The Analyst’s Generous Involvement: Recognition and the “Tension of Tenderness”
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AbstractI define the analyst’s generous involvement as inherent to human encounter and a necessary element of therapeutic process. When the analyst’s generous involvement goes missing, it can be read as a sign of disengagement and disconnection. Using as metaphor H. S. Sullivan’s concept of the “tension of tenderness,” I argue that the analyst’s recognition of a need or affect state in the patient evokes an internal tug constituting the analyst’s need to provide for what has been recognized. I elaborate on what the analyst’s generous involvement is, and what it is not, including countertransference pitfalls and corruptions that may masquerade as generosity. I engage a relational conversation with the radical ethical ideas of Emmanuel Levinas. An extended clinical vignette illustrates the challenges and conflicts entailed in the analyst’s finding an analytically useful form of expressing the tug of generous involvement in the immediate moment. Notes1 CitationFerenczi’s (1932/1988) “cure through love” made him the widely recognized healer of last resort. His writings, so prescient and tacitly influential of many trends and concepts in contemporary psychoanalysis, were nearly expunged from the psychoanalytic literature and community until recent decades. His open and vulnerable explorations—in process, technique, and thinking—are both inspiring and disquieting. He is within psychoanalysis an original voice of generosity toward his patients. Yet his spirit of generosity, so worthy of note, seems so alloyed with projection of his own yearnings and idealizations, masochistic susceptibility, and reaction formation that I have not used his work as a conceptual model or an exemplar of generous analytic involvement.2 I thank David Goodman, Ph.D., for this idea (see CitationLevinas, 1985, p. 99), as well as for his generous conversations about Levinas (personal communication, June 2012).Additional informationNotes on contributorsStuart A. PizerStuart A. Pizer, Ph.D., ABPP, is a Founding Board Member, Faculty, Supervising and Personal Analyst, and former President, Massachusetts Institute for Psychoanalysis; Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School; Faculty, Supervising and Personal Analyst, Institute for Relational Psychoanalysis of Philadelphia; Visiting Faculty and Member of the Advisory Board, Toronto Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis; and Honorary Faculty, Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis, Los Angeles. He is an Associate Editor of Psychoanalytic Dialogues and Associate Editor of The Psychoanalytic Quarterly. He is a Past-President of the International Association for Relational Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy. His book Building Bridges: The Negotiation of Paradox in Psychoanalysis was published by The Analytic Press in 1998. He is in private practice in Cambridge, MA.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».