|
The last conference panel presented the work of two great thinkers
associated with the self psychology community, Malcom Slavin and Robert
Stolorow. As the titles of their papers suggested, "The Contextuality
and Existentiality of Emotional Trauma" (Stolorow) and "Broadening the
Context of Human Intersubjectivity: Making Meaning and Navigating
Relational Conflict in Evolutionary, Biological and Clinical
Perspectives" (Slavin), Stolorow and Slavin required intellectually
athletic participation by conference attendees.
Bob Stolorow's paper developed two broad themes, the contextuality
and existentiality of trauma, and a synthesis between them. At a lower
level of abstraction, the paper shared a deeply personal account of the
aftermath of devastating loss, and of healing and reintegration
following that loss. At a higher level of discourse, the paper
revolved around "being-toward-loss", a concept that Stolorow developed
based on Heidegger's "Being-toward-death." Stolorow's more inclusive
term, "being-toward-loss" means living with the loss of loved ones as a
certain, indefinite, and ever present possibility. Confrontation with
being-toward-loss paradoxically makes it possible to live a life that is
authentically one's own.
Stolorow described three features of the phenomenology of trauma as
connected to Heidegger's existential theme: first, the shattering sense
of isolation and alienation from others; second, the sense of being
exposed to "the inescapable contingency of existence on a universe that
is random and unpredictable and in which no safety or continuity of
being can be assured"; and third, the collapse of a sense of time,
specifically, the sense of being frozen or trapped in the past.
Stolorow asserted that these three types of post-traumatic experiences
plunges the traumatized person into a form of authentic
being-toward-death. Stolorow demonstrated beautifully the way in which
philosophical reflection can aid a person toward recovery from trauma.
He also disclosed a remarkably personal account of a second path to
healing, that of finding a relational home for the experience of trauma.
Stolorow concluded his presentation with the case of a patient whose
deep and isolating sense of shame, akin to the fundamental aloneness
consequential to loss, finds a relational home with her analyst.
Malcom Slavin wove together a different text of existential and
psychoanalytic concerns. With a multi-media presentation, Slavin
asserted that the adaptations over hundreds of thousands of years that
led to a distinct human species, are in fact the setting within which
existential issues first emerge as human concerns. This
evolutionary-biological heritage is part of our existential situation as
a given, a deep structure, that continuously shapes, influences, limits,
and facilitates our lives with each other. These adaptations also embed
us within relational contexts. As Slavin said it, "We literally become
ourselves, become an individual with a distinct identity, through the
building of subjective meanings that are heavily shaped—non-verbally
and verbally—by interactions with the subjectivities of others with
whom we are attached." Slavin calls this the relational paradox. The
intersubjective context within which we are constituted as individuals
leaves us with substantial otherness that we must recognize and come to
terms with if we are to live authentic lives. There is an ever present
danger of over-accommodation, and pathological shaping of self in
accordance with the needs and expectations of others.
Slavin then applied this existential and relational dilemma to a
clinical vignette. From his perspective, all patients have a general
need to experience and evaluate the otherness of the analyst, that is to
have "the experience of another person grappling with her own
established ways of maintaining hope—wrestling with her illusions—in
the face of everything inside the analytic relationship and outside it
that erodes them, her particular individual capacity to deal with the
background of annihilation anxiety that we all face as a function of
being human." In other words, the patients need to experience the
analyst's position with regard to the fundamental existential dilemma.
The Herculean task of discussing these two papers was given to yet
another powerful and agile mind within the Self Psychology community—Peter Schou.
His clear and concise outline of each paper, to which this
article is indebted, enabled participants to better understand and
compare the ideas presented. He made several points of his own worth
noting. One was a reference to Kierkegaard's notion of anxiety as a
state preceding a leap from one stage of life to another. Anxiety in
this sense has a liberating potential, an idea central to both Heidegger
and Stolorow. Adding a systems perspective, Schou noted that anxiety
can be thought of as a pertubation to the attractor state of everyday
immersion. Schou raised the question of the developmental readiness of
all patients to engage in existential issues in the manner that Slavin
describes as "experiencing and evaluating the otherness of the analyst".
How much do patients really want to know about the analyst's struggle
with death and ultimate loss? Schou answered the question this way,
"Perhaps not so much, after all, or rather, what we want to know is
probably specific to our position in the relationship. Perhaps we want
to know just enough to allow us the illusion that our analyst is not
quite as scared and confused as we are, which in turn would make it safe
enough to engage our own fears and uncertainties. And one thing more,
perhaps we want to know just enough to believe there is in the analyst
something we can learn from as we struggle with these issues, a
sense that the analyst has been down a path that can tell us something
about where to go. This belief may, of course, ultimately be an
illusion on our part and may be too much to hope for. But as Winnicott
pointed out, illusions are important, not the least between an analyst
and a patient."
Sally Howard, Ph.D., Psy.D. is
a psychologist and a supervising and training analyst at the Institute
of Contemporary Psychoanalysis in Los Angeles. She has a private
practice in West Los Angeles and in South Pasadena.
Back to top.
|
