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.
My original paper advocated engaging in moments of improvisation in psychoanalytic treatment. Now, largely because of the improvisational spirit of the commentaries by Steven Knoblauch, Russell Meares, and Stephen Nachmanovitch, I have reached the conclusion that the richest form of psychoanalytic dialogue is in its essence improvisational whether inside or outside the consulting room.
My hope is to continue a spirited improvisational dialogue with each of the commentators, but first I must set a stage because, as noted in all our papers, improvisation always arises out of context, intentionally or not. I begin by recounting Nachmanovitch's introduction of a game quite familiar in improvisational theater circles—the “yes, and” approach to another player as opposed to the “yes, but” approach, also identified in the “one-on-one no-blocking” exercise (Johnstone, 1980). Nachmanovitch points out that, when two discussants follow each other's lead and play along with each other's commentary instead of blocking it, they build on and multiply each other's ideas. This kind of play, Nachmanovitch avers, can go on indefinitely and can lead to fabulous discoveries.
“Yes, but” discourse, which involves blocking, is just the opposite. “Yes, but” blocking is essentially competitive, not in the playful sense but in the sense that winning is “life or death.” Structurally, it resembles a malignant version of a complementary relationship structure (Benjamin, 1998) that founders in dominance and submission. Psychoanalytic arguments between rival theories often devolve exactly around the point: Whose version of reality will win?1