Search

This contribution argues that Bouvet’s (1958) paper formulates a dilemma for psychoanalytic technique – what to do if the frame within which the analyst is working appears to require departure from core technique? Bouvet’s concern was that too much intuitive adaptation might promote, in effect, ›anything goes‹. He proposed his concept of distance, anchored in his original and important understanding of the formation of object relations, as a heuristic to test adaptations to situations in which patients are severely unable to separate the objects of their projection from the objects themselves. For me the dilemma is well stated, but I argue that its understanding and solution depends above all on clarity about what is supposed to constitute core technique and what a departure from it. The fragmentation of technique and loss of common understanding in today’s psychoanalytic world makes that difficult. Therefore, I approach my evaluation of Bouvet’s thinking by introducing ideas about the core suppositions every psychoanalyst must make, whether implicitly or explicitly, when he is working: suppositions about unconscious inference, unconscious repetition, the analytic situation and how to further the analytic process. I argue that the suppositions are rather different in what I sketch as the ›insight‹, ›here and now‹ and ›associative‹ approaches to psychoanalysis that characterise the modern scene. Practice that I have observed through the European comparative clinical methods project over 20 years, suggests that, under the intense emotional pressure of the clinical situation, adaptations have taken place in all three approaches so that many of the core suppositions that Freud gave us have been more or less inadvertently left behind. Bouvet proposed his concept of optimal distance as a heuristic check to allow the analyst to ask if he is stepping out of being an analyst. That check remains valuable. But how it is made depends on which of the three approaches the analyst supposes he is using and the suppositions made within them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What psychoanalysts consider psychoanalytic interpretation, in what setting it emerges and specifically why, when and how transference should be interpreted, have become increasingly unclear and controversial. In this paper I set out, elaborate, illustrate and argue the value for post-session reflection, certainly within the object relations traditions, of adopting a parsimonious model of practice. The model rests on the foundations of a specific understanding of free association, evenly suspended attention, resistance and transference and separating two epistemologically distinct intentions in transference interpretation. One, transference construction, aims to make a patient aware of the unconscious ways a patient is behaving in sessions (and then outside them) and how and why that is happening. A second, transference designation, focuses on the more limited aim of making patients aware of how they unconsciously experience the psychoanalyst at specific moments of resistance in sessions. Both types of interpretation may help but, I argue, it is the latter that must form the bedrock for fundamental change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]