Playing, Paradox, and Analytic Activity Between Knowing and Being

Abstract

The author explores some ways that we help patients to hold paradoxical realities intrinsic to transference and play in analytic work. He suggests that Winnicott’s guardianship of the setting for the emergence of playing raises questions about the role of neutrality in an ontological analysis. The author tries to demonstrate some ways that the work of helping patients to hold paradox in play overlaps with a concept that he has earlier referred to as an activity of neutrality. He explores how in the analytic process, understanding and being are two dimensions of the analytic process that work in concert with each other. Often the analyst works quietly in spaces between epistemological and ontological approaches in the holding of paradox.

Keywords:

• Paradox
• setting
• guardian
• playing
• reverie
• neutrality
• dreaming
• transference
• countertransference
• ontological
• epistemological

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors do not have any relevant financial or non-financial competing interest.

DISCLAIMER

Potentially personally identifying information presented in this article that relates directly or indirectly to an individual, or individuals, has been changed to disguise and safeguard the confidentiality, privacy and data protection rights of those concerned, in accordance with the journal’s anonymization policy https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/upaq20.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Steven H. Cooper

Steven H. Cooper, Ph.D. is a Clinical Professor in Psychiatry at the Columbia Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research, a Training and Supervising Analyst at The Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute, and an Adjunct Clinical Professor at New York University Postdoctoral Program in Psychoanalysis.