Resistance: How Do We Think of It in the Twenty-First Century?

Abstract

A rnold Cooper, chairing the panel, placed the concept of resistance within the current pluralistic landscape of psychoanalysis. He noted that while one segment of the psychoanalytic community views resistance analysis as crucial, other segments (e.g., the object relational, the intersubjectivist, and the interpersonal) may view resistance as an outdated concept connoting an adversarial and authoritative stance. Using a graph captioned "Trends in Usage of the Term Resistance," Cooper noted the increasing occurrence of references to resistance in two major psychoanalytic journals since the 1980s (JAPA and the International Journal of Psychoanalysis). Whatever the challenge to its conceptual utility, the term is in one sense very much alive.Cooper posed a series of questions that served to position resistance in relation to issues of contemporary interest: transference and intrapsychic conflict; the narcissistic threat of interpretation; the sense of intimate struggle within the treatment relationship; and anxiety about change, loss, the unknown, emptiness, etc. He concluded by asking whether a concept that raises so many questions can still serve a useful purpose.Eslee Samberg, the panel's reporter, presented a brief literature review from an historical perspective. She emphasized that over time the understanding of resistance has reflected each writer's conceptualization of what psychoanalysis is and how it works. Starting with Freud, she noted his early efforts to unravel the relation between transference and resistance and his recognition that transference is both

Solution-Focused Counseling for Clients With Religious and Spiritual Concerns

“…Most theories tend to define the term resistance as a client's opposition to change (Ellis, 1997). More specifically, resistance has been traditionally understood as largely the result of pathological factors that are located within the individual (e.g., Ellis, 1985;Samberg, 2004). Accordingly, resistance tends to be viewed as a problem that needs to be confronted and eliminated.…”

Unconscious Fantasy: A Once and Future Concept

“…From these premises it follows that since procedural or implicit memories cannot be repressed, they cannot be represented in fantasies that are dynamically unconscious. Consequently, early mentation is, on this view cognitively nonconscious and continues to influence adult behavior, not through fantasies but through enactments of the original patterns (Lyons-Ruth 1999;Samberg 2004). The clinical consequences of taking this perspective have been explanations of unconscious mentation independent of repression and descriptions of therapeutic interventions "beyond interpretation," as both repression and interpretation are equated with declarative/explicit knowledge of a later (postoedipal) developmental period (Lyons-Ruth 1999;Stern et al 1998;Tronick 1998;Boston Change Process Study Group 2002Fonagy et al 2002).…”

“…In the face of this challenge some current theorists have turned away from the concept of unconscious fantasy, claiming instead that early childhood thinking is best described as procedural and implicit knowledge, concepts taken from cognitive neuroscience research (Stern et al 1998;Tronick 1998;Boston Change Process Study Group 2002;Lyons-Ruth 1999;Samberg 2004).…”

“…However, a major challenge remains: developmental research findings do not support Freud's claims (1900) that early thought processes are characterized by the primary processes, as these would be manifest in the formation of unconscious fantasies. In the face of this challenge some current theorists have turned away from the concept of unconscious fantasy, claiming instead that early childhood thinking is best described as procedural and implicit knowledge, concepts taken from cognitive neuroscience research (Stern et al 1998;Tronick 1998;Boston Change Process Study Group 2002;Lyons-Ruth 1999;Samberg 2004).…”

Friedman's corpus Since His Anatomy: A Psychoanalytic Odyssey

“…There are many people whose ideas elicit his ire. He is not among those (see the panelists in Samberg 2004) who think the concept of resistance is antiquated or needlessly adversarial. He has been arguing with Schafer for at least thirty years (see, e.g., Friedman 1976Friedman , 1988Friedman , 1989Friedman , 1999b.…”