Friday, April 18, 2008

Online Interactive Series "Evolving Clinical Practice"

The Tampa Bay Institute for Psychoanalytic Studies Presents

Tradition and Change:
Evolving Clinical Practice

An interactive online series featuring a paper by
Arnold Schneider, Ph.D.

CLICK HERE to read paper "Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy"

How can psychoanalytic practitioners from diverse theoretical backgrounds
make use of new or different perspectives?

Dr. Arnold Schneider, an experienced psychoanalyst trained in the tradition of ego psychology, leads off this online series by inviting us to join him in his “work in progress.”

His engaging and insightful paper, written as an introductory presentation on psychoanalytic psychotherapy, highlights the basic phases and elements of the process using the lens of the traditional model that has formed the foundation of his practice. Only four years after writing it, Dr. Schneider takes the unusual and challenging step of using a forum like this to announce changes in his view of the analytic process. He welcomes us into a dialogue about possibilities for integrating contemporary approaches with traditional concepts and challenges us to think with him about what it means to evolve our psychoanalytic practice.

Interactive Online Series:

During the next several weeks,

responses of all kinds from various analytic therapists will be posted online.

We want to hear your thoughts about what additions, deletions, changes, etc. you'd make to the paper ---
all clinical and theoretical views welcome!

Make comments or share your experiences – anonymously or owned – simply by clicking on the “COMMENTS” link at the end of each post. At the conclusion, the faculty of TBIPS will offer a summary of the dialogue and compile an outline for a new "co-created" paper.


Click here to read "Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy" and then post your comments to help us integrate this ego-psychological paper with other contemporary approaches.


Anonymous said...

Thank you for this brief, but lovely paper which introduces the clinician to ideas about psychodynamic pschotherapy. Of course a lot has changed over the decades since Brewer and Freud first introduced the "talking cure."
Resistance, for example, has taken on differing conceptualizations, including the dimension the therapist contributes to the avoidance of elaborating in the treatment certain material. Transference is no longer merely a resistance, but an important tool, co-created and shaped by both patient and therapist in a unique (to the relatioship) way, which informs, elucidates, and transforms experience for both participants.

Likewise, the myth of neutrality has beed debunked. Neutrality, while an ideal, is an improbable goal, for the therapist can not help but reveal, both explicitly and implicitly, her/his interests, biases, and discomforts. Still, the 'good-enough' therapist can help contain the untenable so it is more palatable (paper's use of "ingest")to the patient. It is not the "neutral" (demigogic)therapist who models curiosity, the ability to share the patient's burden, or tolerance, but it is the real, live participant-therapist who serves as a model for these.

Thank you for the opportunity to share thoughyts and I look forward to continued dialogue as we rework what "pearls" we wish to share with the next generation of therapists.

Anonymous said...

This would be great to give as a seminar for clinicians working in the community centers locally!
Appreciated the clear, clinically relevant format. I've attended some meetings at the society but have not had the training to really use the material from some of the speakers....this gives me a great foundation to use in the future.

Anonymous said...

I enjoyed this paper. Am also wondering if most treatments proceed in this kind of linear way (beginning phase, middle, termination) or if the tasks of treatment may vary depending on different circumstances in the patient's life. For instance, if the patient experiences something unexpected and tragic or enters a new phase in their life (e.g. parenthood), would the therapist alter his stance to take the issues up more slowly, as in the beginning of therapy? Would the new experiences trigger different and previously unexplored developmental issues from the patients past?

Also, it seems contemporary theory would suggest that the person of the therapist may have more of an impact on the treatment process than may be indicated in this view.

Thanks for inviting us to reconsider some of the basic assumptions we work with!