Adolescent Psychoanalysis

(Anonymous comments may be left by clicking the response button at the end of each section)

Adolescent Speak

Chapter 2

Part 3

With adolescents living and thinking in the present trying to talk with people whose orientation is in the past or predictions of the future, we truly have the often used often meaningless term ‘communication gap’. We truly have ‘gaps’ in our techniques and theories of practice, should we wish to analyze adolescents. We haven’t tried to see what we do wrong with adolescents. We speak and practice as if there are no ‘gaps’ in what we do—an obviously very serious problem since we actually, obviously, do have ‘gaps’. In this instance, the primary gap is between present thinker (adolescents) and analyst thinker. We analysts’ inability to both recognize and bridge this gap—the gap being to have both the analyst and adolescent talk the same language—present and present, must be addressed and hopefully corrected. After all, we are the adults and they are the children. We must be the solver of this problem. We have to be the re-source to solve this problem. Based on my understanding of our theories, we undoubtedly have infinitely more gaps than non-gaps.

The lives of adolescents as well as the rest of us are filled with ‘thorofare’ gaps. Adolescents usually don’t see these but do experience the now. We usually don’t see the ‘gaps’ in our theories either, like our adolescent brethren. We are, however, very good at spotting what we consider the ‘gaps’ in adolescents. Both we and adolescents don’t think ‘gaps’, but for entirely different reasons. They don’t see them because it is not a part of their life view. As I said, we should be able to see ‘gaps’ in our theories. We don’t. According to us there are none, even though that is a very dubious proposition. Should we see them, we would have to accommodate them, possibly having to change our theories and practices—-a seemingly very unwelcome prospect.

There is a term used by skateboarders called “gapped”. The definition in slang dictionaries of “gapped” is a break, unexpected and unseen, in the pathway of a skateboarder, which is suddenly present. The result of the ‘gap’, in this situation at least, is that what happens to one who is “gapped” is entirely unpredictable. Hitting the unpredictable and unknowable gap, may cause one to crash, turn left, turn right, keep going, etc. They may continue as if nothing happened. They may crash horribly, etc. And, they keep right on skate boarding. Most skateboarders, by the way, regardless of the seriousness of their injuries, are usually immediately back skating.

Our theories don’t recognize ‘gaps’ nor encourage their discovery. We have crashed and don’t know it. We will inevitably crash, but most likely won’t know it. How does one crash on something that, according to us, does not exist? The answer is simple—we don’t. Perhaps we could give a lesson to skateboarders, and teach them how what is there really isn’t there. This would be a very hard sell to an injured skateboarder.

To further use the analogy of the skateboarder, we, as analysts, hope to find a magical Thorofare —predictable, knowable, gapless etc. Of course, such a Thoroughfare does not and cannot exist. We just say it does.

The song itself illustrates these concepts. The song is the story of a train, climbing a mountain, arriving at the crest, etc., only to discover that there is another crest, and another and so forth. It is a story of how we analysts see things, supposing that we can see the future—that there is a see-able end in sight which we can see, although that turns out to not be true. Nevertheless, at least the length of the ride can be measured, the speed of the train calculated, etc., but only to the next crest, thought to be the last one. These measurements are “distance”. The distance the train has traveled can be measured. In this song, the ‘ride’ includes all those elements only coincidentally related to distance—Feelings about the train, the train ride, the bridge, the rain, the burned out forest, etc., none of which are a part of distance of the train trip, but all part of the ‘ride’.

The end of this song, “No distance. It’s the Ride” is profoundly correct. ‘Distance’ is a concrete piece of information, for example, the distance traveled by the train. If one carefully thinks about our formulations, they are virtually all “distance”. We declare projective identification to be a thing, and it becomes distance. We know where and what the end is, or at least we think we do. That concept tells us nothing about the ‘ride’ of the patient, unless we decide that Melanie Klein’s theoretical concept actually describes the ride of all of us. Further, for example, “omnipotence” is a distance. We use that word, often directly to the patient. Yet, but for an incredible coincidence, telling a patient that he is ‘omnipotent’ will most likely say nothing about the reality of the patient with the possible exception of being insulting. In psycho-analysis the “ride” is really all that matters. Although we can conjure up all the formulations and theories (distance) that we wish, it is the “ride” of the patient that is all-important. And ‘rides’ are as many as there are people times infinity. Adolescents think and talk about ‘rides’. Distance talk to an adolescent by an analyst ordinarily means the end of treatment. It is one more sign to the adolescent that they are not understood. ‘Distance’ here is theoretical, judgmental. It has nothing to say about the ‘ride’ of the adolescent.

The discussion between analysand and analyst I call ‘a dialog’. The exchange as envisioned by me in psycho-analysis is a ‘dialog’, virtually always illuminates the ‘ride’. The ‘ride’ is the patient’s actual experience of events, thoughts, feelings, etc. The “ride” in our work roughly means the present actual experience of the patient that is attempted to be conveyed moment by moment by the adolescent to the analyst in a session.

The adolescent is attempting to state their experience in life at that moment. In that sense what they say always their ‘truth’. They are telling the ‘ride’ of their life at that moment. The context is now. The recognition by the analyst that there is a “ride” of the patient is crucial. A ‘ride’, for example, is not ‘depression’. The understanding that each ‘ride’ is as different as can be is monumentally important. Grasping this “ride” is the stuff that yields understanding of an adolescent. These concepts are also the ones that enable one to analyze an adolescent.

The ‘ride’ changes by the moment, both in sessions and in life. It is not static. Obviously each or our “rides” in life may superficially appear similar, yet are realistically entirely different, and ever changing. We often consider things to be ‘rides’ even though they in truth are ‘distance’. The ‘Paranoid-Schizoid position’ is an illustration of this problem. Although the concept of ‘Paranoid-Schizoid position’ is an extremely important theoretical contribution to our field by Melanie Klein, never the less, it is ‘distance’. It is a model, static in time. It is often used as though it were a ‘ride’, an actual experience of a patient. There are no experimental equivalents to this construct. There are many parts of another of Ms. Klein’s seminal contributions, ‘the Paranoid-schizoid position’. It, and its parts are often used by analysts. For the most part an adolescent or adult entering analysis, is understood as being arrested at or regressing to this ‘position’. Adolescents who suggest paranoid-schizoid elements are often told directly that these things—envy, projection, evacuation, etc. are true of him-what he ‘really’ means to say. Although some of the defensive mechanisms of this ‘position’ are seen in ordinary life, such as ‘envy’. ‘Envy’ is hardly the same entity from person to person. Would my 16 year old, ‘I want Marry’, benefit or stand for a transference interpretation of ‘his desire to project into his analyst the envy that he feels of me since I am able to get any girl I want and not think only of hair?’ Very likely not. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support such an interpretation. This would be another instance, more than likely, of an unlistened to, attempted to be theory stuffed adolescent who departs treatment.

But for great coincidence, Klein’s theoretical elements, concerning the ‘paranoid-schizoid position, no matter how brilliant they may be as theory, are not the ‘ride’ of any patient, let alone the Mary boy. The Mary Boy sees Mary, her body, and her hair, and she won’t. These elements and associated feelings are his present ‘ride’. Ms. Klein’s formulation is a distance formulation, a model that exists and has existed in its concrete form for many years, and applies to no one’s living life experience, but for extraordinary circumstances or educational efforts. There is a story written by Ms. Klein in her book Envy and Gratitude (which, wherein she writes about the end of an analytic session with a patient of hers. She describes the patient arising and turning to her saying “I have had a good feed”. No one speaks in these terms naturally. Such a statement smacks of education by the analyst of the patient. Discovering ‘Gaps’ in this theory however, is an impossibility. It is not designed for exploration, only recitation. For whatever it’s worth, I have never heard this statement questioned or elaborated on. Ms. Klein certainly didn’t question it, at least to my knowledge. It is the ‘truth’. Patients are ‘well fed’, or not. Period.

Different “rides” should yield different formulations and different applications of these formulations. Per Dr. Wilfred Bion in his book, 2nd Thoughts, Commentary, our ‘formulations’ are only models which must be able to be constantly constructed, discarded, to be replaced by another theory or model, etc”. Models otherwise derived cannot possibly investigate the truth of a patient. These ‘models’ as understood by me are attempts to understand and investigate the ‘ride’ of the patient. To realize the importance of the kind of thinking that goes into this model making with respect to adolescents cannot be overstated. Models must be made which investigate the patient’s ‘ride’. In other words, we are talking to the adolescent about his present and using models of the patient’s associations to further investigate the patients associations.

To imagine that a set of fixed formulations can possibly explain or in fact be related to the truth of any of us is, on the surface, preposterous. In that sense, our usual interpretations aren’t the result of the examination of the ‘ride’ of our patients. Using our ‘distance’ thoughts are sadly incorrect. Jealousy of a girlfriend’s friend will be just that until and if it shows that it has roots in the Oedipal complex. The use by us of our ‘distance’ formulations illuminates no truth of the patient to the patient, but are even more destructive in that we tell patients what isn’t the truth, is the truth.

Unfortunately, our non-truths are supported as truths in many ways. We sound knowledgeable. We have super-abundant amounts of education and experience. Our statements, true or not, are cloaked with the mantel of our authority and position. And so forth. Further, most of us are particularly intelligent, thoughtful, attentive, actively trying to understand our patients no matter what our theoretical bent may be, etc. These qualifications, although admired by many, be they arbitrarily constructed formulations and applications, are usually seen through rapidly by adolescents as negative elements rather than positive. ‘Academic formulations and qualifications’ such as these are often the root of the determination by the adolescents that they are not being listened to, understood and are only being given contrived, theoretical distance interpretations. They often feel, correctly, that what they say is material awaiting the chance to be attached to a theory. So matched, material-theory, adolescents are then told what they ‘really’ meant. Such maneuvers very often lead to the adolescents’ derisive departure from treatment.