The Empathic Ground: Intersubjectivity and Nonduality in the Psychotherapeutic Process

1. Nondual Realization and Intersubjectivity Theory

ONE Nondual Realization and Intersubjectivity Theory PSYCHOANALYTIC intersubjectivity theory and Asian nondual philosophy have in common two radical claims about human existence. One is the ultimately subjective nature of all experience, with its corollary that there is no objective reality that we can know with certainty.The other is the denial of an independently existing individual self. One of the main differences between intersubjectivity theory and Asian nondual philosophy is their understanding of the nature of subjectivity . Intersubjectivity theory emerges from and articulates the postmodern view that all experience is subjectively organized.“The principal components of subjectivity, in our view, are the organizing principles, whether automatic and rigid, or reflective and flexible” (Orange, Atwood, & Stolorow, 1997, p. 7). In contrast, Asian nondual philosophy asserts that we can encounter—or unveil—a nonorganized, self-existing (unconstructed) basis of subjectivity.This self-existing subjectivity , or consciousness, is experienced as nondual: as pervading both subject and object as a unity. Nondual realization, as it is understood in this book, is the emergence of a nonconceptual experience of self/other unity. It is the basis of deepened contact with oneself, one’s environment, and with other people. It constitutes a very subtle and intimate dimension of human relationships. In my view, nondual realization does not negate the hermeneutic, co-constructed approach to psychotherapy adhered to in intersubjectivity 17 theory; rather, it facilitates it. Orange (2000) writes, “The rigidity that we associate with various kinds of psychopathology can be grasped as a kind of freezing of one’s experiential horizons so that other perspectives remain unavailable” (p. 489). As rigid organizations of experience are articulated and resolved in the psychotherapeutic process, an openness or availability to experience emerges. With some guidance, this openness can progress to reveal the self-existing dimension of nondual consciousness. I N T E R S U B J E C T I V I T Y T H E O R Y Psychoanalysis began with Sigmund Freud’s theory of biologically based sexual and aggressive drives that must be controlled for the client to adapt to societal standards of normative behavior. Although this theory views the client in relation to his or her world, it is concerned with the internal desires and fantasies that set the client against the restrictive and seemingly objective reality of the environment.The psychoanalyst represents the reality of the objective world, and assumes the authority to analyze the client’s distance from it. The Freudian model presents us with a pathological subject who must conform to the healthy object of society in general, and the analyst in particular. In the classical psychoanalytic relationship, the client lies passively on a couch, focused solely on the flow of his or her own thoughts; the analyst is removed from the client’s line of vision. This position represents the hermetic, intrapsychic nature of psychological healing, as it is understood in classical psychoanalysis. In the generations following Freud, psychoanalysis went through a “humanistic” transformation, exemplified by the self psychology of Heinz Kohut (1977, 1984), among others. Kohut saw the origin of psychopathology as the child’s reaction to deficits of empathic attunement and approval in his or her environment. Kohut’s ideas were embedded in a worldview that viewed industrialized society not as the measure of reality and health, but as potentially damaging to the human spirit. Along with Carl Rogers (1965), R. D. Laing (1965), Rollo May (1953), and many others, Kohut was concerned with addressing an internal hollowness or fragmentation, a lack of self-contact that was seen as a malaise 18 T h e E m p a t h i c G r o u n d afflicting modern humanity in general.The humanistic turn shifted the goal of psychoanalysis from helping clients adjust to society to helping them recover from the conforming, dehumanizing aspects of society, as well as the destructive elements of their childhood environments. The relationship between the therapist and client also shifted.The therapist was no longer a remote authority, commenting from afar on the client’s monologue. Instead, the therapist became an empathic guide for the client’s inward journey. Even the positions of the therapist and client changed.The client now sat upright, a more proactive stance than the prone position on the couch, and faced the therapist. In this position , the therapist and client were inevitably engaged in a two-way communication, in which both could...