Full text unavailable

You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.

AJP 72(2):192-195 (2012) • DOI: 10.1057/ajp.2012.1

Change in Psychoanalysis: An Analyst's Reflections on the Therapeutic Relationship, by Chris Jaenicke, Routledge, New York, 2011, 194 pp.

Author: Salman Akhtar MD

Abstract

It is hard to remain neutral while assessing Chris Jaenicke's book, Change in Psychoanalysis. The author, whose academic affiliation and locale of practice is not mentioned anywhere in the book 1, writes in a highly partisan manner about the tensions between “classical” psychoanalysis and the au currant relational and intersubjective approaches. His thought-provoking clinical discourse has the strident undercurrents of a political manifesto. His repeated references to “what we are claiming,” “we would disagree,” “we would be attentive,” “our criticism of projective identification,” “from our perspective,” “we call it,” “our favorite saying is …” (pp. 19, 53, 87, 95, 98, 171; italics added) have the consequence of set up an “us-versus-them” dichotomy. As a result, the allure of taking sides is powerful.

Let me not get ahead of myself, though. Let me first summarize Jaenicke's “take home” message, which essentially consists of the following seven points:

“There is no unilateral action” (p. 2). Every action is embedded in an intersubjective field.
All experience is subjective; even empathy is influenced by the observer's subjectivity.
“Psychotherapeutic encounter changes both participants” (p. 13). In fact, “for therapy to succeed, both participants must change” (p. 28).
“One aspect of relational analytic technique is to actively make the patient aware of the analyst's subjectivity by describing how the patient makes the analyst feel” (p. 47).
“If we view the intersubjective field as constituted by the two idiosyncratic transferences of the patients, we no longer need the term countertransference” (p. 87).
The concept of projective identification can be laid to rest.
Psychoanalytic process consists of deconstructing (through empathic listening and disclosing the analyst's personal experience of the patient) the overlap, influence, and “collision” of two experiential worlds, which the dyad brings to the situation.

AJP 72(2):192-195 (2012) • DOI: 10.1057/ajp.2012.1

Change in Psychoanalysis: An Analyst's Reflections on the Therapeutic Relationship, by Chris Jaenicke, Routledge, New York, 2011, 194 pp.

Author: Salman Akhtar MD

Abstract

Let me not get ahead of myself, though. Let me first summarize Jaenicke's “take home” message, which essentially consists of the following seven points:

“There is no unilateral action” (p. 2). Every action is embedded in an intersubjective field.
All experience is subjective; even empathy is influenced by the observer's subjectivity.
“Psychotherapeutic encounter changes both participants” (p. 13). In fact, “for therapy to succeed, both participants must change” (p. 28).
“One aspect of relational analytic technique is to actively make the patient aware of the analyst's subjectivity by describing how the patient makes the analyst feel” (p. 47).
“If we view the intersubjective field as constituted by the two idiosyncratic transferences of the patients, we no longer need the term countertransference” (p. 87).
The concept of projective identification can be laid to rest.
Psychoanalytic process consists of deconstructing (through empathic listening and disclosing the analyst's personal experience of the patient) the overlap, influence, and “collision” of two experiential worlds, which the dyad brings to the situation.