attempt to offer an alternative approach to interdisciplinarity in clinical psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis entertains a complex dialectical relationship with the major theories it opposes. In this dynamic, psychoanalysis begins by negating the non-psychoanalytic theory as a part of self-negation (Hegel calls this phase self-alienation). But in its own process of growth, it negates this negation and reabsorbs the alienated self part. Reabsorbing the negated component, psychoanalysis does not revert to its original identity but becomes sublated into a different, more complex idea. In this epistemological process, psychoanalysis deals with its own practical and theoretical anomalies and lacunas. The paper illustrates this process using three central developments in the history of psychoanalysis: empathy in self psychology (connection with Rogers' humanist psychology), short-term dynamic psychotherapy (connection with short, intensive therapies), and mentalization-based psychotherapy (connection with cognitive-behavioral therapies). In all of these cases, psychoanalysis integrates components it previously opposed and changes these components to their own, specific characteristics. We address the epistemological shifts in the scientific status of psychoanalysis and show their connection to dialectics. Finally, we conclude that dialectical development is what allows psychoanalysis to remain relevant and up to date, to be open to interdisciplinary influences without its identity and tradition coming under threat.

show abstract

“…3As a recent example of such debates, see the four critical Letters to the Editor (by Lewis Aron, 2010; Yoram Hazan, 2010; Emanuel Berman, 2010; and Steven Stern, 2010), stirred by Rachel Blass’ (2010a) paper titled “Affirming ‘That’s not psycho-analysis!’: On the value of the politically incorrect act of attempting to define the limits of our field” (see also Blass’ [2010b] reply and my comment [Migone, 2011]).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychoanalysis on the Internet: A discussion of its theoretical implications for both online and offline therapeutic technique.

Migone¹

2013

Psychoanalytic Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychoanalysis over the Internet is discussed as a means of reflecting on the way we think about theory of technique generally, and on what we mean by “communication” between patient and analyst. The way we think about online therapy has direct implications for the way we practice “offline” therapy. This problem is discussed from the point of view of the history of the theory of psychoanalytic technique, with reference to the classic 1953 paper by Kurt Eissler (K. R. Eissler, 1953, The effect of the structure of the ego on psychoanalytic technique, Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Vol. 1, pp. 104–143) on “parameters,” and also with reference to the redefinition of psychoanalysis itself in terms of the analysis of the transference by the late Merton Gill (e.g., M. M. Gill, 1984, Psychoanalysis and psychotherapy: A revision, International Review of Psychoanalysis, Vol. 11, pp. 161–179). Online therapy is simply a different therapy, in the same way as two therapies, both offline (or both online), may be different from each other. The fil rouge that runs through this paper is a reflection on the very identity of psychoanalysis.

show abstract

On ‘Affirming “That’s not psycho‐analysis!”’

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

Countertransference

Countertransference

Psychoanalysis and Interdisciplinarity With Non-analytic Psychotherapeutic Approaches Through the Lens of Dialectics

Psychoanalysis on the Internet: A discussion of its theoretical implications for both online and offline therapeutic technique.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About