On the other hand, Seidler goes further in saying: “The more an analyst is perceivable in his being different as an independent person, the more abundant the unification of his functionality (as an interpreter, or explainer) with the patient’s self-perception will be.”
Gaze-Image and Psychoanalysis
Why shouldn’t an analyst risk a look at certain moments, for instance when a patient hesitates? Such a look (gaze) could release material in the subconscious and could prevent the conversation from leading to mutual coagulation. Of course, the look would need be aimed, applied from within its variety of ‘gaze-images’ and its background of Narcissus or Theiresias could then be established in words.
If Freud were to have avoided looking, then he surely would have had good reason. Especially in the pioneer phase of psychoanalysis, in which an analyst couldn’t afford being ‘stared at’ (according to Freud), nor wanted to be. But it was also the case that Freud did not want to be confronted with a patient’s gaze, because he himself would have become confused. Freud himself stated that this was one of his personal characteristics.
A patient’s gaze, though, could reveal much of what he wouldn’t want to disclose due to so-called resistance. Freud confirms, that free association seldom really works, and that a gaze and its interpretation might be of substantial benefit at such stages. Here again it was G. Bose, the first Indian psychoanalyst, who permitted beneficial eye contact during sessions. In a later chapter, when attempting to describe the Analytic Psychocatharsis procedure, I will explain in how far we can learn also from Indian analysts.
Anmerkung der Redaktion: Dieser Artikel stammt aus einer Beitragsreihe zum Thema: Analytische Psychocatharsis.
