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.
SEVERAL YEARS AGO AN ARTICLE ENTITLED "MICROPSIA AND Testicular Retractions" (Myers, 1977) caught my interest. Micropsia, descriptively defined as a state in which things appear smaller than usual and more distant, was a symptom that one of my patients had also experienced. Reading the report, I was especially attracted by the author's close attention to clinical detail—the analyst's and the patient's responses—in describing singular moments. Although it was not his stated intent to emphasize the analyst's contribution, that is, the contextual consideration, nonetheless this material was offered—which, in turn, permitted the reader a more reliable opportunity to make his or her own inferences. This kind of presentation of clinical data, even with minimal historical information, I believe is essential for stimulating meaningful, empirically based dialogue.
In the effort to pursue such a dialogue, I shall respond here to those aspects of Myers's report which may bear on his perspective for analytic listening. I shall also consider some issues in the analytic work with my patient, Mrs. G., to try to delineate an alternative perspective and to suggest some gains to be derived from such a shift in the mode of gathering the clinical data.
Myers reports numerous episodes in which his patient experienced micropsia in the analytic situation. The following example