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.
Just as I was questioning the utility of the motivational systems approach described by Lichtenberg and co-authors (e.g. why do we need to consider an exploratory assertive system; why not just consider how conflicts about
anger and autonomy could inhibit normal assertiveness?), an incident occurred that convinced me of its value. A patient brought her 9-month-old son into her session, stating that her sitter had canceled. While considering the implications of this acting in, or the enactment in my readily accepting the baby in the office, I became fascinated by his exploratory behavior. He proceeded to examine each quadrant of the room in a systematic manner, testing out the items in each section (space heater, lamp, bookshelf, clock, buzzer). He looked at me intermittently, sometimes with a smile of apparent pride in his motility, and sometimes, particularly as he approached my territory, apparently scanning for clues about my response. I considered the possibilities of the interactions that might occur under such circumstances with caregivers, from overly judgmental to overly lax. I thought about how this exploration, in part based on the response of the caregiver, might combine with the ‘aversive system’, a negative association of frustration with exploration and assertion, or how it could later link to the ‘sensual/sexual system’, becoming a source of motivation and potential conflict.
Reading the book reminded me of when as an adolescent, during an obsessive preoccupation with chess, I came across Nimzovich's Chess Praxis (1936). The theories and strategies were unconventional, creative and surprising - a whole new way of looking at the board. I immediately grasped the implications of some of them, while others yielded to intense study, and still others remained inscrutable. The fresh perspective of motivational systems theory will allow analysts to expand their range of approaches and think in new ways about the therapeutic encounter. The ‘new look’ of the