Generation

Preoccupations and Conflicts in Contemporary Psychoanalysis

Jean White

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781583919613
• eBook ISBN: 9781317710448
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Emotions in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Generation is both an introduction to and a comparative study of contemporary psychoanalytic clinical theory. It provides the reader with a comprehensive overview of how new ways of thinking about the psychoanalytic process have evolved and are still in development today.

Jean White presents a detailed study of contemporary Independent, Lacanian and post-Kleinian theory, set within the wider context of the international expansion of psychoanalysis. Contemporary clinical practice is discussed in relation to concepts of psychopathology, transference and countertransference and innovations in technique. Each school's explicit and implicit models of psychic growth and their view of the aims of the psychoanalytic process are explored. Written in clear, accessible language and interwoven throughout with clinical vignettes, Generation provides an invaluable initiation into the work of notoriously difficult authors such as Lacan and Bion.

This stimulating presentation of contemporary psychoanalytic theory will be of great interest to psychoanalytic psychotherapists, psychodynamic counsellors and psychoanalysts of all theoretical orientations.

Chapter 1
Introduction

At the beginning of the third millennium, we are witnessing a renaissance in psychoanalytic theory and practice. Important and new developments began to emerge in the decades after Freud’s death, and are now gathering clinical momentum. Recent advances in psychoanalytic theory use the understandings uncovered by Freud and Klein in ways more in tune with paradigm shifts in physics and the human sciences.¹

Sigmund Freud’s extraordinary achievement brought the personal, the subjective and the irrational into the rational scientism of his day, when Newtonian mechanical models still held sway. Although he trained as a neurologist at a time when a biological medical model predominated, Freud (1856-1939) dared to explore the uncharted and indomitable unconscious. He brought to the fore the contradictions inherent in adult sexuality and the dangerous subject of child sexuality, the intricacies of gender acquisition, the drives which transmute our animal nature, the perilous regions of transference and transference love, and the problem of human destructiveness. A complex, contradictory model of human development emerged in which we were no longer masters in our own houses. Controversial arenas Freud opened are still under question today. Some excellent new translations of Freud’s work under the general editorship of Adam Phillips show us how relevant his thought remains (see bibliography). Melanie Klein (1882-1960) pioneered the investigation of pre-Oedipal and pre-verbal states of mind and, in so doing, made psychoanalytic work with psychotic and inaccessibly defended patients possible. Her revolutionary ideas are still being developed by today’s Kleinians—and some of these are explored later in the book.

Winnicott, Lacan and Bion

Recent psychoanalytic theory builds on and sometimes transcends Freud’s investigations and discoveries, and owes much to some other key theorists. André Green (2005a) cites the work of Winnicott, Lacan and Bion as the conceptual precursors of twenty-first-century psychoanalysis. Michael Eigen (1981) invokes the same three theorists as opening hitherto unknown aspects of human experience and unprecedented possibilities for human evolution.

Winnicott (1896-1971), Lacan (1901-81) and Bion (1897-1979) all unlocked the potential of the Freudian paradigm into a new dimension of meaning. Winnicott used the insights gained from more than forty years as a paediatrician to put forward a fresh model of child and human development and an expanded version of the psychoanalytic process, based more closely on early mothering. He introduced new conceptual areas such as ‘intermediate’, ‘potential’ and ‘transitional’ space (Winnicott 1971). Lacan revitalized the Freudian paradigm with insights gained from modern linguistic theory, and re-affirmed the fundamental importance of sexuality, the drives, the symbolic father and the radical and subversive power of the unconscious. Bion transformed the Freudian and Kleinian metapsychologies with a new theory of mind and human growth.

The style and ways of thinking of these three theorists have something in common. There is no longer a unified, closed model of human development. All three share a refusal to be pinned to rigid systematic explanation. At the same time, different but powerful systematic elements in each of their modes of thinking lend changed perspectives from which to view the analytic process. I believe the tensions and dialectic between the systematic and the multiple and ambiguous in these discourses sustain the possibility of fresh perspectives and advances in psychoanalytic theory.

All three viewed the birth of the human subject as profoundly inter-subjective. Winnicott’s (1947) axiom, ‘There is no such thing as a baby …,’ refers to the illusion of omnipotence sustained if a baby is sufficiently held within ‘primary maternal preoccupation’, from which she can be ‘disillusioned’ at a pace necessary for the gradual emergence of an authentic self (Winnicott 1951, 1956). Lacan (1960) believed that a child is born into the desire and language of an Other,² whose claims dominate her subjectivity until put into question in analysis. Bion’s (1962) ‘maternal reverie’, through which a mother contains her baby’s projected ‘nameless dread’ (or anxiety about annihilation) until such time as the child can bear and express their own feelings, demonstrates how a capacity for thought is not a one-person activity.

At the same time, the body cannot be put out of the question: ‘… the ego is above all a corporeal entity: it … is itself the projection of a surface (Freud 1923 [2003]: 117, translator’s emphases). Winnicott’s ‘primitive emotional development’ and view of aggression as a driving force in ordinary development show how physical predispositions cannot be separated from the psychological (Winnicott 1945, 1950). Lacan’s re-emphasis on the drives after Seminar XI (1964a), albeit mediated through language and the symbolic order, affirms the ‘real’ body as a generative force although inevitably overwritten with signifiers. Bion’s (1965, 1967) traditionally Kleinian emphasis on constitutional excess of destructive aggression and envy as factors in the aetiology of serious disturbance reveal the body as potentially problematic and disruptive of psychological development. These areas of psychoanalytic theory explode the dualism between nature and nurture (cf. Shepherdson 2000).

The style of Winnicott, Lacan and Bion is, in varying forms and degrees, elliptical: there is no reductive explanation; meaning is deliberately fluid. Their form reflects the direction of their thought. Although structural elements remain (both Winnicott and Lacan make use of a concept of the ego, albeit mainly as a problem in Lacan’s case), all three shift the Freudian structural and topographical models towards differing forms of subjectivity constantly in evolution and a process model of mind and self.³

All three conceive of psychic growth as emanating from states of mind which are not predetermined and cannot be entirely defined: Bion’s (1965, 1970) ‘O’, Winnicott’s (1951, 1971) ‘transitional space’ and Lacan’s (1953) ‘subjectification’, which begins its elusive life in non-existence, like a spark flashing between two signifiers. Bion’s theory of thinking and his later work on transformations and ‘O’ introduce the possibility of a mind which is potentially in limitless development. Lacan’s situation of the construction of the subject and the unconscious with the entry into language and the symbolic order, and their evolution through the ‘precipitation’ of subjectivity, the opening of the space of desire and, in his later work, the jouissance of the drive, can also take us we know not where.⁴ Winnicott’s concepts of ‘intermediate’ and ‘potential’ space, with transitional areas between self and not-self, and also some of his thinking about the uses of aggression, ego orgasm and the role of aesthetics in human development again emphasize a self in progress, a being in the process of becoming, and the creative potential of encounters with difference if they can be ‘used’ fearlessly (see Chapter 2).

Contemporary Developments

These fresh perspectives on what being human might involve—and how people grow—have multiple implications for psychoanalytic technique. The unexpected, new and unknown are now valued as much as any predetermined representation of development, although as Phillips (1993) points out, it is impossible to have one without the other. The ‘classical’ psychoanalytic paradigm, as it had become, has changed from a model in which the analyst interprets the transference and the patient’s pathology from an elevated state of knowledge, to a shared venture into the unknown, one in which the analyst may be changed as much as the patient.

The range of significant and mutative clinical interventions has expanded from the hegemony of the transference interpretation to include the intersubjective moment, the unconscious dynamism of the ‘analytic third’ (Ogden 1994a), and a renewed interest in the polyvalence of language, and humour and surprise in many forms. This evolution of clinical praxis renders a version of psychoanalysis that is potentially livelier, more relevant to a wider range of people and more tolerant of the myriad possibilities inherent in subjectivity.

We now have the tools to reveal the construction of racial, sexual and social identities as operative in the transference/countertransference matrix, although a great deal of work remains to be done in these areas. It is arguable, and I hope this book will demonstrate, that these recent theoretical revelations expand the potential scope of human subjectivity, and render it more fluid, more puzzling, more complex but also more exciting and generative of the unanticipated.

The Scope and Limitations of this Book

The idea for this book grew out of a series of postgraduate lectures I gave in 2000 and 2001, based at Birkbeck College, University of London. I became aware of a dearth of comparative accounts of contemporary psychoanalysis and keen interest in the subject. Generation, although primarily a work of theory, maintains a clinical perspective throughout. The prioritization of theoretical developments has been problematic for me. While all theories of knowledge are partial and incomplete, and what they exclude is as significant as what they reveal, I have had to omit hugely important areas of contemporary psychoanalytic theory. I will focus primarily on the contemporary Independent school, Lacanian and post-Lacanian theory and post-Kleinian developments in Britain, the United States and France and, to a lesser extent, in some other European countries, Australia and South America.

In so doing, I reveal my personal clinical preoccupations. These areas of theoretical extension and application are still very much alive, growing through their capacity to encompass debate and disagreement. One marker of the vitality of a theoretical paradigm, in my view, is its ability to contain and generate difference, which in turn facilitates further thinking and new developments. These three paradigms are also in widespread global use.

There is a necessary debate and tension between those who argue for the possibility of synthesizing psychoanalytic theories (Bateman and Holmes 1995: 48; Britton 2003: xi) and those, like myself, who view divergence as stimulating and potentially creative. Green suggests one can no longer refer to psychoanalytic theory in the singular (Green 1986 [1997]: 13). Phillips can see no reason why psychoanalysts should agree with each other (Phillips 1993: xvi), whilst Lacan declared ‘It is in no way necessary that the tree of science should have a single trunk’ (Lacan 1964a [2004]: 8). Although, as we shall see, some surprising areas of commonality and overlap emerge from the three contemporary paradigms discussed here, their incorporation of difference serves their continuing vigour, so long as dissent is used in the service of dialogue and not in a factional or paranoid way.

I aim to be academically accurate but not exhaustive. Generation is not intended to be an encyclopaedia. Nonetheless, I hope to capture (not tame, but represent) something of the spirit of contemporary theory.

Chronology is inevitably a difficult area in the history of ideas. I outline some originative concepts from Winnicott, Lacan and Bion and then focus on more recent innovations in theory. Both Bion and Lacan made paradigmatic shifts during the 1960s and 1970s, the last decades of both their lives, and Winnicott’s (1969) revolutionary concept of ‘object usage’ also emerged towards the end of his life.

A necessary and useful tension exists between the ideas of the paradigmatic generators and those of subsequent writers who change some concepts almost out of recognition. One example is Winnicott’s ‘true self’ (1960), which, in the hands of two contemporary Independents, Christopher Bollas (1992) and Thomas Ogden (1994a), becomes a post-modern concept (see Chapter 2). Another is Lacan’s account of the formation of the human subject and the unconscious through language, which is used by Luce Irigaray (1985) to reveal psychoanalytic discourse as a patriarchal construct, unaware of its own monolithic assumptions (see Chapter 3).

Ownership of ideas can be a tricky area. Sometimes a number of theorists are at work in the same conceptual field at the same time, especially some post-Kleinian theorists who work as a team (for example Steiner and Britton 1994). Occasionally, there is apparent synchronicity: two contemporary Independent theorists, Jessica Benjamin and Thomas Ogden, both develop the concept of intersubjectivity in the 1990s, and pursue parallel paths with slightly different emphases whilst making little reference to each other’s work.

The psychoanalysts whose work primarily informs this book from the Independent school are Donald Winnicott, Marion Milner, Masud Khan and Christopher Bollas in Britain; Thomas Ogden and Jessica Benjamin in the USA; and André Green and Joyce McDougall in France. From the Lacanians, I focus particularly on the work of Jacques Lacan, Julia Kristeva and Luce Irigaray, but also discuss the input of Joel Dor and Juan-David Nasio in France and Bruce Fink in the USA. From the post-Kleinians, I select Wilfred Bion, Donald Meltzer, J. Henri Rey, Herbert Rosenfeld, John Steiner and Ron Britton who were or are all based in Britain. I also discuss the work of many others, whose approach, sensibility or ideas have influenced this analytic generation.

Psychoanalytic Internationalism

Generation’s international focus is in keeping with the history of psychoanalysis as an immigrant discipline. Nonetheless, national intellectual mores, education and traditions do impact on psychoanalytic theory. As Green states:

French psychoanalysts belong to a different cultural tradition from that of the Anglo-Saxon world, where empiricism and pragmatism are considered to be qualities; where intellectualism and abstraction count as vices rather than as virtues.

(Green 1986 [1997]: 4)

Where necessary, I highlight national and regional influences on the thought of the theorists I discuss whilst retaining a global perspective. However, many of these theorists do not fit neatly into either a national or an intellectual category. Some examples are: Green, a French Independent whose work owes as much or more to the influence of London Independents and post-Kleinians as to Lacan; McDougall, a New Zealander who trained in both London and Paris, and whose work incorporates insights from all three contemporary schools; and Kristeva, Bulgarian by birth and practising in Paris, who is a Lacanian much influenced by Independents and some post-Kleinians. Other internationalists are Bollas, American by birth but an Independent in London combining theoretical sources from all three schools; and Rosenfeld (originally German), Rey (French) and Meltzer (American), all post-Kleinians who were based in London but whose impact has been global. Neville Symington (originally British) is an Australian Independent influenced by post-Kleinian thinking. The interweaving between national and international influence and impact is another necessary tension sustaining this book.

Some hugely significant areas of psychoanalytic theory have had to be omitted and some are mentioned in relation to the three paradigms I prioritize. I cannot include the Jungians as a separate grouping because of my ignorance. Excellent introductions to contemporary Jungian thought have already been written (Samuels 1985; Astor 1995). Some clinical Jungian developments are predicated on Winnicottian and post-Kleinian insights (for example, see Fordham 1995).

Nor do I discuss the ‘ego psychologists’ in any detail. Outstanding introductions to ego psychology already exist (for example Black and Mitchell 1995), but there is an additional factor. The focus of the three schools discussed here is on the unconscious and on the unexpected developments it can generate. Ego psychology can have a tendency towards adaptational or normalizing concepts of development, whilst the theorists I review have moved on to more fluid and open models of subjectivity with no predetermined end point. One of the several shared perspectives in Bion and Lacan’s work is that they both relegate the ego to ‘… a figment of psychoanalysts’ imagination’ (Bion Talamo 1997: 52) or ‘… the sum of the identifications of the subject… like the superimposition of various coats borrowed from what I would call the bric-a-brac of its props department’ (Lacan 1954-5 [1991]: 155).

Other significant omissions from Britain and North America include neo-Freudian and attachment-based theorists who are clinically innovative but do not, in my view, represent completely separate psychoanalytic paradigms. Their work contributes to the thinking of contemporary Independents in particular. In Britain and North America, the relational school of psychoanalysis (Aron and Mitchell 1999), emergent from the work of Bowlby and the ‘intersubjectivists’,⁵ exerts a powerful reciprocal influence on Independent theory and is discussed in that context. The ‘hermeneutic’ school of psychoanalysis, expounded by Roy Schafer (1981, 1983, 1992, 1997a) and Donald Spence (1982), which focuses on the importance of developing a pers...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Permissions
• 1 Introduction
• Part I Introducing the three paradigms
• Part II Contemporary clinical practice
• Part III The future?
• Bibliography
• Index
• Index