Search

Long before disputes about Cartesian and post-Cartesian subjectivity, Greco-Roman philosophy—more a way of life than a set of theories—taught and exemplified a central value on care of the soul. The ancients understood this soul primarily as an ethical voice: organizing, orienting and limiting. This contribution suggests that the selfhood sought by psychoanalytic self psychology may resemble this ancient orientation to the good more than it does the Cartesian or post-Cartesian “subjectivities” of more recent philosophizing. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Corpt carries us from experiences of class shame in psychoanalytic worlds and clinical work to places where we may cherish our diversity of backgrounds. I add that we who come from less-privileged backgrounds may bring a sensitivity to distributive justice and to the underserved other among us. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An afterword to the book "Orange" is presented.

This discussion addresses two aspects of Raanan Kulka's work: (1) his interweaving of philosophy and self psychology and (2) his clinical reliance on the ethics of response to the suffering Other. It also questions, with a hope for further elucidation, his views of idealism and his idealization of quasi-mystical pre-Kohutian Heinz Kohut. This seems to lead him to a confusing rejection of intersubjective systems theory as growing out of what Kohut himself considered his most important work, but which intersubjectivists believe that they developed from philosophical sources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This discussion relates Gillian Straker's work on the South African apartheid archives to Rawlsian social ethics, and to Margalit's ethics of memory, with special emphasis on her “bystander/beneficiary” formulation. From a psychoanalytic point of view, it questions whether Brombergian dissociation adequately accounts for the pre-dissociative self-loss described by some of the archive participants. Returning to ethics, it invokes Margalit's concept of the moral witness. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The two commentaries approach metaphor and the unspeakable traumatic horrors from somewhat different perspectives. Jacobs brings the fine-tuned embodied awareness of the relational gestalt world that she integrates with an intersubjective systems view of the analyst's involvement. Corpt, both artist and psychoanalyst, both deepens the originally provided epigraphs and concepts of metaphor and provides a clinical illustration that itself embodies working with trauma through metaphor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay makes two points: (a) Dualities between implicit and explicit-like the older ones between body and mind, primary and secondary process, nonverbal and symbolic, inner and outer, unconscious and conscious, emotion and cognition, and so on-can be understood as poles on a complex continuum of experience or as aspects of complex experiential systems; and (b) metaphor in dialogue can create a process of understanding between people and aspects of their experience that seem, on the face of it, to be very far apart or even beyond comprehension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Journal of Psychoanalytic Self Psychology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The recent focus on mutual recognition in contemporary psychoanalysis has several roots: infant research, self psychology, feminism, Hegel, and Winnicott. This article argues that recognition is best understood as a type of acknowledgment and acceptance of our mutual vulnerability in the treatment process. It also suggests that resituating Winnicott's “use of an object” in the larger context of his work reframes it as the exception rather than the rule, and shifts the destruction approach to recognition toward an appreciation approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author acknowledges having misunderstood aspects of the relationalists' concept of mutual recognition, in part because relationalists and intersubjective systems phenomenologists are working within different language games or discourses that are not easily inter-translatable. Useful as recognition may be, we can refuse to grant it full explanatory generality in psychoanalytic practice and theory. Concepts like trauma, asymmetric responsibility, the suffering other, and dialogic understanding can also find a place. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In memory of Heinz Kohut, this study relates his view of empathy as replacement for “tool-and-method pride” to the search for understanding in a fully dialogic psychoanalysis. Only when we embrace our intersubjective vulnerability, including the shame we clinicians bring to the encounter with the other in treatment, can we hope for the kind of healing Kohut envisaged. Attitudes toward the other and toward our work are crucial mediators of in the process of treatment; they may be authoritarian and reductive or humanistic and compassionate. Ideals like courage become embodied in the clinician's willingness to accompany the other and take on the suffering of the other. En homenaje a Heinz Kohut, este estudio relata su vision de la empatia como la substitucion del “orgullo del instrumento-y-el-metodo” para alcanzar la comprension en un psicoanalisis plenamente dialogico. Solo cuando incluimos la vulnerabilidad intersubjetiva, incluyendo la verguenza que nosotros los clinicos traemos al encuentro con el otro en el tratamiento, podemos esperar el tipo de cura que Kohut previo. Las actitudes hacia el otro y hacia nuestro trabajo son mediadores cruciales en el proceso del tratamiento; pueden ser autoritarias y reductivas, o humanistas y compasivas. Ideales como el coraje quedan corporizadas en la voluntad del clinico en acompanar al otro y en hacerse cargo del sufrimiento del paciente. Ecrite a la memoire de Heinz Kohut, cette etude relie sa vision de l'empathie remplacant «la fierte de l'outil-et-methode» a la recherche de comprehension dans une psychanalyse pleinement dialogique. Ce n'est que lorsque nous embrassons notre vulnerabilite intersubjective, y inclut la honte que nous, cliniciens, amenons dans notre rencontre avec l'autre en traitement, pouvons-nous esperer la sorte de guerison que Kohut envisageait. Les attitudes envers l'autre et envers notre travail sont les mediateurs cruciaux du processus de traitement; ces attitudes peuvent etre autoritaires et reductrices ou humanistes et compatissantes. Des ideaux tel le courage deviennent incarnes dans la disponibilite du clinicien a accompagner l'autre et a se charger de la souffrance de l'autre. Diese Studie stellt, in Erinnerung an Heinz Kohut, seine Sichtweise der Empathie als Ersatz fur die Sicherheit, die richtige analytische Methode und das richtige Handwerkszeug zu besitzen, der Bemuhung um eine wirklich dialogisch verstandene Psychoanalyse gegenuber. Nur wenn wir unsere intersubjektive Verletzlichkeit annehmen, inklusive der Scham, die wir Kliniker in die Begegnung mit dem Anderen in der Behandlungssituation mitbringen, konnen wir auf jene Art der Heilung hoffen, die Kohut vorschwebte. Einstellungen uns selbst und unserer Arbeit gegenuber sind entscheidende Faktoren im Behandlungsprozess, sie mogen autoritar und den Anderen einengend oder wohlwollend und mitfuhlend sein. Ideale, wie Mut etwa, sind in der Bereitschaft des Klinikers, den Anderen zu begleiten und sein Leiden mit zu tragen, eingeschlossen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent focus on mutual recognition in contemporary psychoanalysis has several roots: infant research, self psychology, feminism, Hegel, and Winnicott. This article argues that recognition is best understood as a type of acknowledgment and acceptance of our mutual vulnerability in the treatment process. It also suggests that resituating Winnicott's “use of an object” in the larger context of his work reframes it as the exception rather than the rule, and shifts the destruction approach to recognition toward an appreciation approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the author focuses on Lotte Köhler, first European psychoanalysts who recognizes the revolutionary contributions by Austrian psychoanalysts Heinz Kohut in 1970s. She mentions that Lotte grew up in a Germany and born in 1925, vacant Freudians and without exposure to original, contemporary, or denazified psychoanalysis. She further highlights that Lotte was influenced by Kohut's thoughts and treatment of the transference.