Conceptions of Conflict in Psychoanalytic Theory and Practice

Abstract

There are many different views of conflict in contemporary psychoanalysis, each with its own technical implications. After reviewing the psychoanalytic origins of the concept of conflict, the author discusses the diverse positions of four North American conflict theorists, each of whom offers a different view of the location of conflict both in the mind of the patient and in the material of the clinical hour. The role of conflict in the work of several relational psychoanalysts is then examined. A tentative approach toward integration is proposed.

Analysis of transference: A North American perspective

“…And this would be predicted by Brenner's clinical theory, which suggests that every communication from the patient allows access to wishful, defensive, self-punitive and unpleasurable components. Conversely, every intervention on the part of the analyst will advance the work in some respects and fuel the resistance in others (Smith, 1997b(Smith, , 2000b(Smith, , 2003a. As an extension of this observation, I believe it can be demonstrated that all unconscious resistances that develop in analysis are, to some degree, continuously and jointly created.…”

“…Even though Brenner advocates abolishing the terms id, ego and superego, he no less strongly proposes giving equal and simultaneous attention to all the components of con ict, which he de nes as wish, defense, self-punishment and unpleasurable affect. This effort to divide the analyst's attention, giving due consideration to all the components of con ict and compromise formation, has shaped much of current transference analysis among those branches of contemporary con ict theory in North America in which Brenner's views have been foundational (Smith, 2003a).…”

“…This has important implications for the clinical approach to the transference, since, with every manifestation of transference, the analyst must ask what defensive, wishful and self-punitive purposes this transference is serving, and what childhood misery is being warded off. In contrast, in the work of Gray and others, we can still hear a tendency to prioritize the analysis of defense, as if the defensive component could be separated from the analysis of all the other components of con ict, an approach that, some would say, substitutes a part for the whole (Smith, 1995(Smith, , 1999(Smith, , 2003a.…”

“…To put it another way, everything may be a compromise formation but not all compromise formations address what are sometimes called 'considerations of reality' in the same way or to the same degree. Ultimately, the question is whether one's epistemology allows for relative degrees of objectivity (Smith, 1999(Smith, , 2003a.…”

Child versus adult psychoanalysis: Two processes or one?

“…The analysis of resistance as a key element in an analytic process has been emphasized by analysts who operate from some variant of the structural model (e.g. But Smith (2003Smith ( , 2005 notes that even analysts who do not anchor their thinking in terms of intrapsychic conflict do, in reality, analyze clinical phenomena that can be understood in terms of such conflict; hence Weinshel's perspective should apply to other persuasions. Weinshel (1984Weinshel ( , 1990aWeinshel ( , 1990b clearly articulated the centrality of negotiating and analyzing resistance in the analytic process, anchoring his view in structural theory and the ubiquitousness of conflict and compromise formation.…”