4
This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library] On: 21 November 2014, At: 08:24 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK International Forum of Psychoanalysis Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/spsy20 Construction and subjectivity of fantasy (discussion) Guido Medri a a Via Andrea Doria 7, I-20124, Milano, Italy Published online: 24 Dec 2007. To cite this article: Guido Medri (1997) Construction and subjectivity of fantasy (discussion), International Forum of Psychoanalysis, 6:4, 255-257, DOI: 10.1080/08037069708405721 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08037069708405721 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

Construction and subjectivity of fantasy (discussion)

  • Upload
    guido

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Construction and subjectivity of fantasy (discussion)

This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]On: 21 November 2014, At: 08:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Forum of PsychoanalysisPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/spsy20

Construction and subjectivity of fantasy (discussion)Guido Medri aa Via Andrea Doria 7, I-20124, Milano, ItalyPublished online: 24 Dec 2007.

To cite this article: Guido Medri (1997) Construction and subjectivity of fantasy (discussion), International Forum of Psychoanalysis,6:4, 255-257, DOI: 10.1080/08037069708405721

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08037069708405721

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectlyin connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Construction and subjectivity of fantasy (discussion)

Int Forum Psychoanal 6:(255-257), 1997

Discussion of Construction and Subjectivity of Fantasy by Daniela de Robertis and Maria Luisa Tricoli (lnt Forum Psychoanal 1997,6147-74)

Construction and Subjectivity of Fantasy (Discussion) Guido Medri, Milan, Italy

I would like to start out from the case presented in the article to show how the interpretation runs according to the epistemic line of thinking. One can agree with the idea that “to be a savior” is a narrative, an interpretation of reality born as an answer to epistemophilic need and as a result of repression. However, it seems to me to be more explanatory to describe the narrative of “being a savior” in the usual terms, as an extensive rationali- zation which follows and is accompanied by other defense mechanisms, such as projective identification (n.b. the signs of exportation and treatment of sick and needy parts in others) and reactive formations (exaggerated amenability etc.).

No psychoanalyst would deny the need to give a sense to hisher own experiences and behavior (e.g. in the form of hypotheses about the self and the object). However, one specification is necessary. Such narra- tives have no connection with the original phantasms. In the first place, it is questionable as to what point they are unconscious and moreover, they are built up over time, especially during early adolescence. On the other hand, even if Freud did not clearly distin- guish primary phantasms from phantasies (1) (a task first performed by Susan Isaac, with her distinction between fantasy and phantasy) (2), they nonetheless constitute the deepest nucleus of the unconscious.

Further on we come up against the myth of the tyrannical father who kills his sons. This is supposedly the “development and transformation of the previous narrative to be a savior”. Steve “thanks to this fantasy, can feel justified in hating him”. I feel that rooting the myth in the epistemophilic drive is an intellectualistic type of explanation that does not take into account the content of the phantasm. Steve should have at his disposal a vast repertoire of fantasies. All he had to do was choose the one that best suited his persona and his story. And instead he comes up with the most classic and stereotyped myth: that of Cronus, who killed his own sons! It is only a short step from here to the Oedipus complex (Freud did not set out in detail the relationship between original phantasms and

the Oedipus complex, but it is obvious that the former lay the foundations for the latter).

It is truly strange that the authors-whose inten- tion is to provide clinical evidence to support their theoretical approach-do not realize that this case corroborates the opposite position. Of course, other patients might still produce myths of a different kind. However, what the clinical example should be dis- proving is the repetitive nature of the content of primitive phantasms because, for Freud, this is the clinical evidence (Introduction to Psychoanalysis, 1915), and it is this which provides the basis for Freud’s theories. Steve’s myth is nothing more than a phantasm of castration. The result is paradoxical: we are left with that old formula “Oedipus yesterday, Oedipus today”, which the authors so wished to do away with.

Moreover, further confirmation for classical theory is found inasmuch as it holds that the primary phantasm acts as a platform, as an organizational principle for subsequent phantasies. In the text, it is unclear whether the myth of the tyrant follows or precedes the narrative of being “a savior”. Surely, due to the radical nature of its content, and due to its appearance only at an advanced stage of analysis, it must precede it. Indeed, it must determine it. “To be a savior” is an obedient and generally defensive response when faced with the terror of a confrontation with the killer father.

Theoretical Reasons for Constructing the Myth We can hypothesize that the first representations are the product of the encounter between an affective state in terms of pleasure-unpleasure, caused by somatic ten- sion and release of tension, and image-experiences arriving from outside. These representations make no distinction between the various sources. The first psychic reality would thus be an elaboration of outside reality according to the emotive logic of the body or perhaps, instead, this logic would look for an answer in

0 Scandinavian University Press 1997. ISSN 0803-706X

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:24

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 3: Construction and subjectivity of fantasy (discussion)

Int Forum Psychoanal 6, 1997

what it finds on the outside. This is the place and the time for primary phantasms. We might wonder whether the myth of the tyrant could have been formed during this period. The answer can only be no. The child already knew of the death of his brother. and we are dealing with a “mise en scene” that requires a well developed fantasizing activity. It should be set at the dawn of the Oedipus complex.

Effectively. it is difficult to pinpoint the time at which the primary phantasm comes into being: it is too complex to be primal. However. it seems that the myth is rooted in the sensorial-cognitive amalgam I mentioned above. This is a totally unrealistic inter- pretation of the facts. necessitated. so to speak, in an unniediated form. by the underlying distress. In a certain sense, rather than being fantasized, the phan- tasm forces itself on the person: it provides the distress with a stage and lends it a shape. The idea is not so much to explain the distress as to give it visual connotations. The difference between the myth and the narrative of being “a savior” can be super- imposed on the difference between the more primi- tive defenses - seen as a means of avoiding being overcome by pain and distress - and the higher level defenses. where we can perceive a “creative” phase based on the natural talents and the selectivity involved in adopting only some of our parents‘ defensive modes.

Theoretical Aspects-a Few Objections The hub of the theory proposed in the paper is that everyone has the copyright to his own fantasies. Freud starts out from the statement that there exists 9 basic core of universal phantasies that are part of all mankind (3). In other words, there exists a begin- ning which lies inside the subject, but is also part of the species: it pre-exists him. Moreover. and this is a central aspect. this starting point-whether it stems from the expressive nature of the drives. as I believe. or from the history of mankmd. as the phylogenetic hypothesis maintains-has an organiza- tional function. It acts as a platform for all subsequent phantasies.

Since there is no immediate evidence of the phan- tasm, the analyst is obliged to try to discover it through its derivates. In Steve‘s case. it is particularly easy to find: the patient expresses an interpretation of reality that exactly reproduces the phantasm of cas- tration. We would however reach the same conclu- sion even if the phantasm were not rendered explicit.

We would infer it from a set of hypotheses drawn from a series of elements that the patient brings us. This inductive procedure is an integral part of the analytical work. It is a question not only and not so much of reaching a starting point with a general nature, but of organizing the material following laws that validate the interpretative line of thought. Indeed, the authors are consistent enough to extend their criticism to the point of asserting that “the interpretation has a scientific value not because it follows general laws, but because it provides a narrative of individual history”, they scornfully refer to Oedipus in terms of the paramount fantasy etc. In other words, it is the whole metapsychological slant that is put in question and invalidated.

This point should be stressed: there is a great deal at stake here. The radicality of this position even puts the authors on their guard. Fearing the loss of reference points, they therefore express their disagreement with hermeneutic relativism and arbitrariness and entrust themselves to the theories of Maturana and Varela. I admit that I have only an indirect knowledge of these authors’ works. If, however, the basic premise is that it is useless to seek a reference point unless it lies within the subject’s constructions, the theory can obviously be turned to support weak thinking, even in its most extreme forms.

The authors maintain that, after the rejection of real trauma, Freud always and in any case searched for a correspondence between external and internal reality, thus proving himself to be a positivistic scientist. I have nothing to object to on this point. However, Freud’s work consists of a collection of conceptualizations which is so complex that to isolate one single aspect of it means taking a reductive view. What can we say when, for example (4), referring to Kant. he maintains that what is real cannot be known, and he proposes the internal object as less unknow- able than the external object? Or when he affirms that nothing is less scientific than knowledge in psycho- analysis, to the point that he defines metapsychology as “a witch” and as “our myth”? (5 ) . If we confined ourselves to these elements of Freud’s thinking we would have to consider him a romantic dreamer!

It seems to me that conceptualizations in psycho- analysis swing like a pendulum: from the present to prehistory, from theory seeking confirmation in clini- cal evidence to clinical experiences that keep theory under constant tension. They shift from real trauma that denies phantasy (note the crescendo of data bearing witness to acts of violence against children)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:24

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 4: Construction and subjectivity of fantasy (discussion)

Int Forum Psychoanal 6, 1997 Discic~sion 257

to phantasies that rob the real data of their truth (note the continuous readjustments made by the patient in the parental figures over the course of the analysis). Psychoanalysis swings from asserting its claim to being an exact science to promoting itself as an esthetic exercise, dismissing every schematic line drawn within it. We go from focusing on the most minute detail to a constant attention to the personality as a whole, and so on.

This swing causes a continuous instability in the sense of our discipline, and the resulting uncer- tainty incites the mind to rethink well-known meta- phors and to produce new ones. Moreover, research activities seem to produce the same alternation of questions and answers, of unsolvable oppositions and lucky moments of synthesis, which is so typical of the process of analytic treatment. Psychoanalysis is suspended between the historic event and a mythical elaboration and, if one of the two poles is removed, as the authors of the article would have it, the whole discipline becomes flat and loses its tension, its vital

energy. So, the operation that the authors effectuate does not endow psychoanalysis with greater creativity: it has the opposite effect.

References 1. Laplanche J, Pontalis GB.Vocabulaire de la psychanalyse. Presses

2. Isaacs S . The nature and function of phantasy. Int J Psychoanal 1948;

3. Freud S. Introduzione alla psicoanalisi (1915-17), OSF 8. 4. Freud S . Metapsicologia 1915, OSF 8. 5 . Freud S. Analisi teminabile e interminabile 1937, OSF 1 1.

Universitaires de France. Paris 1967.

20: 148-60.

Guido Medri, M. D. Via Andrea Doria 7

I-20124 Milano Italy

A reply by the authors of “Construction and Sub- jectivity of Fantasy” to the two discussions by Gunnel Wrede and Guido Medri will be published in issue no I , vol 7, 1998.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

8:24

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14