Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To sort articles by sourceā€¦

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

After you perform a search, you can sort the articles by Source. This will rearrange the results of your search, displaying articles according to their appearance in journals and books. This feature is useful for tracing psychoanalytic concepts in a specific psychoanalytic tradition.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Vida, J.E. (2002). The Role of Love in the Therapeutic Action of Psychoanalysis. Am. Imago, 59(4):435-445.

(2002). American Imago, 59(4):435-445

The Role of Love in the Therapeutic Action of Psychoanalysis

Judith E. Vida

“Powerful in [Iris Murdoch] was the love of human differences and of personal idiosyncrasy. … Stones were for [her] a natural symbol of individuality. … [N]o two natural stones, when examined closely, will turn out to be exactly alike. … [T]he scientist and the technologist, perhaps self-consciously and harmlessly, substitute an abstraction from the reality for the reality itself, which is always in the last analysis a collection of individuals. … When the individuals under consideration are persons, not stones, the result is unlikely to be harmless. There is loss.”

—Stuart Hampshire, “The Pleasure of Iris Murdoch”

My epigraph speaks to “individuals”—and in this context I am using it to refer to individual experiences and definitions of love. I do not think it is fair to talk about love in a general way, in a generic way. Each instance of love is unique to the circumstance and to the persons who are involved. Glen Gabbard has framed the panel for us with ten definitions of “love” that are witty and trenchant.1 But they point to vulnerability and longing rather than exist in vulnerability and longing, although my guess is that, at heart, these selections are probably quite personal to Glen. I can't talk about love in impersonal language. For me, “love” demands the language of experience, and of personal experience, not the language of theory and metatheory, and certainly not a language of emotional distance. So, what I say here about “love” is about me, not about “you,” and not about “them.”

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2020, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.