The
negotiation between analyst and potential analysand, says Wilson, includes
facilitating an unending process of “mutual adaptation” toward “a ‘thought
community.’” He writes, “A thought
community works to bring into existence new objects, or so modifies old objects
that they appear in a new way…” I
surmise that, here, there may be an interpenetration of subjectivities, a ‘hive
mind’ where, as Freud noted, one’s unconscious speaks to the unconscious of
another. Both patient and analyst participate in many thought communities at a
given time, and the analyst facilitates the awareness of the tensions that
exist between them as they approximate a closer and closer shared reality and
come to terms with differences. One such difference might include the fury at
the not good-enough mother clashing with the new found and mitigating recognition
that mother had also been deprived as a child. It is the perturbations that
make for fruitful moments of negotiation.
Tensions
as well exist between differing theories held by the analyst. While theories
may serve to ‘hold’ the analyst in times of inevitable uncertainty, adherence to
theory may also generate tensions. To which theories we adhere is multifactorially,
and unconsciously, determined. Wilson notes the pressure “to adhere and yet not
to adhere...” to our theories. Both patient and analyst must adapt not only to
each other but to their shared or disparate theories. Wilson
expects that analysis will take on a stability “constituted by more than the
individual inputs of analysis and patient” [the analytic third], and that the
analyst will move “from the realm of precepts to the realm of understanding”
and both participants will move toward “understanding how to understand” as
they develop together an analytic space where the work of analysis can be fruitfully
done.
Wilson,
A. (2004). Analytic preparation: The creation of an analytic climate with
patients not yet in analysis …
J.
Amer. Psychoanal. Assn., 52:1041-1073.
No comments:
Post a Comment