On Saturday, October 24th, IAPSP held the first of its three-part online conference, entitled “Conference of the Americas: A Challenging Treatment in Challenging Times: How Relational Self Psychology Helps.” A great many of you who joined this historic moment in IAPSP history witnessed the case presentation by Joye Weisel-Barth and spontaneous discussions by Cynthia Chalker, Amy Eldridge, Daniel Shaw, and Gerard Webster. Steven Stern served as the maoderator. The highly important theme of empathic listening, its uses, its functions and its limitations was explored in depth.

Please let your colleagues know how you experienced the conference by posting your reactions on “Conference Reflections.” What worked for you? What didn’t? You might also want to weigh in on some of the themes that emerged from the discussions of Joye’s case such as whether there are limits to our empathic understanding, the problem of unconscious racism, and the extent to which our worries about how others may evaluate us as adhering to psychoanalytic clinical norms interferes with our openness about our work. Send your posts to eforum@IAPSP.org.

Below you will find Estelle Shane’s excellent summary of the conference and the topics it raised for our consideration.

Estelle Shane

It’s a pleasure to report on the first IAPSP Online Conference that took place on October 24, 2020 and was attended by 399 participants from literally all over the world. Entitled “Conference of the Americas: A Challenging Treatment in Challenging Times: How Relational Self Psychology Helps”, it featured a case presentation by Joye Weisel Barth and spontaneous discussions by Cynthia Chalker, Amy Eldridge, Daniel Shaw, and Gerard Webster, none of whom had seen or heard the case material before it was presented by Joye. Steven Stern served as the moderator, and Christina Emanuel guided us through the complicated technical instructions required by our online zoom presentation. The material itself could be heard in French, Spanish, or Farsi, as well as English. Our attendees were able to select on line their preferred language, and concurrent translations were instantly provided throughout the presentation and the contributions of the discussants.

The Conference was a resounding success, despite some unavoidable technique glitches at the beginning, which served to remind us all of the new and unknown territory we were exploring in this novel but by now all-to-familiar medium. And from the beginning also Christina reassured us by demonstrating her proficiency in managing well under these untoward circumstances, performing like an expert rider on a somewhat wild and unpredictable horse. Soon, because of her proficiency, we were able to relax into this experience.

Joye’s case was a perfect representation of the theme, a challenging treatment in challenging times. As Joye herself described it, the case depicts a therapeutic relationship taking place over fifteen years, one that explored as an important theme empathic listening, its uses, its functions and its limitations. The patient, Angie, was vastly different from Joye, in race, social background, sexuality, upbringing, and contemporary situation. Yet despite these differences, Joye and Angie enjoyed important similarities and shared an attuned connection that had marked their relationship for many years. But ultimately Joye had to question her conviction about empathic reach; she had to question to what extent the differences between herself and Angie could be bridged, especially now, in the context of the current LGBTQ movement and the Black Lives matters protests. After her initial presentation wherein Joye illustrated in admirable openness the particular challenging moment that ensued in the treatment, and following the discussants interaction, Joye returned for the denouement, demonstrating how she and her patient resolved the dilemma that emerged between them.

The lively discussion that followed Joyce’s initial presentation explored many issues. Some of the themes and observations that could be extracted from their animated and provocative interactions can be summarized as follows:

1. Empathic reach: are there limits to one’s ability to fully understand another whose differences from oneself transcend what can ordinarily be anticipated? Can we, with all the good will in the world, really expect to talk out our differences in subjectivity with our patients? Cynthia Chalker spoke of the patient’s addiction to bondage and submission, reminding us of the power of submission in Angie’s relationship with Joye. Was that always understood by Joye?
2. Unconscious racism: Joye effectively differentiated herself and her patient in her presentation by using an imitation of the patient’s black speech when she narrated what her patient had said to her. Would that effort to echo her patient’s way of speaking, his voice, be heard as racist? Daniel Shaw considered the question, wondering if he would be offended at someone using a broad Yiddish or Russian accent, and decided probably not, but Gerard Webster said that he, as a gay man, were he to hear someone imitating a gay way of speaking, would be offended.
3. Knowing and Not Knowing. The attitude of the analyst as being the one who knows was discussed, with the condenses among the panelists being that we know what we don’t know when we trip over it.
4. Psychoanalytic Police: To what extent are we hindered in our expression with our patients by wondering who is watching and listening, ready to criticize? Are we worried about being too un-analytic? Are we embarrassed, humiliated by our mistakes, ashamed of our errors, especially in the current atmosphere of black lives matter and white fragility? Joye herself expressed that anxiety, which was echoed by others.
5. Amy raised the question of how Joye’s case, or the comments of the discussants, reflected self psychological theory. She herself noted the use of empathic listening, and of rupture and repair as salient aspects of the clinical work, and there was the unarticulated presence of selfobject function. Moreover, the case itself reflected aspects relational self psychology, with the bidirectionality and mutuality of influence in the analytic pair.

Because of the sensitive and confidential nature of the material, no recording of the proceedings could be made. To partially make up for that, Joye, Cynthia, Amy, Daniel, Gerard, Steve, and Christina all met with me after the main presentation to talk about their experiences. Everyone expressed their deep satisfaction, praising Joye for her complete and non-defensive openness, and talking about their own sense of comfort and security, once the initial wave of anxiety passed about discussing material heard for the first time before a large audience.

All in all, this was a magnificent first experience of Part 1 of IAPSP’s online conference. Part 2, Europe, the Mideast, and South Africa, will take place on Saturday, November 21, 2020; and Part 3, The Pacific Rim (Asia, Australia, New Zealand) will take place on Sunday January 3l, 2021. Stay tuned for more!

Following IAPSP’s online conference on October 24th, Estelle Shane led the conference panelists in a conversation about their participation. Here is a link to a recording of that rich conversation. We hope that you will post your thought and feelings about this discussion as well as your reflections to the conference itself.

Jill Gardner

“I appreciate very much Estelle’s summary of themes from the conference and find it a helpful review. I would add an additional one which I took away from the program, namely that ruptures can be caused not only by a failure of empathy, but also by a clash of values between patient and therapist. As therapists we make certain assumptions about what defines mental health. Joye’s case raised my consciousness regarding how much these assumptions, without us being particularly aware of it, may be based more on our own values than any “objective” measure of health.

So when Joye’s patient Angie said she resented the fact that she chronically needed to bail out her brother financially, it didn’t seem much of a stretch for Joye to reply that Angie was tired of feeling responsible for him. The subsequent explosion of rage Angie directed at Joye was not only the product of built-up anger about a number of things, but also Joye’s not grasping that Angie’s values meant she would never turn her back on a family member no matter how onerous the responsibility might be. She felt massively misunderstood and affronted that Joye would imply otherwise. I, too, would undoubtedly have sided with wanting my patient to protect herself from exploitation or burden by validating her desire to be less responsible for her brother, something I would have automatically seen as a healthy sign of a strong self. The many differences between Joye and Angie, including racial and cultural ones, make this analytic pair particularly vulnerable to this kind of disjunction. I don’t believe we can always know where all the landmines of value differences in various cultures are until we step on them. But I found the presentation very helpful in highlighting the fact that we need to keep, perhaps more explicitly, in mind that our assumptions about what is healthy are always contextualized in our own histories, experience, personal beliefs and values. I appreciated Joye sharing her clinical material so clearly and openly.”