Back to Table of Contents
III. Aa. Contribution of Melanie Klein and the Kleinians III. Aaa. Melanie Klein
Klein ( 1926 a,b; 1929a, b; 1930a, b, c) made a seminal contribution to understanding of the role of symbolism in sublimation. Extending Abraham’s, Ferenczi’s and Jones’ conceptualizations of symbolic processes and symbolism, Melanie Klein drew the conclusion that symbolism is the foundation of all sublimation and of every talent, since it is by way of symbolic equation that things, activities and interests become the subject of libidinal phantasies.and symbol formation was at the core the of successful sublimation and creativity. As to the relationship between sublimation and symbolization, Klein followed and developed further especially Abraham’s (1911b) suggestion that sublimation and symbolic representation of the internal conflict can have both a defensive and a reparative function. Closer to Abraham than to Jones, she wrote: “…symbolization is the foundation of all sublimation and of every talent … not only does symbolism come to be the foundation of all phantasy and sublimation, but more than that; it is the basis of the subject’s relation to the outside world and to reality in general” (Klein, 1930b, p. 220-224). In this way, symbolic function is closely connected with recognition of external and internal realities in the depressive position as well as the capacity for mourning. Klein’s conceptualizing of symbol formation originated in her work as an analyst of severely disturbed children. Early on she realized the symbolic value of children’s play and on the basis of this, developed her play-technique of child analysis. She understood children’s play in the same way as she approached dream interpretation, as symbolically representing wishes, phantasies and conflicts via the same ‘phylogenetically acquired mode of expression’ (Klein 1926b, p.134). Such an idea may not have been completely foreign to Freud when he analysed the fort- da game of his grandson, who threw and then retrieved the cotton-reel from his cot. This Freud understood to be a symbolic representation and attempt to master the painful absence of the child’s mother. However, Freud did not further develop theoretically the idea of the symbolic value of children’s play. Klein, being less committed to Freud’s economic theory of psychic energy, considered that even though children’s play involved a muscular discharge of energy, this was not less symbolic than words. She thus saw phantasy not as an alternative to bodily action, but running in parallel to it. In her view, it was phantasy that brought about physical discharge through action. She understood play as a symbolic expression of underlying unconscious conflicts, wishes and phantasies. Klein was particularly interested in children’s intellectual inhibitions and saw these as inhibitions of symbolic functioning where aggression generating anxiety and guilt plays a central role. For Klein, it is anxiety and guilt stemming from aggression that leads to a displacement of the epistemophilic instinct to other objects, thus giving symbolic meaning to the world. In her final paper on the subject “The Importance of Symbol Formation in the
855
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online