Articles
20 December 2021
Vol. 24 No. 3 (2021)
A re-consideration of interpretation. A relational approach
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
2072
Views
678
Downloads
105
HTML
Authors
This paper is a discussion paper and it seeks to re-consider the Freudian psychoanalytic concept of interpretation within the relational approach to psychoanalysis. As such, it aims to argue the Freudian approach to interpretation is rejected because it is not relational but involves only the analyst as interpreter of the patient’s experience. Instead, within the relational approach, it is suggested that if interpretation, as a process of making meaning of experiences, is re-considered as the outcome of the intersubjective relationship in which the process of making-meaning is essentially a co-creational process of the patient’s experience of the analyst in the here-and-now, interpretation can potentially be an agent of change. The clinical implication is that interpretation must be the construction of the patient’s meaning of his experience but within the relational context. A clinical verbatim transcript is documented as it illustrates this relational process in interpretation.
Altmetrics
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Citations
Aron, L. (1992). Interpretation as expression of the analyst’s subjectivity. Psychoanalytic Dialogue, 2, 475-508. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10481889209538947
Aron, L. (1996). A meeting of minds. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.
Atlas, G., & Aron, L. (2018). Dramatic dialogue: Contemporary clinical practice. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315150086
Atwood, G., & Stolorow, R. (1984). Structures of subjectivity: Explorations in psychoanalytic phenomenology. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
Benjamin, J. (2004). Beyond doer and done to: An intersubjective view of thirdness. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 73, 5-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2167-4086.2004.tb00151.x
Benjamin, J. (2018). Beyond doer and done to: Recognition theory, intersubjectivity and the third. New York, NY: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315437699
Blum, H. P. (2016). Interpretation and contemporary reinterpretation. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 36, 40-51. doi:10.1080/07351690.2016.1112220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2016.1112220
Etchegoyen, R. H. (1991). The fundamentals of psychoanalytic technique. London, UK: Karnac Books.
Eriksson, L. (2015). (Re)-constructing the past is the early psychoanalytic technique still relevant today? The Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review, 38(2), 94-101. doi:10.1080/01062301.2015.1118674. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01062301.2015.1118674
Freud, S. (1893) Studies on Hysteria. Standard Edition, 2. London, UK: Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1900). The interpretation of dreams. Standard Edition, 5 (pp. 339-622). London, UK: Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1912). The dynamics of transference. Standard Edition, 12 (pp. 99-100). London, UK: Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1925). An autobiographical study. Standard Edition, 20 (p. 43). London, UK: Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1937). Constructions in analysis. Standard Edition, 23 (pp. 255-269). London, UK: Hogarth Press.
Geist, R. A. (2010). Connectedness, permeable boundaries, and the development of the self: Therapeutic implications. International Journal of Psychoanalytic Self Psychology, 3, 29-152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15551020801922971
Geist, R. A. (2020). Interpretation as carrier of selfobject functions: catalyzing inborn potential. Psychoanalysis, Self and Context, 15(4), 338-347. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/24720038.2020.1791127
Gelso, C.J. (2009). The real relationship in a post-modern world. Psychotherapy Research, 19(3), 253-264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300802389242
Gelso, C.J. (2011). The real relationship in psychotherapy. The hidden foundation of change. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/12349-000
Greenson, R., & Wexler, M. (1969). The non-transference relationship in the psychoanalytic situation. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 50 (1), 27-39.
Goldberg, A. (1985). The tension between realism and relativism in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought, 7, 367-386.
Haynal, A., & Haynal, V. (2016). Interpretation as a carrier of affect. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 36, 77-87. doi:10.1080/07351690.2016.1112224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2016.1112224
Heimann, P. (1950). On countertransference. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 31, 81-84.
Jacobs, T. (1991). The uses of the self: countertransference and communication in the psychoanalytic situation. New York City, NY: International Universities Press.
Kauff, P. F. (2016). Opting out of the past: Interpretation reconsidered. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 36, 28-39. doi:10.1080/07351690.2016.1112219. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2016.1112219
Kohut, H. (1984). How does analysis cure? Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226006147.001.0001
Lichtenberg, J. (2016). Interpretation revisited. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 36, 4-13. doi:10.1080/07351690.2016.1112217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2016.1112217
Loewald, H. (1960). On the therapeutic action of psycho-analysis. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 41,16-33.
Mitchell, S. (1988). Relational concepts in psychoanalysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mitchell, S. A. (2000). Relationality: From attachment to intersubjectivity. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
Ogden, T. H. (1994). The analytic third: Working with intersubjective clinical facts. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 75, 3-19.
Ogden, T. H. (1997). Reverie and interpretation: Sensing something human. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Racker, H. (1968). Transference and countertransference. New York City, NY: International Universities Press.
Sandler, J., Dure, C., & Holder, A. (1992). The patient and the analyst. London, UK: Karnac Books.
Slochower, J. (2011). Holding, collaborating, colliding: A cross theoretical conversation. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 31, 501-512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2011.552053
Slochower, J. (2014). Holding and psychoanalysis: A relational perspective, second edition. London, UK: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203728109
Stern, D. (1998). Non-interpretive mechanisms in psychoanalytic therapy: The ‘something’ more than interpretation. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 79, 903-921.
Stolorow, R. D. (1988). Intersubjectivity, psychoanalytic knowing, and reality. Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 24, 331-338. doi:10.1080/00107530.1988.10746247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00107530.1988.10746247
Spence, D. P. (1982). Narrative truth and historical truth. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21674086.1982.11926984
Watkins, C.E. Jr. (2012). Moments of real relationship in psychoanalytic supervision. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 72, 251-268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ajp.2012.14
Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. New York, NY: Basic Books.
How to Cite
A re-consideration of interpretation. A relational approach. (2021). Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome, 24(3). https://doi.org/10.4081/ripppo.2021.555
Copyright (c) 2021 the Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.