Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To quickly return to the issue’s Table of Contents from an article…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

You can go back to to the issue’s Table of Contents in one click by clicking on the article title in the article view.  What’s more, it will take you to the specific place in the TOC where the article appears.

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

Hoffman, I.Z. (1990). In the Eye of the Beholder—A Reply to Levenson. Contemp. Psychoanal., 26:291-298.
    

(1990). Contemporary Psychoanalysis, 26:291-298

In the Eye of the Beholder—A Reply to Levenson Related Papers

Irwin Z. Hoffman, Ph.D.

IN HIS RECENT PAPER, LEVENSON (1989) argues that analysts commonly do not take serious enough interest in what patients say explicitly about them or about outside matters. They are too busy ferreting out latent meanings at the expense of inquiring into and coming to grips with the realities of the patient's life experience. He feels that this is true not only of classical analysts with their preoccupation with drive-determined fantasy, but also, in a more subtle way, of self psychologists insofar as there is a disclaimed condescension in their attitude towards the patient's deficit-determined experience. Levenson claims that he shares Gill's and my own perspectivist viewpoint which he associates with "acceptance of the patient's reality" (p. 547). However, he also opens the paper with a long quotation from one of the transcribed and annotated psychoanalytic sessions in our book (Gill and Hoffman, 1982) which he uses to illustrate yet another way that interest in possible latent meanings—in this case taking the form of disguised allusions to the transference—detracts from attention to what patients tell us about their lives.

Levenson does not grapple with the implications of the apparent points of convergence and divergence in our views. We are apparently in agreement in taking the patient's perspective on the analyst's contribution to the process seriously. However, Gill and I look for oblique references to that contribution in the patient's communications about other matters whereas Levenson would prefer to focus on the manifest content, particularly when it is striking in its own right. In the quoted excerpt, the patient reports that at the end of one summer her mother left a pet cat in the furnace room of the family's summer home, one of several instances

—————————————

0010-7530/90 $2.00 + .05

Copyright © 1990 W. A. W. Institute

20 W. 74th Street, New York, NY 10023

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

Contemporary Psychoanalysis, Vol. 26, No. 2 (1990)

- 291 -

[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 © 2017, 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.