Paul Gray's narrowing Scope: A “Developmental Lag” in His Theory and Technique

Abstract

A cental thesis of Paul Gray's work is that a "developmental lag" pervades modern psychoanalysis in its failure to assimilate and apply knowledge gained about the role of the unconscious ego in intrapsychic life. But Gray himself, it is proposed, has become a victim of a new "developmental lag," of his own construction. As he somewhat single-mindedly pursued the ramifications of his "developmental lag" concept, Gray may have foreclosed on some noteworthy ideas developing around him. The most important example is his claim--herein refuted--that proper interpretive technique can avoid being infused with transference. He also seems to have rejected the theoretical importance of the internalization of the analyst and the clinical usefulness of countertransference. While emphasizing defense analysis, he ignores defenses such as splitting, denial, and disavowal as substantive problems for his technique of close-process attention. Gray's "undoing" of the rapprochement between "ego analysis" and "id analysis" by viewing the matter as an either-or proposition undermines the very real value of his contribution to the field.

Bion’s Ego Psychology: Implications for an Intersubjective View of Psychic Structure

“…[and a] role-responsiveness to the patient's defensive position" (p. 68), which leads the analyst to collude with the analysand's avoidance of painful affects. While this is a welcome expansion of Gray's rejection of the usefulness of countertransference (Phillips 2006), I am focusing on the uniquely collaborative way in which the unconscious of the analyst and the unconscious of the patient create emotional meaning together, a way that is different from the analyst's unconscious resonance with a role evoked by the patient in the service of resistance. between Sally's and my α functions.…”

Psychotherapy and close‐process technique

“…In some quarters, ‘close‐process’ refers mostly to the interpretation of enactments in the transference (Susan Loden, 2008, personal communication), a meaning that Gray would have considered restrictive. Probably, one of the most common misunderstandings about Gray’s recommended technique is that it spells detachment, mechanicism and lack of empathy (Arlow, in Smith, 2006; Phillips, 2006). Let us hear what Levenson (2007), a Paul Gray scholar, had to say about this:…”

Technique and final cause in psychoanalysis: Four ways of looking at one moment

“…One would have to go back to Freud’s Dora case to find a cough that has been as commented on as that of Mr. A in analysis with Dr. Lawrence Levenson (Levenson, 1998; Levenson et al ., 2006; Phillips, 2006). Dr. Levenson wrote this article to explain and defend the technical ideas advocated by Dr. Paul Gray (1982, 2005).…”