Shifting the perspective after the patient's response to an interpretation

Psychoanalytic interpretation is normally understood as a sequence of two utterances: the analyst gives an interpretation and the patient responds to it. This paper suggests that, in the interpretative sequence, there is also a third utterance where psychoanalytic work takes place. This third interpretative turn involves the analyst’s action after the patient’s response to the interpretation. Using conversation analysis as method in the examination of audio-recorded psychoanalytic sessions, the paper will explicate the psychoanalytic work that gets done in third interpretative turns. Through it, the analyst takes a stance towards the patient’s understandings of the interpretation, which are shown in the patient’s response to the interpretation. The third interpretative turns on one hand ratify and accept the patient’s understandings, but, in addition to that, they also introduce a shift of perspective relative to them. In most cases, the shift of perspective is implicit but sometimes it is made explicit. The shifts of perspective bring to the foreground aspects or implications of the interpretation that were not incorporated in the patient’s response. They recast the description of the patient’s experience by showing new layers or more emotional intensity in it. The results are discussed in the light of Faimberg’s concept of listening to listening and Schlesinger’s concept of follow-up interpretation.

Misalignment as a Therapeutic Resource

The article reports conversation analysis of a single cognitive psychotherapy session in which an interactional misalignment between the therapist and the patient emerges, culminates, and is mitigated. Through this case study, the interactional practices lead- ing to a rupture in therapeutic alliance and the practices leading to its mending are explored. In the session the therapist pursues investigative orientation in relation to the patient’s experience under discussion, whereas the patient maintains orientation to “troubles-telling.” The diverging projects of the participants amount to overt misalign- ment. Eventually, the therapist brings the relationship of the patient and herself as a topic of conversation in ways which turn the misalignment into a resource of therapeu- tic work. The microanalysis of actual interactional patterns in this single case is linked to discussions of therapeutic alliance in psychotherapeutic literature.