“Integrating the Intrapsychic and the Interpersonal in Psychoanalysis:Laplanche’s Contribution,”

Friday, May 24th, 2013

“Integrating The Intrapsychic and The Interpersonal in Psychoanalysis: Laplanche’s Contribution,” by James Hansell, Psychoanalytic Psychology, 2012, Vol. 29, No. 1, 99-108.

Reviewed by

Deborah Bryon, PhD, NCPsyA

Inter-Regional Society of Jungian Analysts

      Before encountering Hansell’s article on intrapsychic and interpsychic process, I had surmised that the appropriate approach in any given analytic session should be determined primarily by the developmental level of the analysand’s existing psychological state, as well as their particular character defense structure. My current line of reasoning had been that psychoanalytic practice is dependent upon the analysand’s current level of functioning, and the way they are experiencing and referencing their own internal states. Analysands feeling stuck in a state of emptiness may need to internalize and integrate the analyst as a self-object in order to feel full (i.e. an interpsychic process), while analysands operating out of a manic defense structure may require interpretation to penetrate the defense and deepen the analysis (i.e. an intrapsychic process). I concluded that both intrapsychic and interpsychic approaches have their own place as effective ways of working within the transference relationship, depending upon the immediate needs of the analysand in any given moment.

Overview of Hansell’s Article

In the article, Hansell has described various ways of conceptualizing patterns of enactment, depending upon the analyst’s theoretical orientation and desire. He has described how the Copernican view, which states that we are the “center of the universe” eventually, gave way to the Ptolmaic perspective that we are motivated by our own drives and are less influenced by the “Other”–initiating the birth of intrapersonal psychoanalytic theory. Hansell goes on to present Laplanche’s (1997) “theory of seduction,” proposing that a child’s experience of desire is influenced by “unconsciously transmitted messages” emanating from the mother (i.e. interpersonal “field” phenomena). Hansell has explained that what makes Laplanche’s theory relevant and different from the theories of Ferenczi (1949), Sullivan (1968), Levenson (2005), is his explanation that these “coded” messages are “unmetabolized,” and unwittingly become internalized by the child recipient as their own. Hansell has suggested that analysts often influence their analysands in similar ways, and that this is fodder to be recognized and worked within the context of the analytic dyad.

Levels of Enactment

The concepts Hansell has presented in his article became a point of departure for further theoretical speculation, largely having to do with the construct of time and how the analyst’s perception of time may affect his interpretation of what is occurring “live” in the analytic process. As a result, this commentary is an exploration of new ideas that have been generated, rather than a theatrical critique. More specifically, I am interested in examining how the analyst’s conceptualization of the time paradigm–as either being temporally linear and horizontal (i.e. a timeline), or vertically stacked and simultaneously layered, influences the analyst’s perception, and therefore way of interacting with the analysand. Is there an effect created from viewing the analytic process as a complex, multileveled interaction occurring concurrently in any given moment that is different from the effect of conceptualizing what is taking place in the analysis as a linear sequence of events? I propose that there is.                                                                                                Using Hansell’s illustration of the child shaped by parental desire that has become the analysand’s present experience (i.e. internalized parental imago (Coen, 2003)); at any given moment multiple themes have the potential of being enacted on different psychic levels. These levels are a function of both the analysand’s and analyst’s states of awareness and developmental stages, which have a bi-directional relationship with each other. This co-created interaction has an ongoing effect on the transference/countertransference dynamic. A brief list of possible latent themes and potential levels of psychic engagement that may be occurring within the analytic dyad is provided below.

Potential Levels of Psychic Engagement

1)      The Analysand’s Narrative Truth (Spence, 1982) – the “analysand-as-child”- the part of the analysand’s individual psyche associated with predisposed needs, urges, feelings, and temperament influenced both by the analysand’s childhood experience, and the resulting memory of the experience.

2)      The Introjected Parental Imago (Coen, 2003) – the analysand’s perception of their parents’ (and/or Other’s) unfulfilled needs and desires that have been consciously or unconsciously projected onto (or introjected into) the analysand-as-child, living in the analysand’s present psyche.

3)      The Analyst’s Narrative Truth (Spence, 1982) – the analyst’s beliefs and personal historical narrative, theoretical orientation, and emotional needs (including both uncomfortable “hot spots” and unmet desires) that are involuntarily projected onto (or introjected into) the analysand–either consciously or unconsciously.

4)      The Co-created Consciousness of the “Analytic Third (Ogden, 1997) – the explicit, overt transference/countertransference interaction, and resulting narrative, occurring in the analytic field (i.e. the ongoing, bi-directional, conscious transference/countertransference dynamic).

5)      The Co-Created Unconscious State of Fusion of the “Analytic Third (Ogden, 1997) – the implicit, covert transference/countertransference interaction, and resulting narrative, taking place implicitly in the analytic field (i.e. the ongoing, bi-directional, unconscious transference/countertransference dynamic).

6)      The Imago of the Co-Created Healed State – the shared and individual prospective view of the final analytic outcome.

7)      Implicit Somatic Memory – currently held in the body in reaction to the past (i.e. nonverbal memory generated from neural patterns that are the result of sensory-motor interactions with the environment (Leuzinger-Bohleber & Pfeifer, 2002).

 

 

The Concept of “Stacked” Verses Linear Time

Although it would be very difficult as analysts–at least for some of us–to attend to and hold the layered stack of interpersonal and intrapsychic dynamics in working memory at the same time, developing an internal schemata in order to differentiate and assimilate (Piaget, 1973) awareness of each of these levels may provide the analyst with an opportunity to observe each of these levels as they emerge vertically during a session. Potentially accessing such a lexicon during an analytic session might expand the analyst’s perception to include more of what is actually happening in real time. This would involve shifting away from viewing the analytic encounter as a linear sequence toward developing greater awareness with the capacity to track the stack of interpsychic and intrapsychic enactments as they are taking place in the analytic process. Ultimately, this would result in less lag time between the experience of an interaction and interpretation of the interaction.

Although the term “stacking” could be applied to levels of reality rather than time, without the construct of time as scaffolding, thoughts and ideas cease to exist – because they exist as a process, not independently. Susan Langer (1967) has written that ideas and thoughts are a verb not a noun – they do not exist without the context provided by time.                                            A stacked orientation toward time in the analytic encounter requires that the analyst actively engage in reverie and mentation–in linear time–between sessions. This is necessary in order for the analyst to first become familiar enough with the multiple themes, and then to track the threads of each of the themes as they are being enacted–along with the complex interplay taking place between them as they emerge concurrently.

Grotstein (1978) has written that without separation in time between the self and the object (which in this case would be the experience of the present moment (Stern, 2004)) within the analytic container, and the internalization of past intrapsychic and interpsychic encounters as they are experienced in the present, no capacity for perception exists because there is no space for representation. Sequential time enables experience to be compartmentalized and therefore reflected upon.

Basch (1976) has used the analogy of a telescope to explain this psychic phenomenon. Although an image may be produced in a telescope it is not formed within the telescope. The image is not in the lens but in a virtual, imaginary location created from light rays perceived as a result of a mental functioning process. The image is not a “thing” but a phase. This notion corresponds to current research in neuropsychology, which supports function over form (Leuzinger-Bohleber & Pfeifer, 2002). In other words, thoughts are not localized in specific brain sites but occur as activity taking place as neural movement between them. Memory can be understood as a theoretical construct, connecting past experience with the influence and interaction of neural activity. How an event becomes assimilated, and how it is perceived after the event has taken place, will determine the new neural pathways that are laid down, which will  alter the quality of the specific memory moving forward.

If, the analyst took time outside of sessions to create a dimensional mental structure that provided a provisional template for organizing the stacked layers of enactments taking place simultaneously within the session, then, these potential layers could be better “held” in working memory in the analyst’s mind. Having a vertical mental map might enable the analyst to more easily understand what is transpiring in any given moment as a series of collective functions happening simultaneously. Perhaps then, what is implicit would become more explicit in the present moment (Stern, 2004).

No Comments Yet

You can be the first to comment!