Reflections on Heinz Kohut's Last Presentation, “On Empathy,” 1981: Its Impact On My Own Pathway

Abstract

Kohut's last presentation, in 1981, completed the circle in the spotlight he shone, since 1959, on the concept of empathy and its fundamental nature within psychoanalytic observation and data gathering. My own pathway in analytic training, molded particularly in comparative supervisory encounters, led me to recognize the extraordinary power in grappling with the implications in Freud's groundbreaking discovery, defining the domain of psychoanalysis: “psychic reality”—that is, inner reality—“as the decisive kind.” The concept of empathy, understood not as a theory-specific or technical stance, but as intrinsic to our mode of listening and observation, may then be viewed as a central dimension illuminating this intrapsychic domain—our psychoanalytic database. Clinical examples, including citations from the work of Freud and of Kohut and commentary from the late Japanese psychoanalyst, Takeo Doi, are offered for further elaboration.

Translations of Abstract

La última presentación de Kohut, en 1981, cierra el círculo de su focalización, desde 1959, en el concepto de empatía y su naturaleza fundamental para la observación y recolección de datos en psicoanálisis. Mi propio recorrido en la formación analítica, particularmente moldeado a través de la comparación de supervisiones, me condujo a reconocer el poder extraordinario de lidiar con las implicaciones del descubrimiento de Freud al definir el terreno del psicoanálisis: “la realidad psíquica” –es decir, la realidad interna—“como lo que resulta definitivo”. El concepto de empatía, que no se entiende como un posicionamiento técnico de una teoría particular, sino como nuestra manera de escuchar y observar, puede ser entendido como la dimensión central que ilumina este terreno intrapsíquico –nuestra base de datos psicoanalítica. Se ofrecen ejemplos clínicos, para una mayor elaboración, incluyendo citas de la obra de Freud y Kohut y un comentario del fallecido psicoanalista japonés Takeo Doi.

Nel suo ultimo intervento del 1981, Kohut completa la sua accurata indagine, avviata sin dal 1959, sul concetto di empatia e la sua essenzialità per l'osservazione e la raccolta delle informazioni in psicoanalisi. Il mio percorso formativo psicoanalitico, che si è modellato in modo particolare negli incontri comparativi di supervisione, mi ha portata a riconoscere la forza che si sprigiona dal lasciarsi ingaggiare dalle implicazioni dell'innovativa scoperta con cui Freud definisce il dominio della psicoanalisi: ossia, la “realtà psichica” – cioè la realtà interna – “quale dimensione determinante”. Il concetto di empatia, qui inteso non come una teoria specifica o un orientamento tecnico, bensì come intrinseco al nostro modo di ascoltare e di osservare, può allora essere visto come una dimensione centrale capace di illuminare questo dominio intrapsichico – il nostro data base relazionale. Gli esempi clinici qui riportati includono citazioni tratte dal lavoro di Freud e di Kohut, unitamente ai commenti del compianto psicoanalista giapponese, Takeo Doi.

La dernière présentation de Kohut, en 1981, complète sa mise en lumière du concept d'empathie commencée en 1959 et de la nature fondamentale de ce concept à l'intérieur du processus d'observation et d'accumulation des données psychanalytiques. Ma propre trajectoire dans ma formation psychanalytique, particulièrement façonnée par des rencontres de supervisions comparatives, m'a amenée à reconnaître l'impact extraordinaire de saisir les implications de la découverte révolutionnaire de Freud lorsqu'il a défini le domaine de la psychanalyse, la “réalité psychique” –c'est-à-dire, la réalité intérieure- « comme étant l'aspect décisif » de ce domaine. Le concept d'empathie, compris alors non pas comme une posture technique ou spécifique à une théorie mais plutôt comme intrinsèque à notre modalité d'écoute et d'observation, peut alors être vu comme une dimension centrale éclairant ce domaine intrapsychique –notre base de données psychanalytiques. Des exemples cliniques comprenant des citations à partir des travaux de Freud et de Kohut, ainsi que des commentaires du défunt psychanalyste japonais, Takeo Doi, élaborent le propos.

In seinem letzten Referat 1981 vollendet Kohut das Verständnis und die Wichtigkeit, die er dem Konzept der Empathie, als der eigentlichen Grundlage der psychoanalytischen Beobachtung und Datensammlung seit 1959 entgegenbrachte. Mein eigener Weg in der psychoanalytischen Ausbildung, vor allem geformt aus dem Vergleich von Supervisions-erfahrungen, ließ mich erkennen, welche außerordentliche Kraft darin liegt, wenn man die Implikationen ernst nimmt, die in Freuds grundlegender Entdeckung liegen und mit der er den Bereich der Psychoanalyse definiert: die „psychische Realität“, das heißt die innere Realität, ist das Entscheidende in der Psychoanalyse. Das Konzept der Empathie, nicht verstanden als theoriespezifische oder technische Haltung, sondern als wesentlich für die Art und Weise unseres Zuhörens und unserer Beobachtung, kann dann als eine zentrale Dimension gesehen werden, die diesen intrapsychischen Bereich erhellt – unsere psychoanalytische Datenbank. Klinische Beispiele, die Zitate aus dem Werk Freuds und Kohuts und Kommentare des verstorbenen japanischen Psychoanalytikers Takeo Doi beinhalten, werden zur weiteren Diskussion angeboten.

Keywords:

• empathy
• listening
• psychic reality
• transference
• recognition, amae

Notes

¹“Introspection, Empathy, and the Semi-Circle of Mental Health,” was Kohut's last written article, published in 1982.

²My first supervisor taught me a stance that was not generally espoused at the time: “If you don't know or are not clear about something the patient is saying, or not—ask.” Over time, I came to appreciate the deeper conceptual implications for the analyst's listening in this more collaborative position.

³ Louis Sander (1975), upon whose research data on infancy I draw heavily, further reminds us, “From the cell upward, living organisms are actively self-regulating and, at the same time, of necessity exist in a continuous intimate exchange with essential support factors provided by the surround.”

⁴“If there is one lesson that I have learnt during my life as an analyst it is … that many times when I believed that I was right and my patients were wrong, it turned out, though often only after a prolonged search, that my rightness was superficial and their rightness was profound” (Kohut, 1984, pp. 93–94).

⁵See also, Schwaber (2004), in which I highlighted a similar point regarding a case of boundary violation described by Gabbard (pp. 188–189).

⁶ Sander (1992) described “a moment of specificity in recognition, when the child becomes aware that another is aware of what he is aware of within himself. This is a specificity in an experience of meeting that brings a moment of new coherence to the child's awareness of both the inner and the outer … if the moment of ‘being known’ was reached, there ensues a change in the child's self-regulatory organization that endures over many years, even (if) from just one experience. It is this process of specificity in recurrent moments of meeting that I have referred to as recognition process, and have proposed it as basic to at least four domains of ongoing process in living systems: the biological, the negotiation of adaptive issues in early development, the construction of continuity over the life span, and the therapeutic process” (p. 583).

⁷ Kohut (1981) discussed the uses of empathy—both for good and for evil—noting, above all, the dehumanizing impact of an “empathyless environment.” This was exemplified, he went on to say, by what the Nazis provided in the concentration camps. But, he then posed an extraordinarily odd notion here stating, “The Nazis were not sadistic or cruel in the concentration camps; there were exceptions … but that was clearly punished, clearly frowned on” (p. 530). Paul Ornstein notably refuted this in a footnote indicating it is completely contradicted by all eyewitness and documented accounts.