| Part of a series of articles on |
| Psychoanalysis |
|---|
.jpeg) |
Interpersonal psychoanalysis is based on the theories of American psychiatrist Harry Stack Sullivan (1892–1949). Sullivan believed that the details of a patient's interpersonal interactions with others can provide insight into the causes and cures of mental disorder. [1] [2]
Current practitioners stress such features as the detailed description of clinical experience, the mutuality of the interpersonal process, and the not-knowing of the analyst. [3]
Sullivan and the neo-Freudians
Along with other neo-Freudian practitioners of interpersonal psychoanalysis, such as Horney, Fromm, Thompson and Fromm-Reichman, Sullivan repudiated Freudian drive theory. [4]
They, like Sullivan, also shared the interdisciplinary emphasis that was to be an important part of the legacy of interpersonal psychoanalysis, influencing counsellors, clergymen, social workers and more. [5]
Selective inattention
Sullivan proposed that patients could keep certain aspects or components of their interpersonal relationships out of their awareness by a psychological behavior described as selective inattention - a term that has to a degree passed into common usage.
A defence mechanism that functions prior to psychological repression, and acts by way of blocking all notice of the threat in question, selective inattention can also be accompanied by selective non-participation. [6]
Both defences as used by patients may be usefully identified by the analyst through examination of his/her countertransference. [7]
Personifications
Sullivan emphasized that psychotherapists' analyses should focus on patients' relationships and personal interactions in order to obtain knowledge of what he called personifications – one's internalised views of self and others, one's internal schemata. [8]
Such analyses would consist of detailed questioning regarding moment-to-moment personal interactions, even including those with the analyst himself.
Personifications can form the basis for what Sullivan called parataxic distortions of the interpersonal field – distortions similar to those described as the products of transference and projective identification in orthodox psychoanalysis. [9] As with the latter, parataxic distortion can, if identified by the analyst, prove fruitful clues to the nature of the patient's inner world. [10]
Criticism
Sullivan has been criticised for inventing (sometimes opaque) neologisms for established psychoanalytic concepts, to claim a perhaps spurious intellectual independence. [11]
See also
References
- ^ Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
- ^ Evans, F. Barton (1996). Harry Stack Sullivan: Interpersonal Theory and Psychotherapy. London: Routledge.
- ^ Arthur H. Feiner, Interpersonal Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Relevance (2000) p. 22-6 and p. 44
- ^ Paul Brinich/Christopher Shelley, The Self and Personality Structure (Buckingham 2002) p. 65
- ^ Brinich, Self p. 64
- ^ A. & J. Rosen, Frozen Dreams (2005) p. 108 and 115
- ^ Rosen, p. 104
- ^ Paul Brinich/Christopher Shelley, The Self and Personality Structure (Buckingham 2002) p. 65
- ^ Brinich, Self p. 65
- ^ S. R. Welt/W. G. Herron, Narcissism and the Psychotherapist (1990) p. 121-2
- ^ B. F. Evans, in Brinich, Self p. 65
Further reading
- Curtis, R. C. & Hirsch, I. (2003). Relational Approaches to Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy. In Gurman, A. G. & Messer, S. B. Essential Psychotherapies. NY: Guilford.
- Curtis, R. C. (2008). Desire, Self, Mind & the Psychotherapies. Unifying Psychological Science and Psychoanalysis. Lanham, MD & New York: Jason Aronson.
- D. B. Stern/C. H. Mann eds., Pioneers of Interpersonal Psychoanalysis (1995)
| Part of a series of articles on |
| Psychoanalysis |
|---|
|
|
Interpersonal psychoanalysis is based on the theories of American psychiatrist Harry Stack Sullivan (1892–1949). Sullivan believed that the details of a patient's interpersonal interactions with others can provide insight into the causes and cures of mental disorder. [1] [2]
Current practitioners stress such features as the detailed description of clinical experience, the mutuality of the interpersonal process, and the not-knowing of the analyst. [3]
Sullivan and the neo-Freudians
Along with other neo-Freudian practitioners of interpersonal psychoanalysis, such as Horney, Fromm, Thompson and Fromm-Reichman, Sullivan repudiated Freudian drive theory. [4]
They, like Sullivan, also shared the interdisciplinary emphasis that was to be an important part of the legacy of interpersonal psychoanalysis, influencing counsellors, clergymen, social workers and more. [5]
Selective inattention
Sullivan proposed that patients could keep certain aspects or components of their interpersonal relationships out of their awareness by a psychological behavior described as selective inattention - a term that has to a degree passed into common usage.
A defence mechanism that functions prior to psychological repression, and acts by way of blocking all notice of the threat in question, selective inattention can also be accompanied by selective non-participation. [6]
Both defences as used by patients may be usefully identified by the analyst through examination of his/her countertransference. [7]
Personifications
Sullivan emphasized that psychotherapists' analyses should focus on patients' relationships and personal interactions in order to obtain knowledge of what he called personifications – one's internalised views of self and others, one's internal schemata. [8]
Such analyses would consist of detailed questioning regarding moment-to-moment personal interactions, even including those with the analyst himself.
Personifications can form the basis for what Sullivan called parataxic distortions of the interpersonal field – distortions similar to those described as the products of transference and projective identification in orthodox psychoanalysis. [9] As with the latter, parataxic distortion can, if identified by the analyst, prove fruitful clues to the nature of the patient's inner world. [10]
Criticism
Sullivan has been criticised for inventing (sometimes opaque) neologisms for established psychoanalytic concepts, to claim a perhaps spurious intellectual independence. [11]
See also
References
- ^ Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
- ^ Evans, F. Barton (1996). Harry Stack Sullivan: Interpersonal Theory and Psychotherapy. London: Routledge.
- ^ Arthur H. Feiner, Interpersonal Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Relevance (2000) p. 22-6 and p. 44
- ^ Paul Brinich/Christopher Shelley, The Self and Personality Structure (Buckingham 2002) p. 65
- ^ Brinich, Self p. 64
- ^ A. & J. Rosen, Frozen Dreams (2005) p. 108 and 115
- ^ Rosen, p. 104
- ^ Paul Brinich/Christopher Shelley, The Self and Personality Structure (Buckingham 2002) p. 65
- ^ Brinich, Self p. 65
- ^ S. R. Welt/W. G. Herron, Narcissism and the Psychotherapist (1990) p. 121-2
- ^ B. F. Evans, in Brinich, Self p. 65
Further reading
- Curtis, R. C. & Hirsch, I. (2003). Relational Approaches to Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy. In Gurman, A. G. & Messer, S. B. Essential Psychotherapies. NY: Guilford.
- Curtis, R. C. (2008). Desire, Self, Mind & the Psychotherapies. Unifying Psychological Science and Psychoanalysis. Lanham, MD & New York: Jason Aronson.
- D. B. Stern/C. H. Mann eds., Pioneers of Interpersonal Psychoanalysis (1995)