Back to Table of Contents
"fundamental rule" is deduced; continue to fulfill the same objective, in spite of variations and divergences. José Bleger (1967) argues that there are two frames: the one proposed and maintained by the analyst and consciously accepted by the patient, and another of the patient, on which he projects his "phantom world", i.e. his unconscious fantasies, which would eventually lead him to break it or to generate addiction. He also qualifies the frame as "the most perfect compulsion to repetition", (p.242), its strict compliance as an "addiction", which must be interpreted (p.245) and "the result of a molding external to the institutions" (op.cit. p.245), he also considers it the most regressive and psychotic part of all types of patients (p.246). Horacio Etchegoyen (1986), in “The Foundations of Psychoanalytic Technique”, dedicated one chapter to the “Psychoanalytic Contract,” where he stresses the importance of the fundamental rule and in it free association must be a generous invitation to speak freely, in the same way as it is a request to overcome resistances. For Etchegoyen, all aspects of the contract, besides being clear from the beginning, to be stricter later on, must be fair and equitable; it must be careful according to each patient, without departing from the rule. He differentiates between various meanings of the fundamental rule of free association: a psychopath may understand that he has "the freedom to say whatever he wants, it may simply be the green light for a verbal “acting out" (p. 89, transl. by Bayona); to an obsessive patient, care needs to be given "so as not to create a problem of conscience" (p. 81, transl. by Bayona). Etchegoyen argues that the formulation of free association can be presented in many ways, also depending on the personality of both the patient and the analyst. Only if it has been formulated in a clear way for analyst and patient, considering that it will not be fully complied with, can it be interpreted in favor of the analytic process and not as a failure to comply with a norm. "Free association...must give the patient… in the first place the freedom to associate, … that he can say everything he thinks; but at the same time he must know that the analyst expects him to hold nothing back, to speak without mental reservations...I try then to make the patient see not only that he is free to say everything he thinks but also that he must say it even if it costs him, in such a way that he knows that the norm exists and that his non-compliance will be the subject of my work" (p. 92, transl. by Bayona). Fernando Urribarri (2008), in his lectures and publications on contemporary psychoanalytic technique, states that "the technical rules aim at an asymmetrical and complementary functioning of the patient and the analyst… free association and floating attention, abstinence and benevolent neutrality" (p.81). According to Urribarri, the analyst then has the task of being the archivist of the history of the patient's analysis and by means of free association to search in the registers of the preconscious memory for which he will evoke his free associations at every moment of the discourse. Urribari views this as a more active posture on the part of the analyst. Eduardo Laverde and Inés Bayona (2012), in a book on conceptual research in psychoanalysis, on the formulation of the fundamental rule within which free association is included, point out the broad variability of every facet of free association. They note that before and after the research carried out by Freud himself on the formulation to the patient on this
410
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online