Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 267–280 | Cite as

The research relationship, enactments and ‘counter-transference’ analysis: On the significance of scenic understanding

  • Christine Morgenroth
Original Article


This article explores Alfred Lorenzer's notion of scenic understanding through a conflict that beset a data-interpretation panel, part of a study evaluating a programme of psychodynamic therapy for drug-addicted young people. A second interpretation panel, formed in the wake of the first group's collapse, came to understand this conflict as a ‘counter-transference’ to the latent meaning present in the case on which the first panel had been working. This insight, in turn, gave rise to a new understanding of the case itself, in particular the possibility that the interviewee had made less progress in her therapy than appeared to be so.


Lorenzer scenic understanding countertransference depth-hermeneutic method social research drug addiction 


  1. Cartwright, D. (2004) The psychoanalytic research interview: Preliminary suggestions. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association 52 (1): 209–242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Devereux, G. (1967) From Anxiety to Method in the Behavioral Sciences. The Hague: Paris Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Frosh, S. and Baraitser, L. (2008) Psychoanalysis and psychosocial studies. Psychoanalysis, Culture and Society 13 (4): 346–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hollway, W. and Jefferson, T. (2000) Doing Qualitative Research Differently: Free Association, Narrative and the Interview Method. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lorenzer, A. (1974) Die Wahrheit der psychoanalytischen Erkenntnis: Ein historisch-materialistischer Entwurf. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  6. Lorenzer, A. (1977) Sprachspiel und Interaktionsformen: Vorträge und Aufsätze zu Psychoanalyse, Sprache und Praxis. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  7. Lorenzer, A. (1986) Tiefenhermeneutische Kulturanalysen. In: A. Lorenzer (ed.) Kulturanalysen: Psychoanalytische Studien zur Kultur. Frankfurt/M.: Fischer, pp. 11–98.Google Scholar
  8. Lorenzer, A. (2002) Die Sprache, der Sinn, das Unbewußte: Psychoanalytisches Grundverständnis und Neurowissenschaften. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
  9. Marks, S. and Mönnich-Marks, H. (2003) The analysis of counter-transference reactions is a means to discern latent interview-contents. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung [Forum: Qualitative Social Research] 4 (2): 1–13, also, accessed March 30, 2010.Google Scholar
  10. Mitchell, S. (2000, 2003) Relationality: From Attachment to Intersubjectivity. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Morgenroth, C. (2010) Die dritte Chance: Therapie und Gesundung von jugendlichen Drogenabhängigen. Wiesbaden: VS – Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ogden, T.H. (1994) The analytic third: Working with intersubjective clinical facts. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 75 (3): 3–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Rosenthal, G. (1995) Erlebte und erzählte Lebensgeschichte: Gestalt und Struktur Biographischer Selbstbeschreibungen. Frankfurt/M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  14. Schütze, F. (1976) Zur Hervorlockung und Analyse von Erzählungen thematisch relevanter Geschichten im Rahmen soziologischer Feldforschung. In: Arbeitsgruppe Bielefelder Soziologen (ed.) Kommunikative Sozialforschung. München: Wilhelm Fink, pp. 159–260.Google Scholar
  15. Stein, H.F. (2000) From countertransference to social theory: A study of Holocaust thinking in US business dress. Ethos 28 (3): 346–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Soziologie und SozialpsychologieHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations