Passions of the Mind: Unheard Melodies: a Third Principle of Mental Functioning 9780814723470

Citation preview

Passions o f th e Min d

Passions o f th e Min d Unheard Melodies : A Third Principle o f Menta l Functionin g

Harold N . Bori s

n

New Yor k Universit y Pres s New Yor k an d Londo n

NEW YOR K UNIVERSIT Y PRES S New Yor k an d Londo n Copyright © 199 3 by Harol d N . Bori s All right s reserve d Library o f Congres s Cataloging-in-Publicatio n Dat a Boris, Harol d N. , 1932 Passions o f th e Mind : unhear d melodie s : the thir d principl e o f menta l functionin g / Harold N . Boris , p. cm . Includes bibliographica l reference s an d index . ISBN 0-8147-1204- 5 (acid-fre e paper ) 1. Psychoanalysis—Philosophy . 2 . Sociobiology . I . Title . RC506.B64 199 3 150.19'5—dc20 93-1508 4 CIP New Yor k Universit y Pres s book s ar e printe d o n acid-fre e paper , and thei r bindin g material s ar e chose n fo r strengt h an d durability . Manufactured i n th e Unite d State s o f Americ a 10

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1

Heard melodie s ar e sweet , bu t thos e unhear d Are sweeter ; Therefore, y e sof t pipes , play on ; Not t o th e sensua l ear , but , mor e endear'd , Pipe t o th e spiri t dittie s o f n o tone . — J O H N KEAT S

Ode on a Grecian Urn

Contents

Foreword b y Michae l Eige n i x Acknowledgments xvi i Part One Paradoxe s an d Paradigm s Introduction 3 1. Th e Couple and th e Pair 1 5 2. Th e Couple, the Pair, and th e Group 3 2 3. Payin g Attentio n 4 4 4. A Selection Principl e 6 0 5. Th e Present , th e Absent , an d th e Presenc e of th e Absenc e 7 6 6. Intimation s 9 5 7. Realizatio n 11 5 8. O n Influenc e 13 0 9. Selectio n an d Choic e 14 4

vn

viii Contents Part Two S e s s i o n Introduction 16

s

7

10. Session : Monda y 17

8

11. Session : Tuesda y 18

7

12. Session : Wednesda y 19 13. Session : Saturda y 19

0 5

14. Session : Monda y 20 0 15. Session : Tuesda y 20 9 16. Session : Wednesda y 21 6 17. Session : Frida y 22 3 18. Session : Monda y 23 4 19. Session : Wednesda y 23 9 20. Session : Thursda y 25 1 21. Session : Frida y 25 7 Part Three C o n c l u s i o

n

22. Conclusio n 27 1 Table o f [Kaleidoscopic ] Element s 27 9 References 28 Index 28 9

1

Foreword

I onc e spen t a wonderfu l s u m m e r wit h a jaz z pianis t wh o tol d m e he spen t muc h o f hi s lif e jus t playing , an d onl y later , whe n h e needed t o teach , di d h e tr y t o figure ou t wha t h e di d whe n h e played. I suspec t Harol d Bori s spen t muc h o f hi s lif e figuring ou t what h e di d a s h e wen t along , bu t th e playin g i s ther e first, an d the thinkin g i s p a r t o f th e playing . Wha t Bori s play s i s psychoan alytic musi c an d hi s thinkin g create s a scor e fo r th e note s tha t keep pourin g ou t o f him . In hi s introduction , h e fasten s o n the kaleidoscope a s a n organiz ing image . Ne w configuration s com e int o vie w wit h eac h turn . Boris ha s a lus t fo r turnin g th e kaleidoscop e a hairbreadt h a t a time, an d relishe s th e startlin g shift s eac h tur n make s t o th e tex ture o f our beings . "A roo m look s ver y differen t t o a smal l bo y wit h a shin y ne w black an d chrom e h a m m e r i n hi s h a n d tha n i t doe s late r tha t night whe n h e canno t fal l asleep, " Boris writes . The psychoanalys t shares th e smal l boy' s journe y betwee n for m an d formlessness , between assuranc e an d uncertainty , betwee n jo y an d dread . Con figurations shif t i n perceptual , emotional , an d intellectua l ways . A wonderful thin g abou t thi s boo k i s tha t Bori s i s tru e t o th e living experience o f psychoanalysis , th e livin g experienc e tha t psycho analysis is . I n Boris' s hands , no t onl y doe s psychoanalysi s com e alive i n ne w ways , bu t throug h hi s psychoanalyti c kaleidoscope / prism/laser beam , lif e itsel f gain s i n intensity . The ton e o f thi s boo k i s bot h seriou s an d puckish . I t i s tinge d IX

x Foreword with blac k humo r an d irony . A profound appreciatio n fo r tragic comic element s o f lif e pervade s it . I t i s filled wit h pla y o f mean ings, hin t addin g t o hint , overton e t o undertone . Th e snak e o f meaning neve r stop s undulating , bu t i s not merel y cleve r or cute . Meaning grow s ou t o f affectiv e context s tha t ar e lif e an d deat h matters. Thi s boo k i s a min d t o mind , nave l t o nave l affair . I t tingles wit h automati c aliveness , laceratin g intuitions , an d sear ing questions tha t kee p psychoanalytic livin g open . The Great Twins or Counterparts Boris's forma l conceptua l framewor k i s in th e traditio n o f "polar ity theories," which emphasiz e interpla y o f dualities. One force o r principle opposes , offsets, balances , contribute s t o it s "opposite. " Such a framewor k i s inherentl y dramatic , sinc e i t chart s shiftin g relationships betwee n character s wit h differen t agenda s o r pro grams. Growth depend s on tension interweavin g betwee n compet ing claims. Boris's great twin s or counterparts o r dramatis personae ar e th e selection an d pleasur e principles , especiall y a s the y wor k vi a th e pair an d couple . The selection (pair ) and pleasur e (couple ) princi ples carr y int o th e psychologica l real m somethin g o f tropis m i n biology. The y functio n a s predisposition s t o organiz e experienc e along specifi c relationa l lines . Fo r example , th e pleasur e o r lust principle i s associate d wit h appetit e an d gratificatio n now: whe n gripped b y lus t on e ma y b e quit e willin g t o compromis e stan dards. Th e selectio n principl e involve s th e tendenc y t o hol d ou t for idea l satisfaction . Hunger's wis h t o mat e i s inimica l t o th e wis h t o mat e perfectly ; th e wish for perfection mus t b e appeased too . (137-38) We ar e no t merel y t o live , bu t t o liv e well ; no t merel y t o bree d bu t breed well . When Mr . or Ms. Right No w i s also Mr. or Ms. Right, hop e and desir e fuse , th e Pair an d Couple integrate , selectio n need s an d needs to choose and b e chosen are all met, and th e baby and th e futur e converge. (277)

How wonderfu l i t i s whe n selectio n need s an d pleasur e need s converge. S o ofte n the y ar e antagonistic , conflictual , seemingl y

Foreword x

i

irreconcilable. W e ar e luck y indee d whe n the y wor k togethe r i n ways w e ca n sa y ye s to . Bori s suggest s man y way s thes e tenden cies counte r eac h other , a sor t o f divisio n o f labor , an d ad d t o th e richness (i f difficult y an d complexity ) o f living . Fo r example , th e interplay o f hope an d desire : The ter m Couple carries th e valenc y o f th e pleasure-pai n principle ; i t is based o n appetitiv e desir e an d i t seek s repletion . Th e ter m Pair . . . [is] rooted i n hope an d seek[s ] closure an d completion . In th e states of mind Couple vs . Pair, one' s presumptiv e o r actua l partne r look s a s different a s the room di d i n th e earlier example . These paradigmati c state s o f mind— Couple an d Pair, pleasure an d selection—live a paradoxical existence . They compete, and, in compet ing, offset , modify , an d coalesc e wit h on e another . Hop e ( a leadin g element i n th e Pair), for example , keep s th e desir e i n Coupling fro m being merel y propinquitous . Hope' s choosines s call s desir e t o "finer " possibilities. Desire coerces hope from foreve r studyin g (i f not writing ) the men u o f possibility. I t wil l b e readil y see n tha t time/spac e wil l b e quite different relativ e t o the convergence o f the two. (8) Coupling feed s o n difference , ofte n complementarines s (fo r ex ample, complement s o f elongations-openings , suc h a s mouth-nip ple, penis-vagina , baby-uterus , an d th e man y imaginativ e var iants). Pairin g feed s o n samenes s ( a moto r o f grou p togetherness) . Boris's chapter s ar e replet e wit h way s sameness-differenc e in forms clinica l work , h u m a n relationship s i n general , an d biosocia l structures. Specia l treat s fo r th e clinicia n includ e discussion s o f anorexia, psychosis , an d a variet y o f narcissisti c an d borderlin e problems. Mor e generally , thi s boo k i s filled wit h generou s por trayals o f sexua l warfar e an d problem s involvin g goodnes s o r perfection o f fit. Of th e man y ric h discussion s o f clinica l issues , I woul d lik e t o single ou t on e o f specia l importanc e t o me . Bori s suggest s tha t a sense o f idea l samenes s i n Pairing play s a n importan t rol e i n identity formation . H e hearken s bac k t o hint s i n Freu d tha t som e sort o f primary identificatio n precede s loss . Identification i s no t simpl y a secondar y defensiv e operatio n (although i t ma y be) , bu t a primar y mod e o f being , a significant , originary stat e i n it s ow n right , a stat e o f heightene d affectiv e cognition. W e gro w throug h identifications . W e mov e fro m identi -

xii Foreword fication t o identificatio n lik e steppin g stones . Identificatio n play s a primar y an d positiv e rol e i n wh o w e ar e an d ho w w e live . At th e sam e tim e w e ca n b e cripple d b y identification s an d ou r identificatory capacity . Wha t a n amazin g capacit y thi s is , t o ex perience other s a s ourselves , ourselve s a s others . W e twis t our selves ou t o f shap e wit h ou r identifications , an d twis t ourselve s out o f shap e fighting them . Bori s suggest s tha t earl y identit y for mation ca n g o awr y becaus e o f deleteriou s identifications , whic h misdirect psychi c development . Thes e ar e no t merel y substitut e formations bu t mishap s a t th e cor e o f th e personality' s abilit y t o process experience . Boris give s man y example s o f way s peopl e sor t experienc e vi a couple an d pai r paradigms . Couplin g make s us e o f our capacit y t o compare an d contrast . Pairin g make s us e o f ou r capacit y t o leve l differences. Whe n thes e tw o wor k well , lif e open s u p . A wrong tur n or war p i n unconsciou s sortin g processe s ca n poiso n th e "feel " o f a life , withou t th e perso n bein g abl e t o finger wha t i s off . Boris offer s hi s term s a s counter s fo r furthe r discussio n rathe r than a s dogmas . H e offer s perspective s o n ho w th e psych e struc tures an d reshuffle s experience . H e make s u s understan d an d fee l what i t i s lik e t o liv e i n th e worl d o f th e couple , an d th e worl d o f the pair , an d th e importanc e o f movin g betwee n them . As with Couple, so with Pair: each exists at the expense of the other, each exists as an alternative to the other, each functions to modify the other, to provide freedo m an d choic e and relationa l possibilit y withi n th e shift ing adaptational parameter s of one another's constraints . Add "between " t o "within, " s o as t o underline, i n Boris' s words , "the paradoxica l dialecti c betwee n p a r a d i g m s " (150) . The Right to Live What happen s whe n a n infan t doe s no t fee l selecte d b y th e pair , or chose n b y th e couple ? A n infan t tha t doe s no t fit int o earl y pairing o r couplin g processe s ma y fee l of f th e m a p personally , socially, sexually , eve n outsid e th e species . Th e proble m a fetu s may hav e a s t o whethe r i t ough t t o b e bor n o r no t i s mor e tha n matched b y th e newborn' s dilemm a a s t o whethe r i t ough t t o grow, o r b e a t all .

Foreword xii

i

Boris sharpen s discussio n o f fit/lack o f fi t betwee n parent s an d offspring, b y bringin g ou t unevennes s an d variabilit y betwee n pairing an d couplin g processes . Th e chil d an d paren t ma y fai l each other' s need s fo r samenes s and/o r differenc e i n gros s an d subtle ways . Th e sens e o f bein g u n w a n t e d (o r wanted-unwanted ) can b e broke n dow n int o way s pairin g an d couplin g processe s work o r fai l t o work . On e ca n fee l onesel f comin g t o lif e i n on e realm, a n d dyin g ou t i n th e other , no w needin g samenes s t o thrive , now needin g difference . The Right to Live and the Selection Principle For Bori s i t i s especiall y importan t whethe r o r no t th e individua l is selecte d i n th e Pair (Group ) t o flouris h an d propagate . T o lov e and b e love d i n th e Couple i s no t enough . On e ma y b e jealou s i n the couple , bu t env y arise s i n pair-grou p deficit s an d inequities . Motivation i n th e coupl e i s egoistic , sensuous , pleasure-ori ented. Grou p motivatio n work s vicariousl y vi a identification s ("social-istic"). Th e specie s put s it s weigh t o n th e sid e o f th e group. Identification s on e ha s an d ho w the y wor k ar e p a r t o f th e essential mechanic s o f grou p (species ) survival . Th e uni t o f sur vival i s th e group , an d i f on e doe s no t hav e th e " r i g h t " identifica tions workin g i n " r i g h t " ways , on e i s (or feels ) lost . More broadly , Bori s feel s h e ca n predic t whe n group s hol d an d split b y discernin g whe n internalization s ar e use d fo r identit y formation an d whe n fo r objec t relation s o f a differen t kind . H e argues tha t alternativ e hypothese s (e.g. , "reality " an d " d e a t h " principles) d o no t hav e th e sam e economics . Ther e i s muc h t o think throug h here . A Note on Psychic Deadness Many page s i n thi s boo k portra y psychoanalyti c session s dealin g with psychi c deadness . On e get s a fee l fo r patient s battlin g fo r their righ t t o live , flicker s o f alivenes s risin g an d fallin g i n dea d seas. On e get s a sens e o f w h a t patien t an d analys t ar e u p agains t when neithe r feel s wante d b y th e other , whe n couplin g an d pair ing processe s fal l flat o r wor k agains t eac h other . Boris portray s associativ e stream s o f patient s i n sessions , bu t

xiv Foreword he als o portray s th e analyst's associativ e streams . What emerge s is a sense of both patient an d analyst fighting fo r life agains t grea t odds. The analyst's struggl e i s not only with th e patient an d him self, bu t als o wit h hi s grou p an d profession . Bori s trenchantl y portrays way s tha t assumption s whic h mak e fo r professional unit y can deade n analyti c work . H e shows ho w the analyst bot h nour ishes an d deaden s himsel f (an d his patients) b y necessary tie s t o professional groups . The group itself is torn apart and nourished by variable pairing coupling need s an d difficulties . Fo r example , th e psychoanalyti c group a s a whol e struggle s wit h societ y fo r recognition . I t mus t deal with wanting and not being wanted i n varying keys. The bab y calle d psychoanalysi s struggle s fo r surviva l i n man y ways, o n man y levels , withi n an d outsid e itself : i n individua l sessions, and larger societal processes. Psychic aliveness cannot be taken fo r granted , bu t i s a preciou s gif t tha t mus t b e carefull y nourished. Life at the Boundaries The major influenc e o n Boris was the psychoanalyst Wilfre d Bion . Bion wa s concerned wit h th e struggle fo r aliveness agains t dead ening processe s withi n an d between personalitie s an d groups. Bion treated group s a s individuals an d individuals a s groups. He elucidated way s individuals/group s foun d alivenes s dangerou s an d how dangerous feelin g aliv e ca n be. He showed ho w psychic alivenes s is evacuated , kille d of f o r spoiled , o r neve r come s t o be . Bion' s message i s pertinent today , whe n evacuativ e product s o f civilization threate n t o poison life . Like on e of his heros , Socrates , Bio n value d ignorance . What ever h e "knew, " h e kne w h e didn' t kno w more . H e "knew " hi s knowings wer e structure d b y individual , biological , an d grou p selection processes . Bion wa s not only keenl y awar e o f the man y hands o n the elephant, bu t also that th e elephant keep s changing . Something original keeps coming through openness, in spite of the odds against it . Boris, lik e Bion , live s originar y openness . H e i s tru e t o th e creative momen t i n psychoanalytic experience . Freud-Klei n line s of associatio n permeat e hi s sessions . We feel th e sexual intensit y

Foreword x v of primal scen e an d oedipa l musings , an d struggle s aroun d nour ishment. A t th e sam e tim e eroti c imager y interlace s wit h evolu tionary ideas , especiall y depiction s o f ho w "selection " work s i n genetics and neurolog y (May r 1982 ; Edelman 1987) . If Bion reache d into religion, astronomy, an d physic s fo r intuitiv e model s fo r psy choanalytic visions , Boris i s drawn t o evolutionary genetics , biol ogy, and neurology . Wit h a tur n o f th e Borisia n kaleidoscope , w e see selectio n processe s bus y a t ever y regio n o f being . Selectio n problems ru n throug h lif e at al l levels: erotics, aesthetics, politics, ethics, how and what on e sees and experiences . At time s Boris' s page s ar e lik e actio n paintings , s o man y im pulses, voices, and attitudes havin g a say. He shares with us twist s and turn s of the human psych e as he knows it, as it speaks throug h him an d hi s patients. Guiding structure s crystalliz e ou t of the flux of experience. One thrills t o inklings of hidden orde r i n the flow of events. Bori s refuse s t o compromis e hi s dedicatio n t o th e livin g moment, an d t o ordering processe s he finds there . MICHAEL EIGE N

Acknowledgments

For permissio n t o quot e entir e passages , wher e I fel t tha t th e writer wa s th e cleares t sourc e ther e is , I a m indebte d t o Donal d Meltzer fo r The Kleinian Development, Part III, Basi c Book s fo r Gerald Edelman' s Neural Darwinism, Harvar d Universit y Pres s fo r Ernst Mayr' s The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance, D . Marcu s Beac h fo r Windows of Insanity, and Francesc a Bio n fo r graciousl y givin g m e permissio n t o quot e from th e entir e W . R . Bio n oeuvre. Francesc a brough t Wilfred' s Cogitations fo r m e t o rea d whe n i t wa s stil l unedite d i n typescript : I a m happ y no w t o quot e fro m i t i n print . Ther e i s fa r mor e t o Beach's manuscrip t tha n I have quoted ; h e i s considering workin g it u p fo r publication . M y menta l discussion s wit h Bion , whos e thinking ha s bee n o f th e first importanc e t o me , hav e provide d much o f th e materia l ou t o f whic h I write thi s book . For thei r part s i n discussion s o f variou s o f th e idea s i n thi s book, I wish t o than k Gerr y Adler , Ki t Bollas , Neil an d Eva n Boris , Dan Buie , Michae l Casendino , Mik e Eigen , Edwar d Emery , Mar jorie Carte r L a Rowe , Terr y Maltsberger , And y Morrison , Pau l Myerson, Ada m Phillips—an d others . Edwar d Emer y rea d por tions o f thi s boo k whe n i n manuscrip t an d he , Eigen , Feiner , Grotstein, an d Lesto n Haven s provide d introduction s t o o r discus sions o f m y presentation s t o th e variou s institution s o r societie s with whic h the y ar e respectivel y affiliated . I offe r specia l thank s t o Kitt y Moore . No t onl y di d sh e find a home fo r thi s book , bu t staye d wit h i t a s it s editor . To Caro l Lounsberr y Boris , wh o wrot e s o muc h o f i t wit h me , I a m please d a s punc h t o dedicat e thi s book . xvn

Introduction

The idea s pu t forwar d i n thi s boo k starte d ou t a s interpretation s in the psychoanalytic consultin g room. I illustrate thei r derivatio n and us e i n th e secon d par t o f thi s book . Som e reader s ma y wan t to read tha t sectio n first, returnin g t o the first part , a s the y woul d to the discussion sectio n o f a clinical paper . I d o no t begi n ther e mysel f becaus e s o muc h happen s i n a session tha t makin g an y sens e o f i t a t al l require s selection — requires, metaphoricall y speaking , frameworks , receptors , o r lenses. Th e purpos e o f interpretatio n i s t o provid e th e circum stances b y whic h a patien t ca n experience , indeed , re-experience , life throug h suc h alternative set s of realizations. The purpos e o f writin g theor y i s different . Writin g theor y and , as i n thi s case , metapsychology , mak e the system o f interpretiv e realizations itsel f discernible . Graduall y som e o f wha t I foun d myself sayin g t o patient s an d other s ove r th e year s bega n t o b e visible t o m e a s containin g particula r perspective s tha t travele d from patien t t o patient . A s I began, i n variou s papers , t o writ e o f these perspectives , the y seeme d t o becom e paradigm s an d para doxes tha t togethe r refashione d som e o f ou r curren t psychoanal ytical dialectic s (Bori s forthcomin g a) . O n stil l furthe r analysis , they seeme d t o me t o prescribe a principle i n the sense that Freu d used tha t ter m i n hi s essa y "Formulation s o n th e Tw o Principle s of Mental Functioning' ' (1911). These perspective s d o no t concer n ne w facts , bu t curren t fact s juxtaposed i n slightl y ne w configurations . Ne w development s i n 3

4 Introduction science ofte n follo w fro m ne w instrumentation . M y instrument o f discovery migh t b e sai d t o b e th e kaleidoscope . Ol d an d durabl e facts impl y ol d an d durabl e relationship s betwee n them . Th e turn s of th e kaleidoscop e whic h revea l ne w relationship s are , a s Kuh n (1962) an d other s hav e demonstrated , potentiall y generativ e o f new facts . A room look s very differen t t o a small bo y with a shin y new black an d chrom e hamme r i n his hand tha n i t doe s later tha t night whe n he cannot fal l asleep . The behavio r an d experience s o f peopl e loo k rathe r differen t when viewe d psychoanalyticall y fro m th e wa y the y see m fro m a different, sa y a n economi c o r a biochemical , perspective . Withi n psychoanalysis, ther e ar e school s an d tradition s fro m whic h th e "same" datum, i f there is such a thing, also looks widely different . For example , a n explanatio n tha t include s a death instinc t make s a differen t construction , eve n withi n th e object-relation s poin t o f view, fro m explanation s simpl y dealin g wit h aggressio n o r hate . At on e poin t I wrot e o f peopl e I ha d see n (e.g. , th e anorecti c o r bulimic patient ) thinkin g tha t i t wa s the y wh o carrie d th e differ ence t o which I wished t o dra w attention . No w I am writin g a s if the distinctio n la y no t i n th e "cases, " bu t i n th e perspective s I take o n people . Th e kaleidoscopi c shif t I a m introducin g i n th e pages tha t follo w feature s a thir d principl e whic h I a m callin g a selection principle . This can b e thought o f in three ways. One is that ther e is such a thing a s a selectio n principle . Anothe r i s tha t i t i s onl y tru e tha t people act as if there wer e one. The third i s that wha t w e think o r how w e ac t i s a n approximation , goo d o r poor , o f somethin g els e entirely. I d o no t doub t tha t thos e wh o fee l a theor y o r a n amal gam o f theorie s alread y explain s huma n psycholog y wil l fee l im patient wit h my proposal for rethinking motivations. But as I shall hope t o mak e clear , founde r a s i t migh t o n explanation s alread y serenely i n place, the questio n onc e asked i s not s o simply wishe d away. Suppose tha t peopl e do act i n accordance t o this third, or selection, principle. Does tha t contribut e som e functiona l adaptabilit y to th e natur e o f things ? Ho w migh t on e describ e tha t adaptiv e function? On e would, I think, have to say that thos e species whic h survive toda y hav e inherited a choosiness i n respect t o their activ ity—a choosines s i n whic h thos e deeme d mos t fit ar e favore d no t

Introduction 5 merely, passively, by an "asteroid"-natur e i n th e ecological sense , but b y havin g mad e a serie s o f bioactiv e choice s i n th e socia l milieu—particularly thos e influencin g reproductiv e choic e an d the rearin g o f progeny . Ho w woul d suc h a syste m o f preference s make itsel f manifest ? I n man y creature s b y a kin d o f geneti c programming tha t lead s the m i n som e sens e t o the better an d th e best. Ho w d o the y kno w whic h choic e i s better ? The y don't . I t i s necessary merel y t o suppos e the y ar e "wired " t o prefer on e thin g or event ove r another. Better, fo r example , might b e (and often is ) bigger or mor e vivid, in whatever wa y thos e trait s migh t b e mad e manifest. Suppos e suc h a built-i n tropis m fo r whateve r i s bigge r or mor e vita l o r som e othe r kin d o f "er-ier " wer e no t i n place ? Then reproduction woul d return, as it were, squarely t o chance. There are species whose reproduction quickl y reflects "asteroid " changes in the ecology: guppies previously trouble d b y the chicli d alone, whic h consume s onl y larg e adul t guppies , wer e place d i n waters i n which residen t predator s at e only the small, young gup pies. I n jus t eleve n years , thirt y t o sixt y generation s later , th e guppies evolve d t o have fewe r an d large r offsprin g (Kolat a 1990) . But creature s lik e ourselve s ma y wel l hav e foun d ou r adaptatio n enhanced by a disposition towar d slower genetic change (cf. Goul d 1987). Moreover, makin g reproductiv e choic e ma y see m t o us bet ter not lef t t o chance, even i f we cannot kno w which se t of choices are the more viable. Consider th e poor pea hen whose "ideal" is so freighted wit h magnificenc e tha t he can barely escape the fox; stil l whatever i n he r says , "Loo k n o further , you r Princ e i s here! " seems t o find validatio n i n th e fac t that , freighte d a s h e is , he r Prince ha s (s o far ) escape d no t onl y th e fox , bu t rival s an d para sites and al l manne r o f things more . If she dreams o f a time whe n sleek an d minima l wil l wi n th e day , sh e ma y no t eve n kno w ho w to pu t tha t drea m t o herself . Bu t whateve r th e dimension—to day's o r tomorrow's—o f th e Peaoni c ideal , sh e i s honor boun d t o fulfill it . Though a n avi d student , I am fa r fro m a n exper t o n evolution ary biology. I rely on others, and quote extensively from , i n particular, May r o n biolog y an d Edelma n o n neurobiology . Thei r theo ries are consonant wit h m y own tha t the key factor i n carrying ou t the syste m i s tha t eac h individua l must offer selective choice t o others an d tha t each must be correspondingly choosy. ( I shall pres -

6 Introduction ently sho w th e implicatio n o f thi s fo r wha t w e thin k o f a s narcis sism an d fo r suicida l depression. ) But her e I a m alread y ahea d o f myself . For I imply , o f course , tha t were ther e suc h a tropis m i n th e natur e o f thing s i t woul d b e psychologically a s wel l a s biologicall y relevant . I n sayin g tha t people ac t a s i f ther e wer e incumbencie s i n thei r selectiv e pro cesses, I a m sayin g tha t biolog y inform s psychology , tha t th e bio logic tropis m i s represente d i n psychologica l disposition s an d functioning. I shal l m a p thi s i n som e detail , particularl y i n th e m a t t e r o f th e wa y w e selectivel y atten d t o experience , an d b y thi s means creat e (edi t an d destroy ) ou r experientia l world . I shall als o try t o sho w a kin d o f universa l occupatio n wit h th e tw o ke y ele ments withi n suc h a predilection : a n aesthetic , havin g t o d o wit h the celebratio n o f th e tru e an d th e beautiful ; an d a metaphysic s having t o d o wit h th e ideal . I will anticipat e mysel f her e b y notin g the possibl e relevanc e o f th e fac t tha t ther e i s n o know n cultur e without a religio n o r a kinshi p syste m (Bori s 1976) . On e shoul d also hav e t o suppos e tha t sinc e th e questio n o f selectiv e breedin g is oriente d t o surviva l i n th e generation s t o come , thes e aesthetic s and ideal s woul d concer n a generationa l lif e afte r thi s one . On e would als o suppos e ther e woul d b e scientifi c theorie s lik e th e on e I a m her e advancing . Bu t fo r al l intent s an d purposes , ther e ar e not. Thi s woul d sugges t eithe r tha t I a m talkin g throug h m y ha t or tha t muc h o f what I am allegin g w e experienc e i s not ordinaril y apprehensible. Th e latte r woul d mak e th e cas e fo r writin g a book . A w o m an speak s o f a m a n sh e me t a t a party . Wha t sh e doe s not say i s this : Sh e walk s int o th e party . Wha t doe s sh e do ? Sh e checks he r hair , dres s an d makeu p a t th e first mirro r sh e sees . She the n look s no t s o muc h a t wh o i s there , bu t a t wha t th e other wome n ar e wearing . Sh e hope s t o b e neithe r over - no r under-dressed. Sh e hope s sh e i s no t wearin g "someon e else's " dress—more, even , perhaps , tha n sh e hope s n o on e els e i s wear ing hers . I n lik e wa y sh e qualifie s th e peopl e sh e sees , an d the n heads o r allow s hersel f t o b e brough t t o thos e wit h w h o m sh e feels sh e ha s somethin g i n common . T o further find o r establis h things i n commo n wil l occup y som e time . I t wil l onl y b e afte r this tha t sh e an d he r newfoun d frien d wil l fee l fre e t o ventur e

Introduction 7 onto thei r differences . I f sh e i s intereste d i n meetin g a man , sh e follows muc h th e sam e course , movin g fro m commonl y hel d factors, slowl y ont o differences , o f whic h no t th e least , bu t usually th e last , wil l b e thei r respectiv e sexes . It i s possibl e t o reflec t tha t th e w o m a n ha s sai d nothin g o f thi s because sh e i s u n a w a r e o f it—despit e th e anxietie s an d bit s o f e m b a r r a s s m e n t th e occasio n gav e he r t o feel . Sh e coul d describ e it, a s late r sh e did , an d sh e coul d understan d i t i n he r ow n lif e history, bu t sh e coul d no t explai n it . Sh e "presented " bu t th e analyst wasn' t quit e abl e t o ge t hol d o f it . Whe n h e di d " h e a r " i t and whe n h e looke d beyon d i t further , h e wa s abl e t o se e whic h o f the psychoanalytica l pattern s o r dynamic s i t fit . This , however , left ou t hal f o f it . T o hea r th e othe r hal f h e woul d hav e t o newl y discover ol d ideas . For experienc e i s apprehensibl e onl y whe n attentio n i s pai d it . But attentio n itsel f i s no t i n ou r freehold ; w e canno t pa y i t ou t a t will. Rathe r attentio n i s commandeere d b y deepe r forces . Thes e deeper forces—o r principles—selec t ho w attentio n shal l b e pai d and t o what . Th e " s a m e " element s i n a n experienc e wil l b e expe rienced quit e differentl y dependin g o n whic h forc e o r principl e has take n attentio n int o it s service . W e analyst s ar e traine d t o attend t o ou r patients ' experiences . We encourag e ou r patient s no t to worr y abou t "goin g o n an d o n " an d repeatin g themselve s be cause w e ar e prepare d t o find i n th e " s a m e " materia l ho w firs t certain relationship s com e int o focus , the n others , dependin g o n the stat e o f min d o f th e moment . Thu s wha t fo r ou r patient s seem s at first blus h t o b e mor e o f th e sam e i s fo r u s a n ongoin g revela tion. Ye t ever y analys t know s thos e time s i n whic h nothin g seem s fresh, new , o r leadin g someplace . Sometime s thi s i s a deliberat e contribution o f th e patient . Bu t sometime s i t follow s a n occasio n when w e hav e fel t tha t ther e ha s bee n somethin g presente d tha t we hav e no t quit e bee n abl e t o ge t hol d of . Accordingl y w e hav e given th e patien t th e sam e ol d interpretation , littl e knowin g tha t the (kaleidoscopic ) relationship s betwee n th e bit s o f experienc e had, howeve r minutely , change d withou t ou r changin g wit h them . When somewha t late r w e d o tak e i n th e changes , w e ca n loo k no t only a t t h e m — b u t pas t the m int o th e patternin g o f h u m an nature . Of th e tw o principle s Freu d used , on e propounde d a "proto -

8 Introduction mental" stat e o f min d (an d stat e o f affairs); thi s on e is , of course , the familia r pleasure/pai n (LustlUnlust) principle . Th e othe r ha s been th e realit y principle . Thi s wa s derive d fro m th e pleasur e principle an d wa s no t itsel f roote d directl y i n th e bio-cor e o f ou r being. I now propos e a third , anothe r proto-menta l stat e o f mind , having t o d o wit h a subservienc e t o th e imperative s o f natura l selection edict s in our biological and socia l lives. These principle s an d thei r description s are , of course , abstrac tions, metaphors . The y allud e t o motivation s whic h themselve s are fel t i n quit e differen t set s o f feeling s an d state s o f mind . Th e state o f min d whic h I attemp t t o encompas s withi n th e ter m Couple carrie s th e valenc y o f th e pleasure-pai n principle ; i t i s based o n appetitiv e desir e an d i t seek s repletion . Th e ter m Pair I use to encompass thos e motivation s whic h ar e rooted i n hope an d seek closure and completion . In th e states of mind Couple vs. Pair, one's presumptive o r actual partne r look s as different a s the roo m did i n the earlier example . These paradigmati c state s o f mind— Couple an d Pair, Pleasur e and Selection—liv e a paradoxica l existence . The y compete , and , in competing, off-set, modify , an d coalesce with one another. Hop e (a leadin g elemen t i n th e Pair), for example , keep s th e desir e i n Coupling from being merel y propinquitous . Hope' s choosines s call s desire t o "finer " possibilities . Desir e coerce s hop e fro m foreve r studying (i f not writing ) th e men u o f possibility. It wil l b e readil y seen tha t time/spac e wil l b e quit e differen t relativ e t o the conver gence of the two . Inner an d oute r als o ar e paradigm s i n paradoxica l tension . Looked at in a field theory (Lewin 1951 ) and especially in a general field theory, they can be seen to have spacings and edges that shif t with th e sand s o f moment-to-momen t experience . I f th e urg e t o Couple, geared a s i t i s t o th e discover y an d us e o f differences , i s being requite d i n relation s i n th e worl d o f affairs , inner-objec t relationships wil l gre y ou t an d dim . However , i f th e urg e t o find belonging an d communit y wit h others , tha t i s t o Pair, i s goin g well, the n th e urg e t o exploit difference s ma y be , by wa y o f post ponement, redirecte d t o internalize d objects . Freud's littl e aphor ism—"the ma n wit h a toothach e canno t fal l i n love"—b y wa y of going o n t o sa y tha t analysi s i s impossibl e fo r thos e i n mournin g or in love—expresses par t o f this.

Introduction 9 Psychoanalysis ha s ha d a motivationa l basis : th e polymor phously perverse , psychosexuall y libidinou s i d i n conflic t wit h ingrained force s o f self-preservation. Late r elaborations , lik e Klein' s and Bion's , ar e rathe r mor e anxiety-based : i n Klei n th e deat h instinct an d it s vicissitudes play a major role ; in Bion the inabilit y to suffe r pai n an d anxiet y ar e a t th e core . Interpersona l theorie s like thos e o f Fairbair n an d Sulliva n ar e base d o n a n innat e nee d for objec t relations , an d thei r focu s i s on th e individua l a s a con temporary socia l creature , albei t landlocke d i n time , an d th e dy namics therein . Mor e recentl y ther e hav e bee n Sel f theorie s i n which the establishment, maintenance , and in Kohut's (1977) words, "restoration" o f the self are the critical issues ; Self theorists spea k of integratio n an d disintegratio n o f th e sel f (cf . Greenber g an d Mitchell 1983 ; Mitchell 1991 ; Eigen 1991a , 1992) . Winnicott tende d to view th e establishment o f the sel f a s sometimes assisted , some times interfered with , by the unruly passions . The "existence" of motivational base s ar e reache d b y a proces s of inferenc e alon g th e followin g lines . Peopl e ac t (do , feel, think , sensate, etc.) a s i f X were th e case . If indeed X is th e case , then i t follows tha t Y . . . . I n suc h a n inferentia l derivatio n th e "if " i s often lost , with th e result tha t a logical fallac y take s place: to wit , people ma y ac t a s if such an d suc h were the case without it s at al l being th e case . Interpretations i n th e consultin g roo m follo w thi s derivation, but soone r or later, as the analyst an d patien t progres sively fill out th e picture, they ar e self-correcting (thoug h se e Glover 1931). I n theoretica l formulation s eac h propositio n depend s o n others. In th e dat a tha t le d Freu d t o th e deat h instinct , h e simpl y could no t find good connections eithe r t o the pleasure principle o r to the reality principle . Others trie d t o help him ou t b y supposin g the compulsio n t o repeat wa s a n attemp t a t belate d mastery , bu t this added t o what Freu d probably felt wa s already a conceptuall y overburdened ego . Wa s i t som e longin g fo r symmetr y tha t too k Freud awa y fro m th e eg o (an d it s realit y principle) , fuel-supplie d with neutralize d energie s ove r t o tw o biologicall y roote d princi ples? O r wa s h e ont o somethin g fo r whic h th e formulatio n re quired a bit mor e knowledge tha n h e had a t his disposal ? Like mos t motivationa l theories , th e dialecti c o f th e selection / pleasure principle s rest s o n a n econom y o f shortage. If there wer e enough fo r all , selectio n woul d b e unnecessary , an d i f selectio n

10 Introduction were unnecessary , s o to o woul d b e th e rang e o f qualitie s t o choos e from. Pleasur e coul d b e itsel f indiscriminate : ther e woul d b e n o need t o mak e kinshi p system s an d kee p trac k o f wh o bor e w h a t relation t o whom . Th e dispositio n t o d o thi s migh t wel l hav e bee n bred ou t o f ou r specie s lon g since . But , throug h th e ey e o f m y kaleidoscope, peopl e ac t a s i f ther e wer e o r h a d bee n a n econom y based o n shortage , suc h tha t o f th e peopl e available , som e mus t be use d fo r Pair an d Group formatio n an d som e fo r exchange s suitable onl y t o th e Couple, whethe r tha t Couple b e th e "nursin g c o u p l e / ' th e warrin g Couple, o r th e reproductiv e Couple. A s peopl e move (o r ar e moved ) fro m on e categor y t o another , shift s i n th e entire individua l an d Group econom y tak e place . A n additio n t o the Pair o r Group spher e mean s a los s i n th e repertoir e o f Couple, and vic e versa . This sorting , involvin g a s i t doe s compariso n an d contrast , work s on a twi n axis . On e seem s t o sor t fo r wh o i s u s an d wh o i s other . The secon d seem s t o sor t fo r gender . Th e first sca n operate s fro m the Pair assumption , th e secon d fro m th e Couple. Together , i t i s a s if th e goa l o f thes e categorization s wer e t o find a n u s wh o wa s als o of th e opposit e se x an d a twosom e wh o wasn't . Neithe r o f thes e motivations i s sufficient ; bot h ar e necessary . Thi s twin-branche d motivational bas e nee d no t b e consciou s (i f everyon e were con scious o f i t ther e woul d b e scan t nee d fo r thi s book) . I t i s enoug h that thes e roo t motivation s brin g abou t state s o f m i n d — o r wha t Bion (1961 ) calle d "Basi c Assumptions. " Thes e assumption s ar e pro to-mental: the y ar e wha t w e experienc e fro m amon g al l pos sible experiences . We hea r musi c i n octave s an d i n a 2 0 khz range ; we se e fou r colors , no t a continuou s strea m o f light , an d w e ar e essentially blin d t o infrared s an d ultraviolet s o f th e range ; an d s o forth. Accordin g t o Bio n (1961) , whe n peopl e too k themselve s t o be i n a grou p situation , the y al l immediatel y m a d e certai n as sumptions withou t knowin g the m t o b e assumptions : The basi c assumptio n abou t th e pai r i s tha t the y mee t togethe r fo r purposes o f sex. . . . The basic assumption i s that peopl e come togethe r as a group for purposes of preserving th e group. . . . My second point i s that th e group s seem s t o kno w onl y tw o technique s o f self-preserva tion, fligh t o r fight. . . . I t i s th e basi c assumptio n tha t th e grou p ha s met togethe r t o obtai n securit y fro m on e individua l o n who m the y depend. (Bion 1961 : 63-66)

Introduction 1

1

It wa s a s i f tha t wer e wha t group s wer e mad e for , an d everyon e knew tha t withou t nee d o f discussio n o r agreement . I t i s i n thi s sense tha t I us e th e concep t "assumptions/ ' althoug h i t wil l al ready b e clea r tha t whil e I agree wit h Bio n o n th e natur e o f suc h assumptions, I see no reason t o view them a s emergent onl y in th e face-to-face o r referenc e group . Rathe r I regar d the m a s inherin g in th e Pair, of which th e Group is a natural extension , an d beyon d the Group, th e Species . (Bion' s interchangeabilit y o f "preservin g the group " wit h "self-preservation " implie s tha t Darwin' s work s [1859; 1872 ] on th e preservatio n o f th e specie s an d emotio n wer e not fa r fro m hi s mind. ) As the observer alter s his o r her assumptions regardin g people' s assumptions, th e fact s see m slightl y t o rotate: Pair formation ca n be see n t o be base d o n mutua l identifications , identification s whic h are not secondar y t o los s bu t ar e a s primar y a s primar y ca n be . These requir e analyti c stud y i n thei r ow n right , th e mor e s o be cause ther e i s a n entir e clas s o f patient s wh o ar e no t cripple d b y guilt o r th e talio n anxietie s tha t foreru n guilt , wh o nevertheles s do no t appea r t o liv e lif e simpl y fo r life' s sake . For the m surviva l seems t o mea n somethin g mor e (really , other ) tha n maximizin g gain withi n th e constraint s o f self-preservation an d freedo m fro m the anxietie s tha t atten d th e variou s condition s o f self-preserva tion. Moreove r nothin g seem s t o happe n unles s i t i s see n t o hap pen, unles s i t i s acknowledged , verified , validated . Th e ide a tha t there i s bu t thi s on e lifetim e (an d thi s on e analysis) , thoug h al l believe it, does not seem to make much sens e to them. Accordingly they ar e pron e t o wait , o r await , a s i f not maximizing gai n ha s a t least a s much valu e as living their live s to the fullest . To thes e patient s i t i s a s i f surviva l mean t somethin g differen t from self-preservation—an d different , too , from tryin g once agai n to fulfil l th e unmourne d wishe s o f childhood , powerful as those desires are! Rather surviva l i s experienced a s i f it involve d a grea t obligation t o being choos y an d providin g choic e t o others. It i s a s if their survival went beyond a lifetime an d beyond th e immediat e preoccupations o f th e self . I t i s a s i f the y fel t themselve s pu t o n this eart h fo r som e differen t o r highe r purpose—an d t o thi s obli gation the y mus t b e obedient . Bu t i t i s als o a s i f the y lacke d a reason fo r feelin g so . The y offe r memorie s o f trauma , bu t shrin k away i n horro r fro m an y indicatio n tha t th e analys t migh t tak e

12 Introduction their stories and memorie s t o have historical trut h t o them. Often , as i t turn s out , the y don' t hav e trut h t o them; thei r memorie s ar e hopeful attempt s a t fittin g int o a psychoanalyti c treatmen t orga nized fo r th e stud y o f the Couple and it s vicissitudes , som e bit s of realization fo r th e Pair issues that caus e such pain ye t (outside th e existential) lac k eve n a language. * I t i s eas y enoug h t o thin k o f such patient s a s sufferin g fro m th e "neurosi s o f success " o r fro m "survivor guilt " (Freud 1916) . And indeed, they find such interpre tive construction s helpful ; throug h the m the y ar e a t leas t partl y able t o find th e realization s the y need . Bu t anothe r littl e twis t o f the kaleidoscop e show s ye t a differen t pattern : th e entitlemen t such patient s evinc e i s a t onc e provocativ e an d furious . The y ar e entitled becaus e the y hav e prepaid . Howeve r audaciousl y the y act, the y d o no t dee m themselve s t o b e amon g thos e wh o do fee l that the y hav e ever y righ t t o liv e an d flourish . Thei r offens e i n living i s no t agains t mothe r o r fathe r o r th e unbor n an d bor n siblings or even the proverbial starvin g children . It i s against Go d or Fate or Destiny or whoever controls selection an d say s who will live, wh o wil l die , wh o ma y flouris h an d reproduce , wh o "mus t step aside and only stand an d wait. " In being communicated, thes e differences hav e distinctive ring s to them . An d thes e sam e ring s infor m th e patien t whethe r th e analyst i s relatin g t o hi m a s a fello w membe r o f a Pair o r a s a member o f a Couple: In a supervision , fo r example , th e analys t o r therapist migh t tel l his or her supervisor : "Well as usual th e patient cam e in late. . . ." The supervisor , unbothere d b y m y ow n o r othe r systematize d sets o f formulation s ma y nevertheles s gues s that , befor e long , the patient wil l have said, "I don' t se e the point o f this; nothin g is happening. I keep comin g an d coming . . . . Perhaps I am no t cut out for thi s kind of therapy. " *In commo n usage , interestingl y enough , i t i s Alfre d Adler' s languag e tha t i s used: "subconscious mind, " "inferiority complex, " "compensatory over-reaction, " "insecurity," etc . Fro m Freu d ther e ar e "projection " an d characte r description s like "anal-compulsiv e o r retentive, " mostl y use d t o describ e others . Adler' s lan guage of reaction and power seems to give realization t o what people feel describe s themselves.

Introduction 1

3

Read i n a Couple context, the analyst o r therapist i s being give n an anatom y lesso n b y th e patien t abou t othe r possibl e relation ships ("coming an d coming") between point s and cut-out places . Read i n a Pair sense, the patien t i s feeling angr y an d wounded . The sessio n fo r whic h h e ha s hope d ha s ye t agai n no t arrived . I t seems t o th e patien t tha t ther e i s preciou s littl e allianc e o n th e analyst's part, and this threatens to turn nothing into a "no-thing," except. . . Except tha t th e analys t als o despair s o f th e curren t session , believing i n an d hopin g fo r a bette r one . I n thi s analys t an d pa tient ar e allied . Neithe r want s t o giv e himsel f o r hersel f ove r t o too "cheap " a consummation. Bot h believ e i n perfectibility an d a session-life hereafter , a s indeed, the selection principle would hav e the Pair and Group bring about . Each membe r o f the Pair, accordingly, has fel t th e session , as poorly a s i t starte d out , t o have bee n a goo d one . Each membe r o f the Couple has been stave d of f b y th e analyst's readin g of the patient's openin g line . Were th e analys t able , ove r nex t fe w sessions , t o d o so , ther e would i n bot h matrice s b e opportunitie s fo r interpretation . On e line woul d follo w fro m th e patient' s feelin g tha t hi s an d th e ana lyst's bodily parts are being misused an d wasted. The other woul d follow fro m th e patient' s fligh t fro m opportunitie s fo r Couplerealizations ou t o f his hope-boun d devotio n t o better an d more — the more so because th e analyst i s too. Upon approachin g th e voi d lef t b y th e crise s o f thi s patient' s past, th e analys t i s very gla d t o have hi s theories . These help hi m to stan d th e confusio n an d turbulenc e tha t ensu e eac h tim e th e patient yield s ove r on e o f hi s paramnesia s an d gaze s ane w int o the void. As they wai t fo r th e figures an d events , obscured first b y the amnesia , the n b y paramnesias , t o bell y fort h an d stan d re vealed, i t i s a comfor t t o bot h tha t th e analys t ha s a theory . As a practicing analys t myself , I kno w thi s ver y well . (I n m y lif e thi s was called b y some of us the Myerson phenomena . We could stan d how thread-bar e ou r theorie s wer e becaus e w e al l kne w Pau l G . Myerson would know. When Pau l then aske d in some surprise ho w any of us thought he would know if we didn't, we all felt reassured . We knew he was kidding, though often , o f course, he wasn't.) Ho w rude the n i t i s t o hav e propounde d a theor y tha t cause s a certai n amount o f jostle with one' s own an d others ' well-worn theories ! It

14 Introduction can only be forgiven if it helps—otherwise away with the accursed thing! Although I have tried as best I can to write this book in English, I have had t o find recourse in those bits of jargon th e reader ha s already met . While these loo k like nouns, they are actually verb s meant to describe the way the individual experiences or attempts to experience other s an d hav e the m d o likewise t o him. Another bit is ahead. I use P as a shorthand for patient and *P to represent the psychoanalyst , therapist , psychiatri c socia l worker , counsel lor, and thos e others who also work in the psychoanalytical vineyards. An d I us e th e expression , — click! t o conve y th e eurek a experience tha t take s plac e whe n preconceptio n o r premonitio n meets a realization.

1. Th e Couple an d th e Pair

ty [th e analyst] has furnished a consulting room . It has a comfort able chai r fo r himself , anothe r fo r hi s patients , an d generall y i t will hav e a couch . I t ha s bee n furnishe d wit h som e car e t o unob trusively reflec t hi s taste s an d personality . Treasure d icon s mak e discrete link s t o hi s family , hi s profession , an d hi s past . H e wil l not, fo r example , have colo r photograph s o f his wife an d childre n but h e ma y hav e a vas e tha t on e o f the m bough t hi m o r a lette r opener tha t onc e belonge d t o hi s father . Th e reference s i n th e furnishings t o perio d an d t o colo r wil l als o expres s hi s identity , whether the y ar e o f glas s an d chrom e o r Earl y American . An d h e will be there in the spareness, the choc-a-bloc-ness, the tidiness o r the mess . Dependin g o n ho w muc h o f a piec e h e is , h e wil l b e saying eithe r "Thi s i s how I want yo u t o thin k o f me," or "Thi s i s who I am." (His patients will know which. ) At or abou t th e appointed tim e th e analyst open s the door fro m the waitin g are a t o th e consultin g room . Th e sessio n ha s no w officially begun . I f th e patien t i s present , h e generall y wil l enter . The tw o ar e likel y t o offe r on e anothe r a conventiona l greeting . Both ma y wan t hubbu b an d hurly-burl y t o b e containe d unti l patient reache s hi s chai r o r th e couch , an d bot h hav e learne d t o count o n thei r respectiv e convention s an d routine s t o restrai n such potentia l fo r turbulence . Th e developmen t o f thes e smal l courtesies an d thei r almos t dail y applicatio n rivet s enoug h atten tion t o mak e thes e transition s neithe r to o revealing no r to o excit ing. Th e ceremonia l repeate d seem s t o say , "W e bot h stil l kno w 15

16 The

Coupl e and the Pai r

that toda y agai n we'r e her e fo r business . Ther e ar e safeguard s against th e abyss. " I f th e patien t an d analys t mus t pas s on e an other, sa y a t th e doo r o r a s eac h compose s himsel f a t th e junctur e of couc h an d chair , thes e ceremonie s hel p agains t touchin g o r hitting, embracin g o r wrestling . Insofar a s th e analys t ca n perfor m thes e rite s mechanicall y an d count o n th e patien t t o observ e the m a s well , th e analys t ca n bus y himself wit h wha t h e i s her e t o do , an d tha t i s find ou t wh o ha s arrived. Fo r n o m a t t e r ho w pal e an d perfunctor y th e ritual , th e patient inevitabl y bring s i n wit h him , lik e th e scen t o f ozon e afte r a s u m m e r storm , a burs t o f pure being . Looks ar e sometime s deceptive . Th e analys t ma y thin k h e ha s met thi s patien t before , bu t o f course h e ha s not—no t thi s patient . For today' s patien t i s today' s an d ca n neve r hav e bee n her e befor e any mor e tha n on e ca n pu t a stic k i n th e sam e rive r twice . Th e patient i s bran d new . The patien t ma y no t kno w this , an y mor e tha n th e analys t ma y know tha t h e als o i s bran d new . Th e familia r ritual s repeate d would, indeed , see m t o argu e agains t it . Bu t tha t i s thei r littl e collusion. The assumptio n tha t practic e make s perfec t i s widel y held . Both th e analys t an d patien t ma y fee l tha t bein g goo d come s ou t of a n accretio n o f smal l achievements , on e upo n anothe r an d tha t progress mean s bein g bette r tha n before . Fo r these , starting afres h and bein g eac h tim e ne w an d differen t i s a continua l setback . O n the othe r hand , the y ma y tak e th e vantag e poin t o f th e Couple an d seek out , no t distinction s i n degre e i n whic h th e difference s ar e more o r les s o f th e same , bu t difference s i n kind . Th e patien t allows thi s differenc e fro m himsel f i n orde r t o play a t Coupling. So wha t ar e th e fact s today ? Shal l patien t an d therapis t b e meeting i n fusio n o r fission? Thi s questio n come s int o bein g i n th e small plosio n o f th e encounter . The y ma y hav e quit e differen t wishes. Th e analys t ma y wan t t o dra w th e patien t bac k int o th e frame o f min d i n whic h th e patien t ca n b e looke d a t a s deviant , i m m a t u r e , o r ill , while th e patien t ma y wan t t o dra w th e analyst' s attention t o difference s les s pejorativ e t o hi s soul , mor e gratifyin g to hi s body . Th e analys t certainl y doe s no t wan t hi s 3:0 0 P.M. session t o b e give n ove r t o som e strange r who , th e momen t th e door i s opened , marche s i n an d lie s dow n o n hi s couch . (I t ma y b e

The Couple and the Pair 1 7 bad enoug h tha t thi s happen s i n hi s 3:0 0 A.M . "session/' ) Ther e are jokes about this—abou t lendin g to someone who has forgotte n his drea m one' s own . Bu t thes e ar e jokes . Th e analyst , i f h e ha s practiced fo r awhile , wil l hav e ha d th e experienc e o f seein g an other on e o f hi s patient s turnin g u p a t a n unexpecte d hour , an d the likelihoo d i s that hi s heart wil l jump a s he rapidl y reflect s o n his schedul e t o se e i f i t i s h e wh o ha s mad e th e mistake . Bu t a t least h e wil l recogniz e th e othe r patient . Imagin e someon e alto gether new , an d worse : no t eve n actin g a s i f h e wer e new , bu t lying down an d startin g t o speak quite as if that wer e an everyda y occurrence. I t i s th e stuf f o f whic h dream s ar e made—o r night mares. Yet it would b e quite a s bad fo r th e patient, who may hav e dreamt o f seein g anothe r analyst , someon e nic e o r helpfu l fo r a change, bu t no t surel y t o wal k int o tha t othe r analyst' s room , li e down, and star t talking . To move awa y fro m th e turmoi l an d frigh t o f the new, both th e patient an d analys t wil l tend t o contract thei r spheres of attentio n to th e familiar : Oh , he i s wearing tha t ti e again ; I see she has he r hair u p agai n today . Indeed , a boo k missin g fro m th e analyst' s shelves or a new folding o f the afghan ma y be startling enoug h fo r the patient , causin g hi m t o glanc e twic e a t th e analys t jus t t o make sure . An d o f cours e i n th e patient' s dreams , th e analys t i s never a settled stat e o f affairs. Th e patient ofte n dream s tha t tim e and familiarit y ar e ou t o f joint : tha t ther e ar e other s presen t i n the waitin g o r consultin g room s whe n th e patien t arrives ; or tha t the analys t i s differen t fro m usual . Th e analys t i s b y n o mean s immune fro m suc h dream s either . Bot h lon g fo r a breakthrough , or a t leas t a breakout ; bot h fea r a breakdown . Bu t eve n whe n merely dreamin g thei r dreams , the y hav e prudentl y stoppe d syn aptic activit y i n thos e portion s o f th e brai n involve d i n motori c activity. Durin g mos t dream-sleep , only th e eye s move . They ma y imagine, but mus t li e still. They may look , but no t touch . The analys t ha s settle d int o a traditio n whos e tenet s an d cul ture defin e hi s task . Remarkably , a s analysts , the y ten d t o cleav e to a medica l model . Close analysi s o f thi s mode l ma y wel l revea l it t o b e a nineteenth-century , racist , classist , scientificall y elitist , masculine structure , imitativ e o f thes e sam e qualitie s whe n the y operate i n medicine, making scan t differenc e a s to which strange r performs thi s functio n o n whic h othe r stranger , jus t a s i t make s

18 The Couple and the Pai r no difference t o the structurally mal e elements in the role whethe r that rol e i s carrie d ou t b y a woma n o r a man . O r a Freudian , object-relations, interpersonal , o r Gestal t therapist . Th e objec t o f this structure, the element without who m i t could not function, o n whom i t utterl y depends , namely, by tha t o r an y othe r name , th e patient P—canno t bu t retur n t o i t th e hatre d i t imposes . All th e same i n becomin g a patient , P enacts hi s o r he r reciproca l t o th e analytic role , makin g i t possibl e fo r ^ t o remai n a viabl e entity . This the n link s the m bot h t o the P