Back to Table of Contents
oedipal dynamic is at work, with the transgression of the analytic relationship symbolizing the transgression of the oedipal barrier . The analyst's crossing of sexual barriers may at times also reflect the action of a masochistic pathology or an unconscious desire to be punished for an oedipal transgression. In his latest level of theory integration, Kernberg (2004, 2012, 2015) proposed a general developmental frame that integrates the psychoanalytic theory of development, rooted in Object Relations Theory, with neurobiological aspects of development, exploring motivational systems both at neurobiological and at derived, symbolic levels (see below the Inter- Disciplinary section). (See the separate entry OBJECT RELATIONS THEORIES). IV. G. Examples of Canadian-French Tradition Dominique Scarfone (2017) applies and extends both Freud’s and Laplanche’s conceptual network to reconcile trauma and drive (unconscious fantasy) theories. Revisiting Freud's evolution of psychoanalytic theory, from ‘seduction theory’, traumatic/war neurosis and neuroses of defense (1895, 1896, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1930) and of repression itself as an elementary form of traumatic neurosis, Scarfone specifies varying impact of trauma and repression on the symbol formation with consequences to the clinical work. (See the separate entries THE UNCONSCIOUS, OBJECT RELATIONS, INTERSUBJECTIVITY) Combining the notion of repression as a ‘failure of translation’ and as an ‘elementary traumatic neurosis’ (Freud 1895, 1915), Scarfone reconciles the Freudian theories of repression and trauma, within the broadened version of Laplanche's theory of implantation/intromission (Laplanche 1990) of the message of the Other (Laplanche 1999). Scarfone (2017) posits that, if, according to Freud, repression is a reaction to trauma, then traumatic neurosis at its first and elementary stage can be attributed just as much to the disruptive effect of the drives as to an external traumatic event. Viewed this way, there is no either/or problem between trauma and repression, nor one between inside and outside. The consequences of traumatic encounters – be it traumatic neuroses or neuroses of defense – will depend on the subject's capacity of secondary elaboration when facing the traumatic impact. It all depends on whether and to what extent the self-symbolizing capacity of the subject is operational, and this rests on the nature, form, and relational quality of the message (from the Other/caretaker/analyst) – partly translatable (implantation) or utterly untranslatable (intromission). If the self-repairing, ‘self-weaving’ capacity is thwarted by a violent intromission, by a prohibition to translate, or by a serious frustration in love, then, depending on the extent of the damage incurred, symbol formation will either fail (with the ensuing traumatic neurosis and various forms of its repetition compulsion) or it will result in the formation of closed symbols that characterize the various psychoneuroses of defense. Clinically, these two different consequences result in two different approaches: Whereas in cases of neurosis, analysis works toward a reopening of closed symbols (classical analytic
878
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online