Irwin Hoffman's Constructivist Theory as an Expression of Traditional Psychoanalytic Thinking: A Reexamination of Ritual and Spontaneity in the Psychoanalytic Process

Ritual and Spontaneity in the Psychoanalytic Process: A Dialectical-Constructivist View brings together more than two decades of work by the contemporary American psychoanalyst, Irwin Z. Hoffman. The importance ascribed to Hoffman's work by the psychoanalytic community is reflected in the extensive discussion engendered by the publication of this book (Benjamin 1999; Friedman 1999; Fritsch 2000; Margulies 1999; Richards 1999; Sass 1999; Skolnikoff 2000; Slavin 2001; Stein 2001; Stern 2001).

The aim of this essay is to examine the meaning of Hoffman's work for the notion of tradition in the psychoanalytic context. Hoffman's book provides an especially interesting opportunity to deal with this matter because he was one of the creators of "two-person psychology" (Hoffman 1983; Hoffman 1991). This theoretical and therapeutic position is considered revolutionary by many of its proponents, some of whom even go as far as to call it a "paradigm shift" and to describe it as a significant departure from the principles of traditional psychoanalysis (e.g., Mitchell 1988; Hoffman 1991; Stolorow and Atwood 1994).

According to my reading, Hoffman is much more traditional than revolutionary. To understand why this is so, it is necessary to distinguish between several different uses of the term "tradition." One common way to regard it is with deep appreciation as an object of reverence, a source of absolute obligations and aspirations that shape the course of one's life. Another is to regard it critically as an external body of knowledge from which the subject has already become somewhat distanced. Indeed, everyday usage of the term "tradition" often connects it with a variety of rituals and customs, a sort of folklore, which may provide individuals' lives with color and apparent significance, but are not really relevant to their ongoing existence and activity in the real world.

At first glance, it would seem that Hoffman's thinking on psychoanalytic tradition focuses on the latter critical use of the term. The essence of this thinking gets its most purified expression through the title of his book, which contrasts two phenomena in the psychoanalytic process—"ritual" on the one hand, and "spontaneity" on the other. Hoffman applies the term "ritual" to theoretical and practical views that are generally associated with traditional positivistic psychoanalysis (e.g., the therapist as an objective observer, the ideals of neutrality and anonymity), while he uses "spontaneity" to refer to views and practices stemming from the proponents of "two-person psychology," especially those who emphasize the constructed nature of the therapeutic process. It is important to note that in using the term "ritual" for classical principles, Hoffman changes them in a most significant way. These principles are no longer considered to be what makes analysis possible (as they were in the classical view), but rather to be what creates the necessary background for the appearance of the hoped-for spontaneity, which is now seen as the heart of analytic treatment.

Consider the case that Hoffman describes (1998, 206) of a patient who suddenly hears from her analyst that lying on the couch, which he suggested to her at the beginning of her analysis, is not so much a way of creating the optimal conditions for analysis as it is a requirement for him to complete his training. This disclosure, which aims to destroy the patient's naive acceptance of the analytic tradition as valuable, becomes a medium for the expression of the analyst's spontaneity, as well as an opportunity to reveal (whether explicitly or implicitly) the elastic quality of sociocultural constructions of all sorts. It would thus seem that while Hoffman does not completely reject traditional psychoanalytic theory and practice, he maintains that he dramatically changes these so that they become only part of the background of the analytic process and even to a great extent an illusory component of that background.¹

I suggest, however, that examining Hoffman's writings in a broader context reveals that the change that occurs is not as dramatic, nor the break with tradition so sharp, as Hoffman [End Page 372...