Back to Table of Contents
dreaming; ludic symbols refer to symbolic activity during play. Piaget stresses that the continuum of oneiric and ludic symbols rests on the fact that basic to both is the ability to form images and to imitate. These mental symbols in dreams and play involve the manipulation of numerous images which are transformed as the play or dream continues. This transformation of symbols in dreams and play suggests the following for Piaget: the symbol signifies; it is personal and it resembles what it stands for, Ludic and oneiric symbols, then, are internalized symbolic processes which allow the child to signify and create meaning in a unique way. When a child tells a story, he is using a symbolic path to communicate his fears and fantasies to the therapist. The child's communication in this mode reflects his ability to use symbols as signifiers of conflicts, needs and wishes, thus allowing the child some distance from the conflict. Piaget infers that to have achieved this level of symbolic communication the child has assimilated sensory-motor schemas, like imitation, and that language and fantasy have replaced motor activity as the primary mode for communicating and creating meaning for the child. Donald W. Winnicott’s (1951, 1967) potential space and transitionality are both relevant to symbol formation in development and in analysis. Winnicott (1967), exploring the relationship of transitional phenomena to cultural development, viewed the transitional object as a creation that also marks the appearance of the symbolic process. The first 'not me' possession is also the infant's first use of a 'symbol', at the point where the infant–mother continuity is becoming a dyadic contiguity. The formation of this symbol would occur during differentiation, the subphase of separation-individuation when many infants do manifest transitional object attachments. Winnicott's formulations would place symbol formation in the second half of the first year of life. The timing of the first transitional object would coincide with the phase of differentiation and would be generally consistent with the timing of the Isakower phenomenon and its related protosymbolic or presymbolic phenomena. Rene Spitz (1957) postulated the head-shaking semantic 'no' as the first abstract symbol, usually achieved at 15 months of age. The gesture of negation facilitates separateness and self- objectivation, as well as the parallel acquisition of semantic verbal communication. The achievement of symbolic negation marked the appearance of Spitz's 'third organizer of the psyche', a precursor of ego judgement and superego prohibition. The ontogenesis of negation is rooted in imitative identification which develops into an enduring, selective identification with the aggressor. The 'no' is a major developmental achievement, but, according to some (Blum 1978) may not be the first abstract semantic symbol. Charlotte Balkanyi (1961, 1964, 1968) connects symbolization to language, verbalization, and the development of rules. Here, psychoanalytic symbols, as in Blum’s definition below, have perceptual and sensory roots and always refer to the body ego, infantile instinctual aims and objects, erogenous zones and functions. Ernest Jones, cited above, addresses the disguise of the psychoanalytic symbol that is based on repression. In his account, that which does not need to undergo repression is not symbolized. Connecting the archaic connection of symbols to body functions and the place of ‘de-repression’ in her understanding of symbolism, Balkanyi examines the beginnings of language and verbalization using her
882
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online