Back to Table of Contents
rule, "there are differences of opinion and objections to one and another way of stating it, including Freud's (1913) metaphor of the traveler who describes what he sees. In conclusion, the origin of this rule is pre-analytic, and there is no agreement among analysts as to its formulation" (p. 53). In a dialogue with Bleger, Laverde and Bayona (2012) articulate a contemporary position on the free association in the context of the frame. They understand that frame obeys a methodological need, to include controlled variables in the analytic relationship and to exclude others, both in its contractual dimension, as well as in the patient-analyst functioning, like free association, and evenly floating attention. Critical of some of the adjectives used by Bleger, they posit that it is quite a different matter if the patient's fantasies (restrictive, punitive, erotic-aggressive, regressive, etc.) fall on the frame, which can be analyzed, making it clear that the analysis falls on these and not on the frame. compliance with the framework cannot be considered an addiction or an institutional submission, since the situation and the analytical process depend on its stability. In addition, a double message would be sent to the patient: asking him to comply with it and at the same time communicating that he is addicted or submissive to it. In any case, it is to be expected that a patient who is extremely compliant with the rules of the framework will not comply with them, which would generate anguish, panic, guilt, feelings of depersonalization, etc., and then the analyst would intervene to present the unconscious fantasies in the face of the rupture. They do not consider an overt compliance with the framework to be a simple result of submission to an institutional power, since, under optimal conditions, the technique is maintained according to criteria of efficiency or articulation of the clinical practice, supported by some other theoretical concepts: transference, countertransference, resistance, etc. Therefore, the technique will change when it ceases to be efficient, or when its theoretical support is replaced by other more valid ones. Regarding ideology, it is a fact that every analyst has it in social, political, economic, cultural, etc. matters and has committed himself to it in these fields, but this ideology should not permeate his technique or his theory. Jaime Marcos Lutenberg (2015) writes about ‘Corporeal Free Associations’: "In a session we have access to an observational universe that is far beyond the patient's verbal associations. What meaning attributable to a gurgling, a tachycardia, a sudden headache or a choking that emerges parallel to a silence or phonic utterance." (P. 1). Lutenberg’s Corporeal Free Association is especially relevant in relation to hysteria and psychosomatic afflictions. Corporeal ‘free association’ is Lutenberg's term stands for "The muscular movements not directed by the conscious that occur during analytic regression" (p. 5). Writing on the analyst's listening, following Green and Bion, Lutenberg proposes that, in patients with pathologies of a wider range (beyond neurosis), the traditional listening to the patient's free association is different and is not sufficient. "The constant and complex ‘giving up’ in the free association of such patients offer a transferential testimony of the ‘mental abortions’ they experienced during their history", which are staged and represented in the analytic process by means of countertransference, negative transference, lapses, enacting "their timeless mental catastrophes, impossible to be represented and symbolized" (p. 2). Lutenberg
414
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online