Renik O
Int J Psychoanal. 1998 Jun;79 ( Pt 3):487-97.
The author suggests that, increasingly, contemporary psychoanalysts have been acknowledging and examining the intersubjectivity of the clinical encounter and that this trend has sometimes been misunderstood as necessitating the conclusion that objectivity is impossible to achieve in clinical psychoanalysis. In contrast to this, the author proposes a pragmatic definition of the analyst's objectivity that is entirely consistent with acceptance of the analyst's irreducible subjectivity, and illustrates his view by means of a clinical example. He suggests that objectivity concerns both objects and objectives, and indicates that a pragmatic conception of objectivity is employed throughout modern science. He explains why he regards psychoanalysis as a science, rather than as a hermeneutic discipline. He takes up the way in which implicit positivist assumptions can disadvantageously influence our thinking about the relation between an analyst's subjectivity and an analyst's objectivity. Finally, he discusses the important role of consensus in objectivity generally and in psychoanalytic objectivity particularly, as well as some of the differences that exist among analysts with regard to the specific objectives that take priority in clinical work.
作者指出，当代精神分析学家越来越多地承认并审视临床遭遇中的主体间性，而这一趋势有时被误解为必然得出在临床精神分析中无法实现客观性的结论。与此相反，作者提出了一个关于分析师客观性的实用定义，该定义与接受分析师不可简化的主观性完全一致，并通过一个临床实例来说明他的观点。他认为客观性涉及客体和目标，并指出实用主义的客观性概念在现代科学中普遍使用。他解释了为何将精神分析视为一门科学，而非诠释学学科。他探讨了隐含的实证主义假设可能如何不利地影响我们对分析师主观性与客观性之间关系的思考。最后，他讨论了共识在一般客观性尤其是精神分析客观性中的重要作用，以及分析师在临床工作中优先考虑的具体目标方面存在的一些差异。
