Back to Table of Contents
(4) “Normal Enactments” and the Analytic Field The analytic process as a whole can be described as a continuum of normal and pathological enactments. The analyst is trying to transform the contents of the patient’s internal world “staged” through interaction with those of the analyst himself, also making use of those derived from his unconscious countertransference. In other words, he or she willingly engages—as a co-participant—in the enactments that are constantly occurring in the analytic setting, necessarily, simply by virtue of being an analyst. His role is to identify continuous enactments in advance and dismantle them as he goes along. The majority of these enactments are derived from realistic projective identifications and occur in conjunction with symbolic verbal communication. They are called by Cassorla (2001) “normal enactments”. Normal enactments occur on a continuum and the analyst uses his/her interventions to dismantle them. These are contrasted with “pathological enactments”, which are derived from massive projective identifications and are harder to avoid or dismantle. These can be classified as: acute —when they appear with great intensity, mobilizing the analytical dyad in a violent way, and lasting only moments when they are understood; or chronic —which are prolonged in a collusion that takes some time to be identified or which leads to an impasse that cannot be resolved. Comparing Cassorla’s ideas on normal enactments with Barangers’ et al. (1983) writing on psychoanalytic process (and non-process) in the field, “There is process as long as the bastions are being detected and destroyed.” (p.13), It then follows that when the bastions take control of the field, there ceases to be a psychoanalytic process altogether. This can be viewed as a confirmation that bastions and “chronic enactments” are parts of similar clinical facts. (5) Setting and Analytic Field Cassorla (2017) differentiates the setting and the analytic field. The setting encompasses some aspects of the analytic field but not its complexity. He considers the mental setting as being more important than the setting defined by spatial and temporal rules. The mental setting shows the analyst’s ability to maintain a state of mind whereby she or he becomes involved in the analysis. But the analyst’s mental state must also allow her or him to be aware of when the dyad is distancing itself from what the analyst considers to be psychoanalysis. With this awareness, the analyst will return to her or his task of psychoanalysing, anywhere and at any time, even outside the office. Strictly speaking, the field of dreaming includes not only the temporal and spatial setting, but the mental setting as well. But the field goes beyond these since it includes all situations where symbolization can occur as a reflection of the analytic process. The emotional involvement between analyst and analysand begins even before the first interview and continues after each session, outside the analyst’s office. The analyst has the advantage of being able to perceive how her or his mental universe broadens when she or he writes about a session, when she or he talks about the analysand with colleagues, supervisors and analysts, when a nighttime dream of hers or his throws light on one or another analytic process, or when she or he has insights about an analysis
686
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online