Back to Table of Contents
method), in the case of traumatic neuroses proper, where symbolic forms are lacking, the work must be directed toward symbol formation itself. Brunet and Casoni (1996, 2002) examine the vicissitudes of symbolization in relation to the passage from non-symbolized to symbolized psychic material. Following Bion and Winnicott, the authors conceptualize this passage from non- symbolized to symbolized psychic material as related to link-establishing attempts between unconscious self and object experiences. Disruptions in symbol formation are then seen as a breakdown in establishing these links. In order to explore certain types of therapeutic impasses, Brunet and Casoni introduce the concept of ‘empathic projective identification’, in addition to the Kleinian ‘intrusive projective identification’ and Bionian ‘communicative projective identification’. The empathic projective identification is the preferred type for creating conditions for enhanced symbolization. However, when empathic projective identification is disturbed by an unconscious collusion between the analysand's and the analyst's anxieties, the analyst becomes unavailable, and unable to receive, identify with, and contain either the patient's intrusive projective identification or communicative ones. When such a scenario occurs, both partners are forced either to retreat farther into their own personal worlds for safety, or to defend themselves by resorting to acting-outs or acting-ins. As a developmental model for this idea, the authors envision a child who is unable to symbolize certain psychic contents (anxiety, destructive impulses, painful bodily sensations), and so attempts to communicate with his mother by projecting this psychic content into her. Under optimal circumstances, the mother succeeds in identifying herself with her child's emotional state, is able to think and can talk about it or act upon what appears unbearable and unthinkable to her child. In less fortunate circumstances, the mother is unable to mentally elaborate a daydream (Bion 1962), and the child subsequently finds himself deprived of a misunderstood part of himself or, worst still, having to take back into himself an over- whelming anxiety that he must now defend against with fortified rigidity. Analogically, a patient may be faced with archaic content during analysis, which he is unable to symbolize. If he has sufficient confidence in the analyst's containing capacities, he may attempt to use projective identification in order to place in this external object such archaic content, not only to get rid of it but also in the hope that his analyst will be able to symbolize it, and render the unthinkable thinkable. However, when the analyst experiences difficulty understanding what is projected into him, deadlocks ensue. Clinically, such impasses or deadlocks (Green 1990) may emerge as a mutual increase in anxiety, which the analysand may experience as a feeling of emptiness, solitude, fear of mental breakdown, or falling into a void, with accompanying reproaches and attacks against the analyst. Brunet and Casoni contend that it is often thanks to these angry outbursts that the analyst is able to recognize the identificatory failure on his part, which makes him unable to adequately fulfil a containing function for his patient. Only then the (often fortified) symbolization process on part of both – the analysand and the patient – may resume.
879
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online