Back to Table of Contents
baby, and as such is transmitted when the baby sees his image reflected in the mirror and when the mother looks at him.
V. Acb. Andre Green Green (1979) articulates his ideas on symbolization in chapters 2 and 8 of his book On Private Madness . His main interest is to describe the importance of the symbolizing function within the analytic process. His contributions are of great relevance to psychoanalytical clinical practice in Latin America. In psychoanalytic work with mainly neurotic patients, who have intact capacities to symbolize, the analyst can use his affective capacities and his empathy to make interpretations, in the context of the classical understanding of transference-countertransference. The setting remains mainly in the background. However, in the treatments of borderline and psychosomatic patients, he formulates “1) The role of the analyst within a broader conception of countertransference that includes its imaginative elaboration; 2) The function of the analytical setting and its relations with mental functioning due to the symbolization effects that unfold in it.” (p. 49) In this vein, he proposes a broader definition of countertransference, which does not only consider the effects of the analyst’s emotions, but also includes his mental functioning, influenced by his professional and cultural background. In addition, these patients, the analytical setting is fundamental, due to the constancy, containment, and privacy that it provides: “The interest given to the analytic setting and mental functioning intends to articulate the conditions in which the analytic object is formed by means of symbolization, taking into account, within the dual relationship, the participation of the setting as the third.” (p. 87) The work of symbolization is only possible when the setting allows: “The birth and development of an object relationship” (p. 71). Green describes the psychic functioning of these patients, based on different aspects of psychoanalytic processes, highlighting the following: “1. The experiences of primary fusion indicate a subject-object indistinction, with a confusion of the boundaries of the ego; 2. The specific way of symbolization, prisoner of the dual organization; 3. The need of structuring integration on behalf of the object.” (p. 59) Viewed in this perspective, differences are found both in the symbolization process and in the defense mechanisms used. In patients with psychosomatic problems, non-symbolic formations like "somatic exclusion" (p. 59) and/or the "expulsion by the act" (p. 60) prevail. In
889
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online