Identification and Empathy

Psychoanalytical therapy is a dyadic relationship where both parties to the dyad bring to the relationship certain aspects of relating to the working together. In a previous paper (Eyre, 1977) I explored the dyad from the side of the patient, putting forward the hypothesis that therapy could be seen on developmental lines related to the development of the mother–child relationship. I showed that this could be related to present psychopathology and could be seen as (a) a one-body; (b) two-body; or (c) three-or more-body relationship; calling the three phases (a) monologue; (b) dialogue and (c) soliloquy. (a) The monologue phase is correlated with the phase in the mother–child relationship where there is fusion between the two and the child is unaware of the separateness between itself and the mother; (b) dialogue is correlated with the phase where separateness has occurred but the child feels that mother is under his omnipotent control; and (c) soliloquy where the child acknowledges his separateness and also that he has no control over the mother. I related these phases to Winnicott's (1971)'Use of the Object' and showed that the phases were re-enacted in the analysis with the patient being unaware of the separateness and existence of the analyst—in monologue; with the analyst under the patient's omnipotent control—dialogue; and with the patient reflecting on the disparity between his self and ideal self with the analyst as a witness—soliloquy. In this paper I intend to look at the dyadic relationship from the side of the psychoanalyst and how he functions.

Psychoanalysis presents the psychoanalyst with a vast amount of material. In the living dream of the session the analyst must involve himself in primary process material and yet maintain contact with reality, a function that Khan (1974) has described as a benign split in ego functioning. It is my intention to show that psychoanalytical material produced by patients may be dealt with in two different ways whi