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.
How cometh it to pass … that you pronounce me a skeptic, because I deny what you affirm, … Since, for aught you can tell, I am as peremptory in my denial, as you in your affirmation. (Berkeley, p. 10)
INTERPERSONALISTS DO NOT HAVE TO DECIDE on the validity of a theoretical construct. One can assume a particular construct as a possibility, play with the idea, try it on periodically, cast it off, and then bring it back at times. Whether or not projective identification
exists remains an open question regardless of the emotional intensity expressed by analysts on both sides of the issue. It is clinically crucial, however, that we maintain our curiosity about the phenomena and always ask good questions (Levenson, 1988) ; (Moses, 1992). One way to approach the dilemma presented by the panelists is to apply a rigorous internal inquiry within ourselves as analysts.
Whenever I sense the kinds of experiences that include what analysts propose to be projective identification I would ask myself a series of questions. (Let us use the hypothetical feeling of dread.) Does the patient feel what I am feeling? Why now do I feel dread with this patient? Why did it take me so long? Has the patient ever felt this emotion before or has it always been dissociated, split off? Is there any evidence that he makes others feel dread? Are people acting defensively around him to avoid feeling dread? Is this feeling a reaction or a mask to other intense emotionally states (e.g. the patient feels dread when he begins to feel affectionate toward an older male authority etc.)? If this is countertransference, to what am I reacting? (A Kleinian might suggest that the analyst's inquiry at this time is an introjection of the patients own curiosity, doubt, or intellectualization!)
All the problems