On the Surface(s): Inderbitzin and Seelig
N. Szajnberg, MD, Managing Editor
Inderbitzin and Seelig summarize a 1990 panel on the analytic surface. Why should psychoanalysts care about this today? How does it help our work?
One of the challenges in psychoanalytic thinking, in the progress of our thoughts (or attempts to progress), is the confusion of tongues amongst ourselves: words at times confound; new terms seem to be different, but may represent old concepts. Or terms like “surface” can become concrete: as if there were a “surface” that we can perceive, put our finger on to get the pulse.
In the 1990 Panel, Inderbitzin and Seelig survey surface ideas from Freud’s 1905 use as “consciousness,” to Freud’s 1914 addition of the Ucs. resistance. Gray refers to the attention of analyst and analysand, Levy and Inderbitzin to the verbal/nonverbal which directs the attention; Anna Freud’s redirection to defense analysis through to Gill’s comment that with transference, “surface’ must include the interaction between analyst and analysand.
Let’s step back, think on concepts others have used. Winnicott introduced the concept of a transitional space created by the patient in the analyst’s presence. As Giovacchini expanded, analyst and analysand can study what is created in this area. Erikson, in his now-classic dream paper, suggested looking more carefully at the manifest material (not only the latent) of the dream. (Another example of valuing the “surface” not just the depth.) More recently, Ogden’s concept of analytic third — a jointly created subject of the analysis — can be seen as a variation on or development of Winnicott’s idea, another form of “surface” to be examined.
But, how new is this? Grinker described his year-long analysis with Freud (funded by the Rockefeller Foundation) with warmth, fondness. He recalls Freud as a gentleman, with physicianly demeanor and care. They both listened carefully to what Grinker presented and Grinker welcomed Freud’s wisdom and expertise. When Grinker spoke of this, he didn’t use terms such as surface or depth; rather, his terms and sense was of a humanistic physician dedicated to his care. These are terms close to Jane Hall’s comments on this piece.
At moments, we psychoanalysts so value terms, we may lose the sense of our fundamental concepts, the understanding and care of the inner suffering of our patients and how to alleviate this.