The last post on "(a)traumatization in silence" ended with a question: What about being in silence [with this woman] is so un(bare)able? Why are therapists compelled to talk about what just happened? Because that is what we are supposed to do?
When I first started reading psychoanalytic literature, I was drawn to intersubjectivity theory and then eventually, interpersonal theory (post-Sullivan). Part of this was likely due to the availability the literature, but even more so, American capitalist/psychological culture told me that is what I should do. I was drawn into believing that a relationship can solve any problem and as a therapist and that I held the key in the therapeutic dyad to heal others. Although I have never been drawn to self-help books (thank god), this kind of narcissism, ignorance, and belief in an "easy (relational) fix" still existed inside of me. It is safe to say that I had forgotten nearly all of my undergraduate philosophy and critical theory training, which I am horrified to admit.
What about interpersonal theory is so alluring? I recently finished Penis Envy and Other Bad Feelings by Mari Ruti. I love Dr. Ruti's writing but this book really hit home for me. Though she does not talk about interpersonal theory specifically (that I am aware of), her unique take on critical and feminist theories fit with how I have been thinking about the "relational turn" in the United States. Among many great topics in the book, she discusses the fantasy of complementarity. To be very clear, there is a deep-seated, ingrained belief, even in feminist circles, in the complementarity of gender; even those who are radically opposed to this are collared by capitalism that exploits single living, those who want to wear sexy, revealing outfits, and anything aimed at the "single-feminist." That argument aside, in what way is interpersonal theory any different than a fantasy of complementarity? Interpersonal theory, in my (likely unpopular) opinion, is yet another example of biopolitcal conditioning, a social ideology that has swept through much of psychodynamic psychotherapy (and perhaps even psychoanalysis) in the United States.
The "interpersonal" echos the rationalization of intimacy, a marriage, if you will. The relationship is strengthened through time, uncovering enactments, making the analysand feel better, and then she goes home as a newly-enlightened person; affects (allegedly) are contextual, which allows for an exploration of how they develop within the dyad, through a mechanism that mimics the perfect fit (complementarity) of a lock and key. However, how do we begin to work with patients who differ from us? In what way are we stuck within our ideology, which unfolds with patients as repeated ideological misattunements?
Perception simply cannot occur in isolation. It is necessary to move beyond our perception of the space between and look at how our patients (and we) relate to others and their difference. We cannot assume that things appear the same to us as it does our patients.
-cg