Sullivan and the intersubjective perspective

Abstract

The author sees H.S. Sullivan's (1892–1949) interpersonal theory as the best theoretical framework for the contemporary intersubjective perspective in psychoanalysis and presents the former in its pluridimensional articulation. After having extended Freud's therapeutic approach to psychotic patients, Sullivan developed both a developmental psychology and a psychoanalytic and psychotherapeutic technique based on the “interpersonal field” as the basic unit of study. To the pluridimensional character of his theory also belongs its application to the cultural and social aspects of our personal identity. Having the contemporary psychoanalytic authors who shaped the intersubjective perspective limited themselves to the clinical dimension, Sullivan's interpersonal theory can still provide the theoretical framework that any psychoanalytic perspective needs.

Keywords:

• H.S. Sullivan
• interpersonal psychiatry and psychoanalysis
• psychotic patients
• countertransference
• interpersonal field
• participant observation
• developmental psychology
• pluridimensional frame
• intersubjectivity

Acknowledgments

We thank the German journal Forum der Psychoanalyse for the permission to publish this paper, which was originally published in volume 27 (2011), pp. 139–50, under the title “Sullivan und die intersubjektive Sichtweise.” Revised version of the paper presented in Athens on Saturday October 23, 2010, in the context of the XVI Forum of the IFPS.

Notes

¹This connection with the work of Kurt Lewin did not escape Robert Hinshelwood in the paper he gave in Athens (Hinshelwood, 2010), in which he also emphasized Sullivan's important role as pioneer of the intersubjective perspective. In this context, I can also add how exciting it was to hear in Athens also Madeleine Baranger herself, now 90 years old, give a paper on the pioneering work done with her husband Willy in South America.

²The important role played by Sullivan's interpersonal theory in the development of his own research work was confirmed to me personally by Daniel Stern during the Athens Forum, at which he himself gave one of the key note papers.

³I dealt with the many similarities between Sullivan's and Bion's life, personality, and work in my paper “Bion and Sullivan: An enlightening comparison” (2009). In a very good paper by the title “Klein, Bion, and intersubjectivity: Becoming, transforming, and dreaming” – which appeared in Psychoanalytic Dialogues during the preparation of this paper for publication – Lawrence Brown also emphasizes the interpersonal foundation of Bion's concept of alpha function. He does this with the following words: “It is important to note that alpha function is the internalization of a complex intersubjective relationship between the mother and the infant and not just the internalization of a maternal function” (2010, p. 677, original emphasis).

⁴It was also in connection with this attitude of Sullivan that Janet Rioch defined the interpersonal tradition he was the founder of as that tradition which “doesn't have answers, but only questions” (1969, p. 156). Not only Bion but also André Green has often underlined the importance of such a point of view.

⁵A systematic comparison between Freud and Sullivan was articulated by Merton Gill in his famous paper “The interpersonal paradigm and the degree of the therapist's involvement” (1983). Although he had introduced the concept of the interpersonal field, Sullivan thought – as Freud also did – of the asymmetrical nature of the therapeutic relationship. From this point of view, the principle of co-construction of contemporary intersubjective analysts was merely hinted at, but not fully developed in his work.