Back to Table of Contents
between first symbols and original objects. For her, this is the developmentally normative symbolic equation; the symbolic equation develops its character and functions along with changes in the organization of the ego and object relations. Thus, both the content of the symbol and the way symbols are formed and used, reflect the state of the ego's development and its way of dealing with its objects. If symbolism is seen as a three-term relationship —the ego, the symbol, and the thing symbolized—, then problems in symbol formation must be examined in the context of the ego’s relationship to its objects. The theoretical precision and differentiation between Melanie Klein’s symbolic equation and symbolization was a meaningful contribution of Hanna Segal (1957): “I should like at this point to summarize what I mean by the terms “symbolic equation” and “symbol” respectively, and the conditions under which they arise. In the symbolic equation, the symbol-substitute is felt to be the original object. The substitute's own properties are not recognized or admitted. The symbolic equation is used to deny the absence of the ideal object, or to control a persecuting one. It belongs to the earliest stages of development.” (p. 395) Segal considers that, while the symbolic equation belongs to the paranoid-schizoid position, the symbol corresponds to the depressive position. Only the symbol created to deal with loss is available for the formation of the ego. The symbol proper, available for sublimation and furthering the development of the ego, is felt to represent the object; its own characteristics are recognized, respected, and used. It arises when depressive feelings predominate over the paranoid-schizoid ones when separation from the object, ambivalence, guilt, and loss can be experienced and tolerated. The symbol is used not to deny, but to overcome the loss. When the mechanism of projective identification is used as a defense mechanism against depressive anxieties, symbols already formed and functioning as symbols may revert to symbolic equations (p.395) Antonio Pérez-Sánchez has reviewed the subsequent evolution of Segal's ideas on symbolisation (Pérez-Sánchez, 2018). While Segal continued to maintain that projective identification was at the root of the symbol formation (Segal, 1957), sometime later (1997) she added that this was not enough since one must know the nature of the relationship between what is projected and the object on which it is projected; that is, using Bion’s container– contained model , if what is projected is adequately contained and returned. This then creates the opportunity to help the patient: if the analyst operates as an object different from the projected internal objects, so that what is projected can be contained, a relationship of mutual communicative interaction opens up, and one can then re-establish the capacity to form symbols in a more evolved way than that of symbolic equation. (Perez, 2008, p.128-134) With respect to the initial proposal about the relationship between primitive symbolism and more evolved symbolism, Segal explained a few years later: “I have presented two types of symbol formation in a very extreme way. There is a long transition between the one and the other mode and I do not think I have ever seen a patient
855
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online