Advertisement

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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

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

References

  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 http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0302361, 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