Intersubjectivity (psychoanalysis)
The intersubjective approach in psychoanalysis is based on the work of Robert D. Stolorow, B. Brandchaft and GE Atwood, who, taking into account the self-psychology of Heinz Kohut, formulated an experience-oriented form of psychoanalytic theory and treatment practice . This differs in essential points from Sigmund Freud's classical conception in that it questions his intrapsychically oriented model of the psyche in favor of the fundamental priority of “intersubjective” relational reality. It led to the development of relational psychoanalysis in America . Stephen Mitchell is considered the founder of this school. Jessica Benjamin is an important representative of this approach .
In Germany, this paradigmatic reorientation is called the "intersubjective school". The main representatives here are Helmut Thomä , Martin Altmeyer and Chris Jaenicke .
Forerunner and history
The conceptualization of psychoanalysis over the past 30 years, also known as the "intersubjective turn", has theoretical foundations and precursors in group analysis ( Trigant S. Burrow ) and relational psychoanalysis - the latter in turn being based on contributions by the psychoanalysts Sándor Ferenczi , Harry S. Sullivan , Michael Balint , Harry Guntrip and William RD Fairbairn .
The concept of intersubjectivity was first introduced into US psychoanalysis in 1978 by Robert Stolorow & George Atwood with an article in which they tried to describe the psychoanalytic process from a phenomenological perspective and used the word "intersubjective" for this. As employees at Rutgers University in New Jersey, Stolorow and Atwood conducted personality research in academic psychology, where they took the view that intensive individual case studies of human experiences are necessary in order to arrive at a generalizable theory about personality. When examining the meta-theories of psychoanalytic theorists (Adler, Freud, Jung, Reich), they found that they were shaped by their existential crises: “The fundamental metapsychological constructs of these theorists [...] reflect and symbolize personal attempts at solving the central ones Crises and dilemmas in your personal development ”.
Analytical attitude
According to Stolorow and others, experience arises and occurs in the mutual exchange of subjectivities , e.g. That of the patient and that of the analyst. The observation position is always within the common context , i.e. H. the analyst tries to understand the patient from his perspective ( empathy ) and includes his own biographical background in reflecting on his attitude towards the patient ( introspection ). This has significant consequences for psychoanalytic theory and practice, which become clear in the central concepts of psychoanalysis.
In the Freudian sense, the “analytical attitude” is defined as a form of “neutrality” and is closely linked to the idea of abstinence : the analyst must not grant the patient any instinctual satisfaction in order to enable the development of a transference neurosis . “Drive satisfaction” in this context means everything that the patient wants or desires - in Freud's conception, the psychopathological phenomena that psychoanalysis deals with are the products of repressed drive offspring. Drive satisfaction would make it more difficult to become aware of repressed drive wishes and thus run counter to the analytical process. According to the intersubjective view, such an abstinent attitude on the part of the analyst, which represents a conscious frustration of the needs of the patient, is not experienced as neutral by the latter. The analyst runs the risk of provoking conflicts which are an artifact caused by the analyst's attitude rather than a manifestation of the patient's primary psychopathology. Therefore, the analyst's interventions ( interpretations ) based on introspection and empathy should be guided by a continuous assessment of what would facilitate or hinder the process of unfolding the patient's subjective world in the context of the analytic relationship.
resistance
From an intersubjective point of view, resistance occurs when a reaction by the analyst seems to announce to the patient the danger of a repetition of damaging experiences by the analyst - resistance is based on a fear of repetition of the traumatization suffered .
literature
- Martin Altmeyer , Helmut Thomä (ed.): The networked soul. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2006.
- Andreas Bachhofen: Trauma and Relationship. Basics of an intersubjective treatment approach. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2012.
- Jessica Benjamin : The Shackles of Love. Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and the Problem of Power. 3. Edition. Frankfurt am Main: Stroemfeld / Nexus, 2004 (Original: 1988).
- Michael Ermann : The other in psychoanalysis. The intersubjective turn. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2014.
- Chris Jaenicke: The Risk of Connection - Intersubjectivity Theory in Practice. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2006.
- Robert D. Stolorow, Bernard Brandchaft, George E. Atwood: Psychoanalytic Treatment. An intersubjective approach. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 1996 (Original: Psychoanalytic Treatment. An Intersubjective Approach. Hillsdale / New Jersey: The Analytic Press, 1987).
Web links
Individual evidence
- ↑ Jens León Tiedemann discusses the development of theory in the departure from Freud's “monadic” model to an intersubjective understanding: The intersubjective nature of shame, chap. 7, Relational and Intersubjective Schools , PDF (99.1 KB)
- ↑ Chris Jaenicke: The origin and development of the intersubjectivity theory . In: Peter Potthoff, Sabine Wollnik (Hrsg.): The encounter of subjects . Psychosozial Verlag, Giessen, S. 63 - 79 .
- ↑ George E. Atwood & Robert D. Stolorow: Legacies of the Golden Age: A Memoir of a Collaboration. P. 288 , accessed on March 11, 2017 (English, translation: Chris Jaenicke. In: The Encounter of Subjects , editors: Peter Potthoff & Sabine Wollnik).