(continuing from previous page) work more specifically. In other words, the dynamic aesthetic regarding the production of humor, artistic creation, and psychoanalytic interpretation are highly similar. Listen to Riess’s (2006) description of all that is involved in the creation of a joke: “...even a simple joke can utilize language skills, theory-of-mind, symbolism, abstract thinking, and social perception, humor may arguably be humankind’s most complex cognitive attribute.” The anxieties I have focused on primarily arise when going past the “subjective moral order” that Veatch is referring to comes into play. Of course, although it may be sweeping with a broad brush, psychopathology per se can be considered to be a uniquely constructed “subjective moral order” that allows for certain experiences and pre-reflexively excludes others. Likewise, the analyst’s countertransference is subject to a particular set of inhibitions that also limit what is permissible to experience Although it may be evident, I would like to underline that for both patient and analyst, spontaneous forms of selfexpression are extremely useful in bypassing the inhibitory effect of the generalized characterological rigidity of the selfsystem. Given that a spontaneous response is implicitly more personal in that it comes more directly and wholeheartedly from the self then it follows that this type of interpersonal cuing facilitates the kind of deep and enriched analyst to patient connection that promotes cure as the two person conception of psychoanalysis would have it. The Inspired Versus Routine Psychoanalytically, it is useful to think about spontaneous expression as existing on a continuum that begins with the raw expression of emotion and ends in a more unconsciously judicious state of what might be called ‘integrated spontaneity.’ Integrated moments of spontaneity occur when the analyst surrenders conscious control and just responds naturally according to what is being experienced at the moment. In these instances, all of the factors that are involved in the synthesis of an intervention coalesce into an integrated whole that nonvolitionally incorporates the entirety of the analyst’s training and resources. These are actually moments of artistic creativity where an aesthetic balance is struck between all of the dichotomies and contradictions that comprise each psychoanalytic moment including the split existing between patient and analyst. Although this response may be spontaneous, it contains a deep empathic resonance with where the patient is
“Due to their asocial origin and being a more direct, alive, and uncensored expression of the true Self, acts of spontaneity, including humor, are able to become manifest in a manner that bypasses or circumvents the usual means of defense.” Bob Katz, PhD
Given there are no longer clear boundaries that determine the limits of the nature of the analyst’s participation on an a priori basis, the anxieties associated with how alive one is permitted to be seems to be a constant presence in contemporary work.
Bob Katz, PhD
experientially existing at that particular moment. Transcending conscious control, these are peak moments that come from allowing one’s self to be deeply immersed in the unconscious flow of the process. This type of experience is no different from peak experiences in sports, writing, or art where years of specialized training climax in a performance that transcends conscious control. Most germane to our work and the issues at hand is that in order to cultivate these states, the foundational discipline of psychoanalytic theory and technique has to be combined with the kind of ‘letting go’ that facilitates free and spontaneous self-expression. Thinking about this reminded me of Meltzer’s distinction between “routine and inspired” interpretations. The distinguishing factor between these two types derives from their origin. The “routine” interpretation is more heady and comes from the analyst’s more or less consciously discerning a pattern of behavior to which a theory is then applied in an explanatory way. In contrast, an “inspired” interpretation originates in the analyst’s personal response to the patient which is then used to explore the meaning of the relationship at that moment. Meltzer goes on to explain that the dangers of each approach are dullness on the one hand and megalomania on the other. Now these variables are most germane because the anxieties being discussed can be recast as the anxieties associated with what it means to be more alive. Clearly, the professional guise of each analyst is a blend of personal aliveness and some variant of judicious restraint based on theoretical and technical consideration. Given that there are no longer any clear boundaries that determine the limits of the nature of the analyst’s participation on an a priori basis, then the anxieties associated with how alive one is permitted to be seems to be a constant presence in contemporary work. In fact, I am quite confident in the belief that many analysts may resist the use of humor, especially of the spontaneous variety, because it feels too alive or maniacal for the way in which their professional mask is constituted. Of course, it is important for the analyst to be free in the area of any type of spontaneous self-expression because this is precisely what we are asking the patient to do, that is, to express himself without constraint –to “freely associate” and to “associate (that is, relate) freely.” It was Ferenczi who first made clear that a lack of freedom in the analyst could counter-resistively inhibit the patient’s ability to be more opened. I don’t want to belabor the point but it seems evident that the freer the analyst, the freer the patient. In writing about humor, Freud (1916) quotes Jean Paul (continued next page)
43