Back to Table of Contents
and action.” But, following Bion, Bronstein adds that there is an opposing tendency (- K, the reversal of learning) related to a particular kind of superego conformed by a superior and envious internalized object that affirms its superiority...” And then the associative process is unconsciously equated to action, so there can be no space for thinking. The author presents a patient whose associations served different functions other than thinking: […] ‘Freedom’ of thought, to these patients, means to feel at risk of being unable to control their ‘super’ ego [Bion denomination: an ego superior] and therefore to be left at its mercy”. Bronstein finishes with this statement: “The aim of analysis is for the analyst to try to understand why a patient cannot associate in a freer way. This is what I understand K to mean to Bion - the matching of a capacity to associate with the affect that makes the associations meaningful to the individual who has produced them and leading to the acquisition of insight.” (Bronstein, 2002: 488). Finally, according to most contemporary psychoanalytic thinking, she considers that we know that communication between patient and analyst does not only involve speech, as Freud thought, but that there are other transmissions by projection, that is, that patients can communicate their state of mind beyond their verbal associations (O'Shaughnessy, 1983; B. Joseph, 1985). “In particular, as early phantasies bear an intimate connection to the body and to unprocessed emotions when they are projected into the analyst they can produce a powerful resonance, sometimes also experienced in a physical way and forming an integral part of the analyst’s counter-transference” (Bronstein, 2015) b) Factors arising from the analyst’s interpretations and interventions. Once again, a contradictory scenario arises: interventions are generally indispensable, yet, as the analyst intervenes, he is interfering in the course of the patient’s free associations, as noted originally by Freud, and later by Rycroft (1968). However, it is an integral aspect of the analytic process that the interaction between patient and analyst results in altering the patient’s train of thoughts in new ways. Therefore, the patient's spontaneous intervention is, from time to time, intercepted and directed to follow other paths after the analyst's intervention. Moreover, if the latter responds to a difficulty in the analyst's listening, that is, to a deficient containment of what is communicated by the patient, or to a misunderstanding, then the intervention becomes an enactment of the analyst, whose influence on the course of the patient's associations can momentarily disturb the therapeutic course of the session. IV. Db. Factors Facilitating Free Association Drawing on international sources, European analysts designate the factors facilitating free associative processes as falling into two broad categories: The psychoanalytic setting and psychoanalyst’s intervention. a) The psychoanalytic setting . One of the functions of the psychoanalytic setting is to provide the most favorable conditions for guiding the patient towards free association, as per Elizabeth Auchincloss’ and Eslee Samberg’s statement: “Free association is facilitated by the use of the couch, the frequency of sessions, the analyst's nondirective stance, and relative silence. (Auchincloss and Samberg 2012, p. 89).
409
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online