Awkward moments often arise between patient and analyst involving the question, “What do we call each other?” The manner in which the dyad address each other contains material central to the patient's inner life. Names, like dreams, deserve a privileged status as providing a royal road into the paradoxical analytic relationship and the unconscious conflicts that feed it. Whether an analyst addresses the patient formally, informally, or not at all, awareness of the issues surrounding names is important.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Brett, J. (1981). Self and other in the child's experience of language: Hofmannsthal's `Letter of Lord Chandos,' International Review of Psychoanalysis8:191—201.
2.
Feldman, H. (1959). The problem of personal names as a universal element in culture. American Imago16:237—250.
3.
Frazer, J.G. (1911). The New Golden Bough. New York : Criterion Books, 1959.
4.
Gopnik, A. (1998). Man goes to see a doctor. The New Yorker, August 24 & 31, pp. 114—121.
5.
Loewald, H. (1960). On the therapeutic action of psychoanalysis. International Journal of Psychoanalysis41:16—33.
6.
Morley, C. (1993). Dots and Spots. New York: Harper Collins.
7.
Poland, W.S. (2000). The analyst's witnessing and otherness. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association48:17—34.
8.
Selzer, M.L. (1960). Use of first names in psychotherapy. Archives ofGeneral Psychiatry3:215—218.
9.
Senger, H.L. (1984). First name or last? Addressing the patient in psychotherapy. Comprehensive Psychiatry25:38—43.
10.
Viederman, M. (1991). The real person of the analyst and his role in the process of psychoanalytic cure. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association39:451—489.
11.
Waugaman, R.M. (1990). On patients' disclosure of parents' and siblings' names during treatment. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association38:167—194.
