Discussion of Matthew Shaw’s “Lulu”

Several things are worthy of attention in this clinical account, but what I find most striking is how it illustrates certain changes that have been taking place, a shift in conception of what we are trying to do in analytic practice, if not yet formalized in our clinical theories. It also gives a sense of what the “turn toward the social” might entail, at least in part.

This change in zeitgeist is captured most vividly when, recounting the arrival of bomba musicians at her party, Lulu and the analyst begin an improvised interaction that gives rise to some wordplay, but is at heart very much a sound-play, a shared rhythmic sonic experience. It is significant that this “bomba moment” (which is really a culmination of the clinical report) is presented to us not as an adjunct or an aid to analytic understanding, but as a piece of analytic work in itself. The improvisational exchange between analyst and patient is not viewed as a support or a prelude to—or a kind of rehearsal for—the real work of analyzing; rather, this joining together in a kind of sensory communion is presented as an analytic realization in its own right, not dependent for its significance on interpretation or insight, nor explained primarily in terms of a change in the transference or object relationships.

Not that the clinical process being described here lacks traditional elements: The analyst tracks and posits possible transference meanings, countertransference is consistently kept in the picture, and the patient’s struggle over identity within the psychofamilial (or oedipal) situation are treated and deeply understood in analytic terms. There is great appreciation for the struggles of adolescence, made more vivid and perhaps more poignant by the cultural, racial, and class dissonances that are so integral

to this case report. The working-through of difficult developmental struggles and wounds, both