Self Psychology Page | Forum Central | Conference Discussion Area
Paul stated from the outset that, following his reading and study of the three clinical presentations which formed the basis of the first three panels of the conference (Panel 1 by Diane Martinez presenting from the perspective of self-selfobject theory, Panel 2 by Donna Orange presenting from the perspective of Intersubjectivity Theory and Panel 3 by Susan Lazar presenting from the perspective of Motivational Systems Theory), he felt optimistic about the prospect of us all remaining "under the same umbrella while maintaining a friendly, creative-productive, dialogue." He stressed, however, that "our own respective rhetoric in articulating [theoretical] differences" may be responsible for making those differences appear wider than they actually are. This problem would be reduced by modification of language which unnecessarily amplifies differences and thereby creates difficulties in communication.
Paul emphasized the value of "theoretical partisanship" because of the affective tone it injects into our work but stresses that such partisanship must be freely acknowledged to avoid "rigid dogmatism and camouflaged partisanship; attitudes that could prevent needed corrections and block creativity." He did not go into detail about his own well known theoretical orientation, but added his "meta-theoretical perspective" as a "loyalist-expansionist". He is loyal not only to the "broad conceptual framework of the self-selfobject matrix of Kohut's psychoanalytic self psychology as [his] guiding theory but also to Kohut's ideal of always being ready to change theories when there are "clinically compelling" reasons for such a change. It is the latter which he felt entitles him to be regarded as an "expansionist".
He then turned to the three panels, each of which was presented by friends whose work he respects and admires, with the aim of assessing the validity, on the basis of the "clinical biopsy" presented, of their claims to be representing their specific theoretical perspective.
He considered each clinical contribution and formal discussion with four questions in mind:
Martinez, in Panel 1, placed the self-selfobject matrix unequivocally at the centre of her clinical-theoretical approach, and this was further amplified and even extended by her discussant, Fish.
Lazar, in Panel 2, demonstrated the use of Lichtenberg's five motivational systems, was appropriately guided by her patient's affects, but raised concern in her discussants, Milch and Hartmann, that she had not attended to the mirror transference because of her exclusive focus on the exploratory-assertive motivational system and its pathology. Paul considered her approach to reflect "a creative extension and elaboration of the existing [paradigm]", not the introduction of a new one. The value of exploration of motivational systems "outside of the self-selfobject matrix" and the possibility that this might interfere with "the clear recognition and necessary attention to specific issues mobilized in the transference", e.g. the mirroring needs of her patient, is an issue open for, and requiring, further empirical study.
Orange, in Panel 3, offered what Paul considered to be an excellent historical overview and a clear statement of her own view of intersubjectivity theory (IST). He chose several issues for further meaningful dialogue from her elaborate formulation including the following:
a) IST (Intersubjectivity Theory) is a meta-theory of Psychoanalysis into which both drive-based and relational clinical theories can be accommodated.
b) "From a clinical point of view, IST is not so much a theory as it is a sensibility. It is a continuing sensitivity to the inescapable interplay of observer and observed."
c) "The IS Field of analysis, made possible by the emotional availability of both analyst and patient, becomes a developmental second chance for the patient."
Paul found himself able to "fully subscribe-even if in a different language"- to Donna's formulations as quoted. He did, however, take issue with her contention that any of the drive-based or relational psychoanalytic theories would fit within the meta-theory of intersubjectivity without drastic changes to those theories.
[This issue was taken up later when Donna Orange spoke from the floor in response to Bob Stolorow, to clarify the use of IST as a method of describing any psychoanalytic dyad e.g. the intersubjective field established by a classical Freudian analyst, rather than the use of IST to include all other theories as they exist, unmodified. Lichtenberg added that this investigative use of IST, as a tool to explore the dyads established by other theoretical models, is often confused with its use as a meta-theory, i.e. its more abstract, more generalized conceptualization of all psychological phenomena, including psychological theories.]
Self Psychology Page | Forum Central | Conference Discussion Area