Attachment and Psychoanalysis

Rudy Oldeschulte

Attachment and Psychoanalysis

Rudy Oldeschulte

visibility

…

description

2 pages

link

2 files

AI-generated Abstract

This paper examines the convergence and divergence between attachment theory and psychoanalytic theory as discussed in Morris Eagle's work "Attachment and Psychoanalysis." It critiques Eagle's focus on integrating these fields, suggesting a potential loss of perspective on the plurality of psychoanalytic theories. The author emphasizes the historical context and relevance of attachment theory in psychoanalytic practice, offering insights into how these theories can coexist and contribute to research and clinical application.

Eagle, Morris N. (2013) Attachment and Psychoanalysis: Theory, Research, and Clinical Implications. The Guilford Press: New York, London. In the final sentence of Attachment and Psychoanalysis, the author Morris Eagle states that “…the history of attachment theory can also serve as a model for openness to formulations and findings from other disciplines.” Earlier in his text, Eagle asserts that he is attempting to find the specifics of convergence and divergence between attachment theory and psychoanalytic theory, focusing on the ‘empirical’ and ‘research’ issues that are given rise to in both theoretical and clinical psychoanalysis - and that may be given substance through more attention to attachment theory and research. I return to the writings of Lou Andreas-Salome, whom I have quoted before, reminding us that Freud’s theoretical formulations were not rigidly fixed, but rather formulations that changed as his experience in practicing psychoanalysis grew - with Freud demonstrating what might be seen as a researcher’s model. Freud’s position allowed more emphasis on ‘not knowing,’ contrasting this with the ‘mastery of knowledge.’ In reading Eagle’s Attachment and Psychoanalysis, the author’s attention seemed to get so focused on using attachment theory for potential research in psychoanalytic theory and therapy, that he lost perspective on how psychoanalysis is, as Stepansky (2009) argues, a ‘plurality of theories,’ not ‘theoretical pluralism’ – the latter often being the way that our communities (or ‘schools’) of psychoanalytic clinicians, and the theories that these clinicians use in their work are characterized. It struck me that Eagle wants to continue the move to integrate the theories, bringing specificity to the convergences and the divergences of each. Yet, one must wonder why Eagle persists in this attempt – what is to be achieved in this search for ‘common ground’? I would argue instead that having been educated as a developmentalist (in psychoanalysis), I and fellow trainees were well schooled in the use of many of the basic tenets of attachment theory. We came to know this viewpoint – this theory – despite the seeming contradictions with basic psychoanalytic theory, ego psychology, infant development studies, and the like. In the past decade and a half, Peter Fonagy has written extensively about his and colleagues’ research and work utilizing attachment theory specifically. Though he emphasized many of the perspectives that psychoanalytic education offered several decades ago, he structured his work – and new ways of looking at ‘mentalization’, theory of mind, and reflective functioning - which made more sense in a research paradigm – and consequently aiding in looking more precisely at therapeutic research. My point here is that the focus of psychoanalytic developmental theory – and its therapeutic components taught in our educational settings – was specifically on the points that are detailed in the book – namely, “…the importance of early caregiving; the role of mentalization; the conception of representation of self and other as determinants of interpersonal behavior; the relationship context of cognitive development; and the fundamental motivations for forming relationships.” (p. 182) Eagle characterizes his focus as ‘different’ – yet his concentration is essentially on the same core issues, with a different perspective taken. Attachment and Psychoanalysis makes good on offering the psychoanalytic investigator a clear summary of the historical issues in the relationship between attachment theory and psychoanalysis, lays out the fundamental tenets of attachment theory – and its relevance for research, and points out in detail the areas of convergence and divergence between psychoanalysis and attachment theory. Eagle also takes up how attachment theory has been integrated into the more recent psychoanalytic schools of thought, and yet he remains critical of the continuing difficulties in aligning the values and attitudes of the different schools of thought in their application to clinical practice. For those interested in understanding the basics – and the nuances – of attachment theory and its application to research, as well as its emphasis on etiological factors, Attachment and Psychoanalysis will be a good tool. Rudy Oldeschulte was educated in psychoanalysis with Anna Freud and her colleagues in London, and in law at DePaul University. Now is private practice in Texas – psychoanalytic psychotherapy, supervision, and teaching. [email protected]

Caldwell, L. and Joyce, A. (2011) Reading Winnicott. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. (The New Library of Psychoanalysis: Teaching Series) The editors of this work – Leslie Caldwell and Angela Joyce – intended to write a ‘scholarly introduction’ to the ideas and work of Winnicott for ‘advanced students’ and practitioners. They have done far more in this incredibly well integrated contribution - establishing the history of Winnicott’s work, the development of his ideas within the larger psychoanalytic realm, and the application of his ideas to not only our clinical thinking, but also to our understanding of development. Details of the dramatic changes in his theoretical understanding of children and development, and his practical application of psychoanalytic ideas to the clinical situation are eloquently contextualized with the historical shifts taking place in not only the British system of thought, but also within the international psychoanalytic environment. Winnicott’s desire to have psychoanalysis meet a greater audience was evident throughout his career. The editors comment early in this book on Winnicott’s large interest in social affairs and the ‘lives of ordinary people.’ Winnicott did achieve this goal in his work with non-analysts and in his publications with non-analytic journals and magazines, as well as his radio broadcasts. The immense impact within the psychological (psychoanalytic and psychiatric) field was perhaps felt most in Winnicott’s emphasis on play – as an essential part or element of creative living. This impact is also evident in our conceptual understanding of ‘normal development’ - in several theoretical schools, in paediatric work, in formulations about treatment of delinquency, and brief psychotherapeutic efforts, to name just a few. Play as a criterion of health has permeated our socially accepted notions of psychological wellness, influenced our views about ‘cure’ within our clinical work with patients, shaped our diagnostic considerations . I would add here that this contribution of Caldwell and Joyce has opened up access to an even wider audience of professionals and scholars, in that it made the ideas of D.W. Winnicott available to those that have not had the luxury of (or the time for?) studying the intricacies and nuances of psychoanalytic developmental thought. The potential for fusing his ideas with those of other disciplines is greatly enhanced as a result of this publication. To this end, Winnicott’s very particular perspective on development, and especially his thoughts on the importance of play - of developing the capacity for concern, of empathy and in turn, democratic citizenship – each of these have been embraced in the recent writing by the philosopher Martha C. Nussbaum – a work that is concerned with education and ultimately democracy. Though Nussbaum’s* work was published prior to the publication of Reading Winnicott, I am referring to the need for such works as Caldwell and Joyce’s Reading Winnicott to clarify psychoanalytic thought for scholars in diverse disciplines of study. *Nussbaum, M.C. (2010) Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton University Press. Nussbaum cites Winnicott’s belief in the importance of play in shaping democratic citizenship, drawing on play as a ‘precondition’ of developing concern. This capacity to “…imagine what the experience of another might be like” (in play) is crucial to the developmental unfolding of concern, of empathy, and ethics. Providing this basis through the developing capacity for play is fundamental for a healthy democracy. It is in play, Nussbaum states, that empathy and reciprocity is developed – and in turn these activities have enormous developmental consequence in the confidence and trust within the child. As Winnicott emphasized, these components of play, of concern, and of empathy are critical to the shaping of citizenship within a democratic society. The focus on Winnicott’s distinctiveness in this work by Caldwell and Joyce affords all of us a unique opportunity to apply his ideas and his work to our conversations in a widening range of disciplines - and gives us a new appreciation of this individual’s extraordinary gift for understanding the development of human character. Rudy Oldeschulte 5218 East Terrace Drive Madison, Wisconsin 53718 [email protected]

Log In

Attachment and Psychoanalysis

Related papers

Related papers