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.
It has been stated by contemporary philosophical authorities that there can be no single absolute reality. Indeed, philosophers tell us that the worlds around us and inside of us that we perceive as real are constructions, a kind of invention within the limits set by our individual constitution, by our societal role, and by our past experiences. The same disturbing view has also been repeated by some of our most perceptive modern poets. T. S. Eliot (1930, p. 60) said, “what is actual is actual only for one time / and only for one place” (“Ash Wednesday”). The so-called reality of our inner mental life, especially the whole world of unconscious thinking, feeling, and fantasizing that psychoanalysis claims to have discovered is thought by many to be the product of our overheated imaginations. Moreover, in the psychoanalytic situation we have the experience quite often that the reality that we as psychoanalysts perceive so clearly, seems utterly strange, if not insane, to some of our patients and vice versa. Are we then justified in holding any strong opinion or firm beliefs if there is no correct and true reality in which to anchor our perceptions? To find oneself adrift in a world where nothing is reliably true and nothing can be proved to be false is an unsettling experience at best. We are told that reality is something that we construct as part of the process of trying to know the world inside us and around us. As psychoanalysts we must make a choice, indeed, we must continuously choose, among the innumerable and constantly changing realities that we are able to construct from the analytic data. Whose reality and which kind of reality are we experiencing, constructing, and addressing in the analytic situation?