Improvisation and Mutual Inductive Identification in Couples Therapy: Commentary on Paper by Susan M. Shimmerlik

Commentary on Donna Orange's, “Recognition as: Intersubjective Vulnerability in the Psychoanalytic Dialogue”

“…In other words, part of recognizing something about a patient may entail recognizing something about herself that lends not only to the dialogical processes of "mutual regulation" but also to those of "mutual perception." 5 By contrast, I find Sander's (1995) and the Boston Change Process Study Group's (2002) work as very resonant with processes of recognition that emerges in play, or what I refer to as improvisation (Ringstrom, 1999(Ringstrom, , 2001a(Ringstrom, , 2001b(Ringstrom, , 2003(Ringstrom, , 2004(Ringstrom, , 2007a(Ringstrom, , 2007b(Ringstrom, , 2008a(Ringstrom, , 2008b(Ringstrom, , 2010a(Ringstrom, , 2010b(Ringstrom, , 2010c(Ringstrom, , 2010d. These processes involve "mucking around" (Stern, 2004;Nabaum, 2008) or "flummoxing" (as I put it)-none of which are about "generosity" or even necessarily "self-expressiveness" (although that certainly can be involved).…”

“…In contrast to attunement, I have described (Ringstrom, 2007a(Ringstrom, , 2008a(Ringstrom, , 2008b(Ringstrom, , 2010d this inductive phenomenon as "mutual inductive identification" because, typically during such rough patches in an analytic treatment, there are ways in which the analyst is trying to "force" the patient out of the fly bottle to accommodate her own discomfort with the terror of getting sucked into it! It is here that I have proposed that models of improvisation (Ringstrom, 2001a(Ringstrom, , 2001b(Ringstrom, , 2003(Ringstrom, , 2004(Ringstrom, , 2007a(Ringstrom, , 2007b(Ringstrom, , 2008a(Ringstrom, , 2008b(Ringstrom, , 2010a(Ringstrom, , 2010b(Ringstrom, , 2010c(Ringstrom, , 2010d can be useful in breaking out of the grip of mutual inductive processes and in truly finding innovative ways of explicating the heretofore unformulated.…”

“…It is here that I have proposed that models of improvisation (Ringstrom, 2001a(Ringstrom, , 2001b(Ringstrom, , 2003(Ringstrom, , 2004(Ringstrom, , 2007a(Ringstrom, , 2007b(Ringstrom, , 2008a(Ringstrom, , 2008b(Ringstrom, , 2010a(Ringstrom, , 2010b(Ringstrom, , 2010c(Ringstrom, , 2010d can be useful in breaking out of the grip of mutual inductive processes and in truly finding innovative ways of explicating the heretofore unformulated.…”

“…9 As one example, I have argued (Ringstrom, 2001a(Ringstrom, , 2001b(Ringstrom, , 2003(Ringstrom, , 2004(Ringstrom, , 2007a(Ringstrom, , 2007b(Ringstrom, , 2008a(Ringstrom, , 2008b(Ringstrom, , 2010b(Ringstrom, , 2010c(Ringstrom, , 2010d) that being improvisational in psychoanalytic treatment involves a quality of engagement that is an alternative to psychoanalysis' history of making interpretations-the sine quo non of treatment. Improvisation is a seriously playful means to illuminating what has been heretofore unimaginable in the work of some patients, especially ones who are vulnerable to reverting to rigidified scripts of self and other in the service of insuring their safety.…”

“…Enactments allow access to self-states that are typically coded in implicit procedural memory 14 and have not yet been able to be articulated; hence, they frequently have to be enacted (Ringstrom, 2008b;Shimmerick, 2008). While Orange might counter that, instead of enactments, a more dogged pursuit of attunement will eventually reveal these implicit states, I submit that no analyst can be expected to be able to thoroughly attune to every patient.…”