âNot sure âŠâ Karl seems to drift into some sort of reverie. He sits upright with his sportsmanâs shoulders. Only traces of boyhood remain â a young, beardless face â but with intense weary eyes. Heâs glancing up to the left â searching inside, I think. And I wait, watching, sure enough that something will come out of the silence. He speaks quietly, bleakly, deeply.
I sense my own keenness â willing more from Karl, tuning into the words. He speaks in a rather detached way about the difference between his depression and sadness. Sadness âwasâ (using the past tense) âthe opposite of happy but depressionâ⊠he pauses. âI dunnoâ â another pause ⊠âjust sort of âŠâ the tone conveys movement â he will know soon â (I picture an empty glass about to be moved towards and filled from running water). And now stumbling towards a close-enough fit: âitâs like it goes over all your feeling as a whole thingâ. With my own inward glance, I now imagine a field which snow has blanketed â âgone overâ it. I see stillness, and hear silence. âAnd it sort of governs your thoughts as well.â Now I find myself wondering if an authoritarian figure has made Karlâs bed (put the blanket in place). A few seconds of quiet, beholding the snowscape, before we are aware of it. âIâm imagining a blanket covering everything,â I say. With the word âblanketâ Karl has said âyeahâ, then he rests, and dismisses further exploration for the moment: âthatâs some incre-good exampleâ.
I wrote this from my recollections of sitting in a room, for about an hour, with a 17-year-old young man.1 We were involved in a âresearch interviewâ. The recollection draws on intersubjective psychoanalytic theory which suggests that a two-person interaction entails a âmutual meaning-making processâ (Aron, 1992, p. 475), and that âthe analystâs associations to the patientâs dreams are no less important than the patientâs associationsâ (Ogden, 2001, p. 12). My own impressions, observations and reveries interact with Karlâs responses to generate mutual and confirmatory understanding: âthatâs some incre-good exampleâ.
What is a reverie approach to interviews?
Why do I start with this example? I want to show how in response to research interviews, the researcherâs emotions, imagination and meaning-making capacities are activated, and how these processes can be put to good research use, rather than discarded as interference. The essence of this book and of the Reverie Research Method (RRM) is to show how, in response to qualitative research processes, researchers may foster a state of receptivity to emotional experience in which he or she may experience imagistic responses (âreveriesâ), which may then be linked to research data in order to better understanding the participant.
Understanding the âinter viewâ (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2008) from a reverie perspective means studying the meeting of two minds â a collision of unconsciousness and consciousnesses â in such a way that the unconscious component can be thought about. Reverie-inspired mutual meaning-making involves a radical revision of what it means to be âparticipant-centredâ (Riach, 2009, p. 356). From this perspective, researcher neutrality becomes undesirable â and impossible in any case. A reverie approach to research interviews means the researcher learns to work with reference to his or her own subjective responses. This book aims to show how this can be done sensitively and systematically.
Reverie researching: who cares?
My focus is reverie-informed research and its consequences, potentialities and pitfalls. The book is aimed at two main constituencies: qualitative researchers interested in what psychoanalysis has to offer to their work, and psychoanalytic clinicians wanting to undertake psychoanalytically relevant research. The RRM may generate discussion and cross-fertilisation between them and point the way to new methodologies.
For qualitative researchers, a key question may be: âWhy, given its technical complexity and methodological problematics, is it so important to look inwardly (âpractice reflexivelyâ), and what can psychoanalysis add to this endeavour?â Some qualitative researchers have already made inroads towards interweaving psychoanalytic approaches into research methodologies (Devereux, 1967; Hunt, 1989; Hollway & Jefferson, 2013). Building on, although to some extent critical of this, the psychoanalytically inspired RRM offers a novel approach to reflexivity, reverie and intersubjectivity, showing how these can enhance the everyday qualitative methods of the research interview.
For psychoanalytic clinicians, a key question is: âIs a research method possible that stays true to clinical realities?â (Holmes, 2017). Psychoanalysts, under external pressure to form an âevidence baseâ, but struggling with positivist notions of research, which are generally wholly remote from consulting room realities, may find themselves daunted, turned off and possibly irritated by demands which seem to fundamentally misunderstand the discipline (Chiesa, 2010). My hope is that this book may inspire clinicians to research and that clinicians may, via reverie-inspired methodology, find here a way of framing and conducting valid research, which at the same time prioritises unconscious processes and offers an ethical and close-up view of the human subject.
Comparing clinical psychoanalysis and research interviews
The significance of reverie, a complex and somewhat mythical concept, will emerge in the course of this book. But letâs start with definitions. The Oxford English Dictionary defines reverie as âbeing lost in thoughtâ, elegantly capturing the non-ego aspect and inwardness of reverie. Bionâs technical elaboration of this, to be expounded later, led to his emphasis on âmotherâs capacity for reverieâ as descriptive of the state of mind which facilitates âalpha functionâ (Bion 1962a, p. 307) â the way in which she receives, processes and returns, in manageable form, her infantâs chaotic psychic experience.
As we shall see, the role of reverie in psychoanalysis was already present in Freudâs early thinking, although more fully developed and theorised by Bion. Currently, the psychoanalyst Thomas Ogden, along with Antonio Ferro, are probably the foremost clinical proponents of the importance of reverie, especially when seen relationally. Ogden emphasises how reverie is a part of what it means to be alive as a âhuman beingâ (e.g. Ogden 1994, p. 16; 1995, p. 696; 1997a, p. 6; 2001, p. 9). In doing so he reminds us that reverie is not limited to the clinic but underpins creativity. Reverie is an unforced, ânatural phenomenonâ; and it is no less available and applicable in one-off encounters (which research interviews usually are) than in long-term ones. As Ogden (1992, p. 226) puts it: âthere is no difference in the analytic process in the first meeting and the analytic process in any other meetingâ. Nevertheless, even if not limited to that location, the consulting room is certainly a good place to explore it. Aspects of psychoanalytic technique â attending to dreams and daydreams, free association, reflection, respecting silence, introspection â all are integral to reverie.
I shall show how these clinical principles can be reconsidered, reconfigured and applied in research methodology. Given that the research interview is a two-person dialogue, it is a good potential arena for mutually created meaning-making, and thus also a promising location for the exploration and application of reverie.
Three core concepts
Before exploring the practicalities of the RRM, three wider and interlinked themes will need to be considered: the nature of daydreaming (reverie); the search for understanding (research); and what it means to converse (interviewing).
Daydreaming
Reverie cannot be understood without reference to dreaming; etymologically the words are linked: ârĂȘveâ is French for âdreamâ. In âknowing aboutâ (Bion, 1965 p. 149) reverie, I have attempted â where possible â âto beâ in reverie and â from and through reverie â to research and write. My starting point is the view that reverie is not an intrinsically isolated and isolating phenomenon â although at times it can be â but to see it as relational. I justify this on two counts. First, as in my opening example, reverie is stimulated by the juxtaposition of two or more peopleâs inner worlds. Second, even though one dreams alone, dreaming dissolves the ego, and therefore draws in an âotherâ with which or whom the ego is in dialogue. A dream is a story about something distinct from oneâs conscious self; one that can be told to an âotherâ â even if that other happens to be oneself! Reverie, and with it creativity, comes from a dawning awareness, from the âedge of consciousnessâ (Waddell, 1984, p. 82).
Psychoanalytic discussions of reverie start from Bion (1962a, 1962b). Although before Bion the term reverie occasionally appears in the psychoanalytic literature, it refers in a non-technical sense to self-absorbed daydreaming. For example, Freud, in The Interpretation of Dreams (1900, p. 401) describes a mother in whom:
Just as Freud took the everyday term âunconsciousâ and developed it into one of psychoanalysisâs foundation stones, so Bion moved from the vernacular to develop a specialised psychoanalytic concept of reverie, although he deliberately avoids too much precision:
For Bion, the prototype of reverie is the feeding infant-and-mother. He sees reverie in terms of the motherâs transformation of the babyâs inchoate feelings into thoughts and meanings: âthe motherâs capacity for reverie is the receptor organ for the infantâs harvest of self-sensation gained by its consciousâ (Bion, 1962a, p. 308). He links this with his âtheory of thinkingâ in which âbeta elementsâ (i.e. sensations) are transformed through this reverie process, via âalpha functionâ, into âalpha elementsâ (i.e. thoughts).
Bion was influenced by Melanie Klein, although Klein herself appears not to have used the term âreverieâ (âPsychoanalytic Electronic Publishing-webâ search). Bion links âfailures of alpha functionâ, and therefore the incapacity for thinking which psychoanalysis aims to reverse, with the Kleinian notion of âexcessive projective identificationâ. This is a one-way process in which the infant expels overwhelming feelings such as rage and envy into the attendant object, i.e. the motherâs breast. Bionâs contribution, later developed and modified by Ogden, was the notion of ârealistic projective identificationâ (1962a, p. 309), a to-and-fro movement of the mindsâ contents from baby to mother and back again. In Bionâs hands, Kleinâs unidirectional projective identification becomes relational.
Bionâs theory of reverie implies a number of other theoretical ingredients. First is container/contained. The motherâs mind, figuratively, in Kleinian terms âthe breastâ, is the container into which the infantâs sensations are projected. Second, if they can be contained, and not ignored or expelled by a mother in a state of intolerance of âfrustrationâ, they become available for thinking, and, third, therefore, for âcommunicationâ. I shall try to show how all three are relevant to researchers, for whom âcommunicationâ encompasses not just verbal conversation but also publication.
In contrast to Bionâs relational model, reverie in isolation is by definition incommunicable. Like maternal reverie, reverie-enriched researching involves balancing âthe free play of associationâ with âlogical scrutinyâ (Ferenczi, 1950 [1919], p. 189). Devoid of reverie, research may verge into cold science, the âmechanical brainâ (Heimann, 1950, p. 82). But at the other extreme, reverie experience untempered by logical scrutiny, lies incomprehensibility.
Reverie can open alternative avenues into research data, and my aim here is to show how to apply reverie in research. Reverie-influenced researching becomes a capacity which may potentially be developed through practice and supervision. Reverie may be useful in overcoming blocks in research interviews, freeing moments of inarticulacy, or conversely enhancing emotional awareness when words block feelings. A second use of reverie lies in analysing interview transcripts. This has a more clearly defined methodology and, as I shall show, can be thought about systematically and in a group context.
When studying research interview transcripts, the âfree play of associationâ versus âlogical scrutinyâ, a toing-and-froing analogous to motherâbaby interplay, involves sculpting understanding in relation to an experience of reverie, as it is worked and reworked. The writer has time for contemplation, and recruiting colleaguesâ perspectives, before committing finger to keyboard. In-the-moment âliveâ reverie sharing, as in the case of Karl, involves greater risk. In that instance, I felt confident enough that what I said would contribute to the atmosphere of exploration. But â as we shall see â deciding how and whether to give voice to reverie is far from straightforward. There is always a tension between risk and security which reverie-influenced qualitative research entails.
What allows for the âfree play of associationâ/âlogical scrutinyâ process in the first place? When âdreamingâ cannot be separated from âperceivingâ (Ogden, 2003, p. 17) reverie cannot be distinguished from reality â that way lies delusion. Most people are fairly at home with benign daydreams of happiness, pleasure or success. But interviewing people who are suffering can induce disturbing fantasies or escape dreams in the interviewer. The excitement of âawaynessâ (Sperling, 1953, p. 464) in reverie evokes and interacts with the counter-impulse towards safety and the fear of psychic freedom (cf. Fromm, 2001).
Researcher subjectivity and the interpersonal approach
Especially in psychological research, âre-search is me-searchâ: âbehind the theory, method, analysis, ontology, epistemology, and methodology of qualitative research stands the personal biography of the researcherâ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 18). The same is true for the consenting participant. There is a balance to be struck between the wish to know and the reality that self-knowledge is elusive and potentially disruptive. âAt the centre of each person is an incommunicado element ⊠and this is sacred and most worthy of preservationâ (Winnicott, 1965a, p. 187).
A brief discussion is needed here about three overlapping but distinct terms which I shall be using throughout: the interpersonal, intersubjective and relational. The term âinterpersonalâ is typically associated with the American psychoanalyst and psychiatrist Harry Stack Sullivan (1954), founder of the William Alanson White clinic in Maryland. Sullivan was influenced by Sandor Ferenczi, and wanted to develop a psychiatry which valued connectedness and relationship as the key to psychic health and happiness; he criticised the aloof neutrality of the quasi-surgical analyst figure. Sullivanâs collaborators included Harold Searles and Freida Fromm-Reichman, both pioneers of psychoanalytic work with psychotic patients, and also Erich Fromm. Fromm (2001), a refugee from Nazi Germany, developed his own existential-eth...