When the Frame Doesn't Fit the Picture

Abstract

I reconsider the function and construction of the psychoanalytic frame from an intersubjective, relational perspective. The analytic frame is meant to create and stand for, both practically and symbolically, a therapeutic structure with clear and safe boundaries in which the process of therapy unfolds. From my perspective, the establishment of the frame is, at the same time, an integral part of the process itself and reflects conscious and unconscious aspects of both patient and analyst. I explore this paradox and its implications for both practice and theory. In theorizing the functions of the frame, I draw on Goffman's frame theory, Bateson's anthropological and ethological studies, Ferenzci's perspective on the elasticity of technique, and a number of contemporary relational theorists. Several clinical vignettes are presented as illustrative of a new perspective on the analytic frame as cocreated and contextual, reflecting the variability of the psychoanalytic situation and the uniqueness of each dyad. An earlier version of this paper was given at the IARPP Rome Conference 2005, “Unconscious Experience: Relational Perspectives, L'esperienza Inconscia: Prospettive Relazionali” in Rome, Italy. Editor's note: This symposium (papers by Bass and Laor) is the third in our series of papers for which readers are invited to submit short discussions of two to five double-spaced pages or questions that they would like to ask the authors. Aselection of these responses, as well as the authors' reactions, will be published in an upcoming issue of Psychoanalytic Dialogues. All submissions should be dated on or before August 1, 2007, and mailed to the address printed at the back of this journal.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 122 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.