Clinically rethinking CA-studies to improve therapeutic conversation
Clinically rethinking CA-studies to improve therapeutic conversation
复制标题
临床重新思考 CA 研究以改善治疗对话
DOI:
10.1558/cam.41910
复制
发表时间:
2020
期刊:
影响因子:
--
通讯作者:
M. Buchholz
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
M. Buchholz
Having read the five papers – by Joanna Pawelczyk, by Claudio Scarvaglieri, by Thomas Spranz-Fogasy and co-authors, by Liisa Voutilainen and Anssi Peräkylä and by Peter Muntigl and Adam O. Horvath – it is a pleasure to conclude that our common project to better understand what is said and done (by talking) in the treatment room is on the right track. I am a fully trained psychoanalyst who has conducted some conversation analysis of my own, and I think I have an idea how much work must be invested in writing such papers after collecting, organizing and analyzing the data, and I know that some of the contributing authors here have considerable experience in doing psychotherapy themselves. It is an honor to be invited to comment on these studies from a clinical point of view, which I restrict to my professional experience as psychoanalyst and as a family therapist with many years of experience. Let me begin my comment with a rough sketch of the dimensions of what can be termed the ‘therapeutic space’ with a structure (horizontal/vertical). One of the most relevant gains by CA studies is a temporal-sequential perspective on process. My first dimension to be considered here is horizontal, indicating the shared ‘distance-closeness’ of social linkages. Therapist and patient (or client) talk, in most situations sitting face-to-face. They address each other and follow each other’s gaze or the movements they make with their heads, their faces and their bodies. In particular, they mutually read each other’s hand gestures and include this reading into their imagination of each other. A process of collaborative meaning making is set in motion. Spranz-Fogasy and his co-authors show how therapists using formulations they name ‘requesting examples’ extend this horizontal dimension. This extension has a curative effect in itself; it liberates the patient from the narrowing effect of false abstractions. Voutilainen and Peräkylä also address this difference between extension and narrowing in making their plausible distinction between ‘open’ and ‘closed’ therapies. In ‘open’ therapies, there are more variations in stance taking, a higher flexibility of mental movement; perhaps one might say therapist and patient are ready for a kind of conversational dance which is missed in ‘closed’ therapies (or sessions). It is not easy to define the outer border of such a space. Scarvaglieri shows how a beneficial therapeutic interpretation is directly linked to cultural knowledge, through an example of a woman who is understood to be treating her husband like a child but is trying to change this. The cultural knowledge in such an interpretation transcends the limits of the therapeutic space along the horizontal axis. The second dimension is vertical, which here indicates depth. Patients are encouraged to tell their (hi)story. Being invited to tell a ‘how-they-became-what-they-are-history’ is Start next available