In the
TBIPS course Practical Analytic
Subjectivity I the class reads some interesting papers on money (fees). Myers
writes from a relational
intersubjective point-of-view and states that
The fee
expresses the analyst’s desire.
Negotiation
of the fee serves then to bring to the forefront conflicting desires of two
subjectivities, and the opportunity for mutual recognition. With mutual
recognition comes the possibility of greater intimacy. Myers puts it like this
…the journey the patient takes to attain recognition and
understanding of the therapist's separate needs is a desirable goal of therapy
because it is the basis of real intimacy,
and so speaks to what Benjamin sees as “the underlying wish to interact with someone truly outside, with
an equivalent center of desire.” Like Benjamin, Myesr, also relying on Winnicott’s ideas of
survival, sees the joy in intersubjectivity:
the baby recognizes the mother anew and is cheered by
her presence.
Furthermore:
By experiencing a patient's aggression and surviving it,
we also help the patient to see that others in her life can survive hardy
self-assertion.
Myers continues
By showing patients that we have
a subjectivity, we offer them the chance to claim their
own subjectivity. [and]
When we ask more of patients, they have permission to ask more of
us and of their environment.
us and of their environment.
Shields comes from a more traditional point of view and
speaks to a panoply of possible meanings attributed to money and the fee, from
its classical connection to feces and the anal character, to guilt about success,
worth and autonomy. Conflicts over fees may
bring up issues with masochism, sadism, altruism; fears of punishment, or of abandonment
by patients.
In a courageously self effacing clinical example, Shields reveals his countertransference dilemmas (perhaps including homophobia) when his patient attacks the analyst’s benevolence and competence, making it impossible for the analyst to play with his own sexual desirability. I was reminded of Neil Altman’s excellent paper on race and withholding of payment.
In a courageously self effacing clinical example, Shields reveals his countertransference dilemmas (perhaps including homophobia) when his patient attacks the analyst’s benevolence and competence, making it impossible for the analyst to play with his own sexual desirability. I was reminded of Neil Altman’s excellent paper on race and withholding of payment.
Altman, N. (2000). Black and White Thinking: A Psychoanalyst
Reconsiders Race. Psychoanal. Dial., 10:589-605.
Myers, K. (2008). Show
Me the Money:(the “Problem” of) the Therapist's Desire, Subject… Contemp. Psa,
44:118-140.
Shields,
J.D. (1996). Hostage of the fee: Meanings of money, countertransference, and the
beginning therapist. Psa.
Psychother., 10:233-250.
No comments:
Post a Comment