“The idea of analytic neutrality, which was more or less a cliche truth when I was training back in the 1980s, is clearly getting at something very important, which is that we mustn’t try to pre-conceive where the patient’s development is going to take him or her. But that doesn’t mean that the development is not in a direction. Aristotle famously said that the human being is a ‘zoon politikon’, a creature who belongs in a somewhat structured society. Healthy development is in that sort of direction as we become more integrated, as our ‘ghosts become more like ancestors’, to use that famous metaphor. We become more aware of the reality of other people and their real as opposed to their fantasy importance in the ecosystem of which we are all part. And this makes possible the sort of ethical realization that Levinas was talking about. We recognize the reality of the other. We discover that we are interconnected. We are part of something that is hugely greater than ourselves and that goes beyond our knowing. But of course, that doesn’t mean that we are not also selfish and unique selves. It’s that we are under pressure, so to speak, from both quarters.”
David Black, PhD
London
Episode Description:
We begin with David’s description of Freud’s view of religion as offering “compellingly attractive” illusions in the face of the helplessness we face by life’s and death’s unpredictability. Alternatively, David suggests that religions provide ‘objects’, ie Gods, that are importantly allegorical and offer an ‘ethical seriousness’ over time. We discuss the ability of these allegories to offer possibilities of ‘transcendence’ in a world that he sees as often limited to the material. He presents Levinas’ view of the responsibility we all have when encountering “the face of the other” – a responsibility that is not chosen but “slipped into my consciousness like a thief.” We consider the ethical differences between one’s superego and one’s conscience. We close with David sharing with us the vicissitudes of his early life that, as for us all, form a context for our later interests.
Our Guest:
David Black studied philosophy and Eastern religions before training in London, first as a pastoral counsellor and later as a psychoanalyst. He is a Fellow of the British Psychoanalytical Society, now retired, who has written widely on psychoanalysis in relation to matters of ethics and religion. In 2006 he edited Psychoanalysis and Religion in the Twenty-first Century. He has published two collections of his own psychoanalytic papers, most recently Psychoanalysis and Ethics: the Necessity of Perspective. He is also a poet and translator, whose translation of Dante’s Purgatorio was published in 2021 in the New York Review of Books Classics series. (It was later the winner of the annual American National Translation Award in Poetry.) Visit David Black’s website at: https://www.dmblack.net.
Recommended Reading:
Black, D.M. Psychoanalysis and Ethics: The Necessity of Perspective. (2024: Routledge New Library of Psychoanalysis.)
Chetrit-Vatine, V. Primal Seduction, Matricial Space, and Asymmetry in the Psychoanalytic Encounter. (2004: International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 85: 4.
Lear, J. Wisdom Won from Illness. (2017: Harvard University Press.)
Lemma, A. First Principles: Applied Ethics for Psychoanalytic Practice. (2023: Oxford University Press.)
Levinas, E. Ethics as First Philosophy. In The Levinas Reader, ed. Sean Hand. (1989: Blackwell Publishing.)
Loewald, H. Papers on Psychoanalysis. (1980: Yale University Press.)
“we mustn’t try to pre-conceive where the patient’s development is going to take him or her. ” This is not what analysts mean by analytic neutrality. Anna Freud suggested it mean being equidistant for the ego and the superego but more generally it means not injecting one’s own value judgements into one’s responses to the patient. Since the patient’s choices have no role/impact for or on the analyst’s life, s/he can have no position on them, ethically speaking.