Some Assumptions of Psychoanalytic Communication: Implications of Subliminal Research for Psychoanalytic Method and Technique
Communication in psychoanalysis is of a very special nature. Although two people talk to each other, it is not merely conversation. Although words are spoken, it does not altogether depend on language. Although the main intent of both parties is to be understood, it is the difficulties in communication which are at the heart of the matter. Finally, although much is said, it is mainly what remains unspoken that is important. Communication meeting these requirements is not ordinary; it is constrained by a method, requiring that one person reveal his thoughts unsparingly to the other person who is listening carefully enough to identify gaps, confusions, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the communication, as well as the tenor of expressed and intimated feelings. The psychoanalyst’s third ear is glued to a psychic stethoscope which magnifies the otherwise unheard stirrings in the unconscious that point to underlying disorder. Further, a special relationship quickly develops between the people involved in this enterprise. Once we recognize that psychoanalytic communication is not ordinary conversation, nor simply one person giving an account of himself to another, but constitutes a highly specialized and uniquely constrained form of dialogue, then we can appreciate how important it is to arrive at some clear idea as to what this method is and what its assumptions are. Further, it is important to know how this method is related to: (1) a body of confirmatory or supportive evidence, and (2) particular applications in a given case (technique).
KeywordsConvergent Evidence Subliminal Stimulus Subliminal Perception Previous Office American Psychoanalytic Association
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Basch, M. Perception consciousness in Freud’s ‘Project’. Annual Psychoanalysis, 1975, in press.Google Scholar
- Dixon, N. F. Subliminal perception: Nature of a controversy. London: McGraw-Hill, 1971.Google Scholar
- Freud, S. (1895). Project for a scientific psychology. Standard Edition, 1: 283–344. London: Hogarth Press, 1966.Google Scholar
- Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id. Standard Edition, 19:3–63. London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
- Libet, B., Alberts, W. W., Wright, E. W., & Feinstein, B. Cortical and thalamic activation in conscious sensory experience. Neurophysiology Studied in Man. Proceedings of a symposium held in Paris at the Faculte des Sciences, July 20–22, 1971.Google Scholar
- Luborsky, L. Forgetting and remembering (momentary forgetting) during psychotherapy: A new sample. Psychological Issues, 1973, Monograph 30: 29–55. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
- Ramzy, I. & Shevrin, H. The nature of the inference process in psychoanalytic interpretations: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1975.Google Scholar
- Rapaport, D. The scientific methodology of psychoanalysis. In Collected papers of David Rapaport. New York: McGill, 1944.Google Scholar
- Silverman, L. H. On the role of laboratory experiments in the development of the clinical theory of psychoanalysis: Data on the subliminal activation of aggressive and merging wishes in schizophrenics. International Review of Psychoanalysis, 1975, 2:43–64.Google Scholar