Back to Table of Contents
IV. M. Symbolization in the Analytic Process Norbert Freedman and Jared Russell (2003) define symbolization as “the linking of experiences from distinct spheres of the mind, where one represents the other”, and “a mental quality demanded by analytic treatment, regardless of theoretical orientation… a part of a common ground” (p. 39). Upon review of various forms of symbolization occurring in a psychoanalytic discourse, Freedman and Russell introduce a hypothesis of ‘incremental symbolization’. They delineate and exemplify four symbolic forms that are met in psychoanalytic discourse: (1) incipient symbolization; (2) discursive symbolization; (3) dynamic symbolization; and (4) desymbolization. Each of these is identifiable in spoken language. Each reaches deeply into the concerns of contemporary psychoanalytic thought. Authors link their observations on symbolization to transitional states as developed by Winnicott; to reflective functioning as developed by Fonagy and Target; to the symbolization of unconscious conflict; and finally, to dissociation. They describe interpenetration of symbolic forms within a single psychoanalytic hour. Each of the forms is also specified through empirical observation, and their interpenetration within a single analytic hour exemplified. Authors recognize two pathways toward psychoanalytic knowing: the clinical-conceptual and the empirical. They conclude with some reflections upon an optimal representation of psychoanalytic discourse. It is proposed to regard this as a ‘process of incremental symbolic knowing’. This view is contrasted with the current interest in implicit relational knowing offered by Daniel N. Stern (Bruschweiler-Stern, N., et al. 2002; Friedman and Russell 2003, p. 39).
IV. N. Working with the Presymbolized/Nonsymbolized data: From Sensory-Motor Action Register to Symbol Formation
Howard Levine In a series of publications, synthetizing and extending Freud, Bion, Ogden, Green, Roussillon, Ferro, Loewald, Modell and other international and North American authors, Levine (Levine 1985, 2009, 2010; Levine and Friedman 2000) addresses ‘transformational’ rather than ‘archeological’ dimension of psychoanalytic work with patients with unrepresented and weakly represented mental states. This reflects a view of the unconscious as containing, in addition to contents that have been preconsciously experienced and subsequently repressed, also proto-thoughts and proto-feelings that have not yet been articulated and that continue to press not only for repetition but for representation and inscription . These latter contents imply a transformational movement, viewed in various theories as “representation,” “symbolization,” “mentalization,” and “alphabetization”. Consequently, rather than thinking of interpretation as only following the patient's symbolically laden associations in the act of defense analysis or uncovering repressed contents, Levine now also thinks of situations dominated by unrepresented or poorly symbolized and
890
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online