Don't Drag Me Around: The Phenomenology of Complexity in Group Psychotherapy: Commentary on Paper by Robert Grossmark

Abstract

Robert Grossmark expands our current understanding of the relationship between hermeneutic psychoanalysis, relational psychoanalysis, and complexity theory, illustrating this relationship in the context of presenting his work and discussion of his group psychotherapy experiences. Complexity theory continues to be increasingly elaborated in psychoanalysis and integrated into psychoanalytic theories centered on multiplicity, dissociation, and enactment. The utility, vicissitudes, and potential problems with this integration necessitate an emphasis on the distinction between thinking phenomenologically and thinking explanatorily. Recommendations are offered for a more seamless integration and application of these theories.

Notes

¹I am deeply indebted to the many authors who have advanced this perspective in psychoanalysis, including Galatzer-Levy (1978); Sashin and Callahan (1990); Moran (1991); Varela, Thompson, and Rosch (1991); Lichtenberg, Lachmann, and Fosshage (1992); Spruiell (1993); Thelen and Smith (1994); Stolorow (1997); Shane, Shane, and Gales (1997); Miller (1999); Palombo (1999); Scharff (2000); Beebe and Lachmann (2001); Charles (2002); Ghent (2002); Magid (2002); Sander (2002); Sucharov (2002); Trop, Burke, and Trop (2002); Bacal and Herzog (2003); Dubois (2005); Harris (2005); Piers (2005); Seligman (2005); Thelen (2005); Bonn (2006); Orange (2006); Pickles (2006); Weisel-Barth (2006); Ringstrom (in press); Weisel-Barth (in press).

²For an elaboration of the concept of autocatalysm in complexity theory, see Kauffman (1995), and see Coburn (in press) regarding its application to psychoanalysis.

³See Taylor (2001) for an elaborate delineation of the various ways in which complexity can be defined.

⁴See Lewin and Ross (1960) for an elaboration of the concept of syncretic dilemma.