ABSTRACT
While it is not new to us to say that our interactions are guided by our subjectivity and that our responses are subject to our selections and omissions, I believe we have not yet acknowledged the extent of the role that our subjectivity plays in our work with patients. We have become sophisticated enough to speak of two transferences rather than countertransference, but I hope to add to our understanding of the depth of the in«uence of our subjectivity in the therapeutic process. ’e many years of supervision and the countless analyses of session protocols have led me to a new appreciation of the therapist’s subjectivity in the process of mutual in«uencing and therefore in the therapeutic process itself. ’is has prompted me, in turn, to pay closer attention to the introspective part of the empathicintrospective mode of investigation. I have written extensively (Jaenicke, 1987, 1993, 2006) about the di¬culties of empathy but have now come to a new understanding of how intricately introspection and empathy are linked. Describing empathy as vicarious introspection does not quite capture our part of the process, placing too much emphasis on the other, and not enough on how understanding the other and ourselves is linked. We can only perceive the other through the lens of our
own subjectivity. ’erefore to understand the other we must understand how we perceive. ’is confronts us with a di¬cult task, as it is almost impossible to track our own stance, while simultaneously trying to track the other. It is also painful: To decenter from our view we have to penetrate it, and that is not always a pleasant task, as we are confronted with a myriad of reactions and feelings that give us a picture of ourselves that we may •nd less than delightful, or alienating. As a result we are always lagging behind in our comprehension of the patient. Over the years I have come to accept the time lag in empathy, have become more comfortable with open gestalts, with my lack of understanding. I have accepted the trial-and-error nature of empathy, accepted the fact that it entails an ongoing training. ’e necessity of training introspection is, however, new to me to the extent that I need to systematically focus on the role that my subjectivity plays in understanding my patients. Tracking my subjectivity poses a novel challenge. Studying verbatim session protocols is enlightening not only about the patient but also because it shows us clearly how subjective our interventions are. ’e patient’s reactions to us mercilessly illuminates how close we are to an approximate understanding of her or him, or the extent to which we have sidetracked or derailed the unfolding of the patient’s inner world. I am not making an implicit demand for perfect empathy, but rather, by showing the extent to which our subjectivity in«uences our empathy, trying to o”er an explanation for the hindrances and limitations of our empathic
capabilities. In placing the role of subjectivity on equal footing, I am attempting to systematize our imperfection and therefore give us a clinical tool to deal with it. Understanding the in«uence of our subjectivity allows us, paradoxically, to unlock our perceptions from the grip of our subjective world and return to the dialogic approach in understanding the “truth” about our patients. We change what we look at by looking at it andincluding now the aspect of mutual in«uencing-are changed.
