View current page
...more recent posts
Winnicott and Lacan and the space betweenAt the Spring 2005 meeting of Division 39, Deborah Luepnitz presented a paper on the relationship between the work of Donald Winnicott and Jacques Lacan. It is entitled:
"Thinking in the Space Between Winnicott and Lacan: Toward a New Middle Group?" She has kindly agreed to post it in our Essays section .
It is an intriguing study of two thinkers each who have had a complex and controversial relationship to their respective communities. As Luepnitz shows, they also had an interesting relationship to one another both personally and conceptually. The idea that we might think and work in ways that draw from both of these innovative figures is a promising and challenging notion. To integrate disparate approaches without overly diluting them is an admirable goal.
We post it with the hope that the discussion invited by the paper can take place in part on this website.
To see the essay go to: Essays
And please send your comments and reactions.
Winnicott and LacanThinking in the Space Between Winnicott and Lacan: Towards a New Middle Group?*
by Deborah Anna Luepnitz
Following André Green (1986), the author maintains that the two most original psychoanalytic thinkers since Freud were Donald Winnicott and Jacques Lacan. Whereas in the past the two attracted almost non-overlapping audiences, a recent trend shows more analysts making use of both humanist Winnicott and post-humanist Lacan. This paper contrasts their views of the aims of treatment, as well as their organizing tropes of selfhood vs. subjectivity. Gregory Bateson's notion of 'double description' (following C. S. Peirce's construct of 'abductive reasoning') is invoked to theorize the bringing into provocative contact of two radically different paradigms. A clinical vignette is offered to demonstrate crucial concepts from both traditions in practice. The author asks if we are on the brink of a new independent tradition or 'new Middle Group' comparable to the one that emerged in 1940s' London. The benefits and risks of working in the potential space between Lacan and Winnicott are discussed.
'In the same river, we both step and do not step, we are and we are not.'
—Heraclitus, Fragment 49a
'…What we saw and grasped, that we leave behind; but what we did not see and did not grasp, that we bring.'
—Heraclitus, Fragment 56
Following an interview in 1990, British Middle Group analyst Marion Milner showed me her paintings from the 1930s and '40s. Pointing to a medium-sized canvas with two hens tearing each other apart—blood and feathers flying—Mrs. Milner said: 'I like to say it's Anna Freud and Melanie Klein fighting over psychoanalysis.'
Click here to read the rest of this post...
A More Natural Conversational Style?
In his pursuit of the laudable goals of more passion, risk-taking, and activity in psychoanalysis Irwin Hoffman, in his keynote address to the Division 39 Spring Meeting in Toronto, made the error of throwing out the baby with the bath water. He dismissed free association and analytic listening in favor of a more natural conversational style of interaction. In doing so Hoffman recommends giving up what is in truth the richest source of the very things he says he is after.
Freud quoted Schiller and his advice to young poets when he described the open attention to what comes to mind. Freud's recognition that he was introducing into therapeutic service a tool of thought used by poets and artists should remind us that rather than a dry and formal routine, the method of free association is rooted in an appreciation of surprise and risk-taking.
'Natural' conversation on the other hand, while apparently more relaxed and informal is heir to all the checks and limits that socialization supplies. Regard for the other's turn in a conversation, indeed for the other's comprehension and general feeling of well-being, place reasonable constraints on what we say in 'natural' conversations. Relaxing these constraints and opening up the possibilities of speech, i.e. the possibilities of what one can say and how one can say it, is a way to let more not less passion enter the discourse.
Hoffman is right that analysis can drag on in a long and lifeless manner. He is also right that it is the analyst's proper responsibility to seek and suggest ways to enliven the work and its effects. However, this is best done by a greater appreciation and attention to the often subtle passion of free association not replacing it with the more obvious expressions of feeling in 'natural' conversations.
--David Lichtenstein
Speaking of Pain
Here's a lovely poem by Israeli poet Yehuda Amichai--a piece of a longer poem sequence from his book Open Closed Open (2000). It raises an interesting question for psychoanalysts. Everything we've been taught about repression and, more recently, about dissociation would have us predict that we should be better able to talk about joy than about pain--and yet....
The precision of pain and the blurriness of joy. I'm thinking
how precise people are when they describe their pain in a doctor's office.
Even those who haven't leaned to read and write are precise:
"This one's a throbbing pain, that one's a wrenching pain,
this one gnaws, that one burns, this is a sharp pain
and that--a dull one. Right here. Precisely here,
yes, yes." Joy blurs everything. I've heard people say
after nights of love and feasting, "It was great,
I was in seventh heaven." Even the spaceman who floated
in outer space, tethered to a spaceship, could say only, "Great,
wonderful, I have no words."
The blurriness of joy and the precision of pain--
I want to describe, with a sharp pain's precision, happiness
and blurry joy. I learned to speak among the pains.
(From "The precision of pain and the blurriness of joy: the touch of longing is everywhere", a poem sequence by Yehuda Amichai in Open Closed Open, (translated form the Hebrew by Bloch and Kronfeld) Harcourt NY, 2000, p. 105.)
Clearly Amichai is on to a deep truth. How do we account for this fluency about what is painful--and our relative wordlessness when it comes to joy?
Comments welcome!
A New Riddle of the Sphinx?Our new masthead features an image of Oedipus contemplating the riddle of the Sphinx --a reminder that for us question is at the heart of the psychoanalytic enterprise.
What walks on four legs in the morning, two legs at noon, and three in the evening? Oedipus, famously, solved the riddle, answering that man crawls on all fours in infancy, walks upright on two legs in adulthood, and uses a cane in old age. I've always felt that that answer--correct though it be--is a disappointment, anticlimactic and fundamentally unsatisfying. (There might be a better modern answer. Maybe the question hints at an evolutionary awareness: a progression from beast on all fours, to homo sapien with upright posture, to human being in human culture dependent on his tools.)
Also famously, the answer Oedipus gives is no real solution to anything; it only leads him further into a trap. He defeats the questioner, becomes king of Thebes, marries his mother and embroils himself still more deeply in his (Freud will make it our) tragedy. (If anyone wants to be reminded of the whole story, here's one of many summaries available on the internet: Sphinx) The moral, I guess, is watch out for pat answers, especially if fate (or your deepest nature) is against you.
Still, the riddle evokes a timeless and compelling human situation--answer correctly or die! And there's the possibility that (at least temporarily) human reason will defeat brute supernatural force. And the matter the riddle addresses is nothing less than the nature of human nature!
The Sphinx came to the ancient Greeks from still a more ancient Egypt (for a capsule history, see History). The Sophoclean question arose in an age we can hardly expect to apprehend directly. But the times must have privileged simple and certain answers. Today the Sphinx might pose a different riddle altogether, one expressing one or another of the puzzles of our own age. And a modern riddle would have to have a different form--an open-endedness: it would have to be a riddle without an already-known answer.
What would a comtemporary riddle about the natue of human nature be like?
What is mind that it can know and not know what it knows?
or:
What is the nature of human beings that we strive against ourselves?
or:
Why do we seek out and create the very life circumstances we'd most want to excape?
Anyone else interested in formulating a riddle?
~Henry Seiden
...more recent posts | older posts...
|
