| This dissertation is an exploratory study of the analyst's subjectivity in regard to money in the clinical encounter. While existing research on money in psychotherapy and psychoanalysis has exclusively concentrated on the fee transaction (Herron & Welt, 1992; Keuffel, 1996), this study examines the various symbolic and concrete economies of money that enter into the relationship between analyst and patient. It investigates how analysts encounter money in psychoanalysis, their feelings, thoughts and actions in regard to these themes. This study focuses on the issues which arise for analysts when they attempt to understand and address money as part of their work with patients.;Literature on the psychological dimensions of money is reviewed, addressing the historical, societal and cultural factors which influence how people think about money. Writings on metaphoric meanings of money are presented, with a particular emphasis on the evolution and application of psychoanalytic theories on the topic.;A qualitative method is used involving interviews with ten experienced psychoanalysts who completed brief demographic questionnaires, and participated in semi-structured dialogues. Data from the participants' responses is analyzed according to recurrent themes.;Its many symbolic and real trajectories make money a rich and particularly complex topic in psychoanalysis. This study finds that analysts note the various registers of money, and are curious to discuss the meaning of money in the clinical encounter with a patient, even if a certain anxiety remains. The unease and confusion money generates is found to be based on the fact that money enmeshes the analyst with the patient in an elaborate economy of class, culture, as well as symbolic and concrete meanings. Money disrupts the illusion of mutuality by exposing a difference in needs and desires between analyst and patient. In the transferential matrix, this difference stirs up many feelings, such as envy, greed, benevolence, guilt and shame. This study shows that a fruitful dialogue about money can only occur if analysts can tolerate involving their own subjectivity in the process of analysis. Implications of the results are discussed and useful directions for future research are given. |
