Psychoanalytic couple and attachment psychotherapy
Giulio Cesare Zavattini (Rome, Italy)
Many theorists highlighted that the concept of reciprocity could be considered an important element of comparison between the attachment paradigm, early childhood research, and object relationship theory (Fonagy, 2001; Cortina, Marrone, 2003; Stern, 2004). ; Holmes 2007). These studies shed light on the fact that behavior and psychological phenomena do not arise from isolated intrapsychic processes, but rather originate at the interface between individual worlds of experience, which interact. Such a process in the human being involves the mutual involvement of two spirits, where the subjectivity of an individual develops and works, reflecting in the eyes of the other.
Based on these premises, our study group on “Psychoanalytic couple psychotherapy and attachment” considers the relationship in the couple as the occasion to redefine and restructure the identity of the self (Ruszczynski 1993; Clulow, 2001; Lupinacci, Zavattini, 2002; Santona, Zavattini, 2005; In other words, the relationship can be a “development opportunity” to review internal working models or it can, on the contrary, contribute negatively to perpetuating the phenomena of discontinuity and dissociation of the self (the “strange self”) and need. “to externalize” what has not been prepared by individuals. We essentially think that an attachment-oriented psychoanalytic couple psychotherapy should be considered with respect to conflict attachment theory. This means that psychological suffering is taken into account not as the consequence of a defect in conflict resolution when satisfying impulses, but as the consequence of conflicts related to attachments that are not good enough (Bleichmar, 2003; Schwartz, Pollard, 2004).
In the theory of technique, it is necessary not only to fully include the role of the psychotherapist as a basis of security – that is, in its function of underpinning and support – but also to create, as Winnicott (1971) proposed, this basis. sufficiently secure (secure) that is totally necessary to explore the links related to insecurity and try to include the internal working model of relationships, as it relates to the present, the theory of our own past and the way in which the whole The problem was built in the current attachment relationship with the spouse. It is of the highest importance to pay attention to the quality of the meeting of the attachment models of the two partners, taking into account what has been defined as the attachment complex (Fisher, Crandle, 1997), that is, the strategies reciprocal affect regulation. More specifically, it is essential to include what is the border between the organization of the self and that which results from the meeting of the two selves, that is, the relationship between the individual scene, both the registration of the internal relations of the self and the other (internal intersubjectivity ), such as the unconscious articulation of the couple (shared intersubjectivity).
Furthermore, the technique of interpretation should attempt not only to include psychic organizations at the individual level, but should also concentrate its attention on the configuration of interactive exchanges in the field of the present of the session (Baranger, Baranger, 1969; Ferro, 1996; Zavattini, 2001, 2006), where and at the time when the couple and the therapists confront each other in a continuous process of broad examination of mental states (transference and countertransference, Norsa, Zavattini, 1997).
Our work is thus inspired by the most recent contributions related to intersubjectivity in technology (Beebe, Lachmann, 2002). We believe it is important to pay special attention to the procedural aspects, that is, to work on the structure of exchanges and on the sequences during the session.
Regarding interpretation, this implies that the therapist does not place himself in the position of the one who proposes the putting into form of the meanings that emerged during the session, but rather in that of the catalyst of the field of intersubjectivity and the negotiation of intersubjectivity ( Pizer, Pizer, 2005).
Based on these premises, our study group on “Psychoanalytic couple psychotherapy and attachment” considers the relationship in the couple as the occasion to redefine and restructure the identity of the self (Ruszczynski 1993; Clulow, 2001; Lupinacci, Zavattini, 2002; Santona, Zavattini, 2005; In other words, the relationship can be a “development opportunity” to review internal working models or it can, on the contrary, contribute negatively to perpetuating the phenomena of discontinuity and dissociation of the self (the “strange self”) and need. “to externalize” what has not been prepared by individuals. We essentially think that an attachment-oriented psychoanalytic couple psychotherapy should be considered with respect to conflict attachment theory. This means that psychological suffering is taken into account not as the consequence of a defect in conflict resolution when satisfying impulses, but as the consequence of conflicts related to attachments that are not good enough (Bleichmar, 2003; Schwartz, Pollard, 2004).
In the theory of technique, it is necessary not only to fully include the role of the psychotherapist as a basis of security – that is, in its function of underpinning and support – but also to create, as Winnicott (1971) proposed, this basis. sufficiently secure (secure) that is totally necessary to explore the links related to insecurity and try to include the internal working model of relationships, as it relates to the present, the theory of our own past and the way in which the whole The problem was built in the current attachment relationship with the spouse. It is of the highest importance to pay attention to the quality of the meeting of the attachment models of the two partners, taking into account what has been defined as the attachment complex (Fisher, Crandle, 1997), that is, the strategies reciprocal affect regulation. More specifically, it is essential to include what is the border between the organization of the self and that which results from the meeting of the two selves, that is, the relationship between the individual scene, both the registration of the internal relations of the self and the other (internal intersubjectivity ), such as the unconscious articulation of the couple (shared intersubjectivity).
Furthermore, the technique of interpretation should attempt not only to include psychic organizations at the individual level, but should also concentrate its attention on the configuration of interactive exchanges in the field of the present of the session (Baranger, Baranger, 1969; Ferro, 1996; Zavattini, 2001, 2006), where and at the time when the couple and the therapists confront each other in a continuous process of broad examination of mental states (transference and countertransference, Norsa, Zavattini, 1997).
Our work is thus inspired by the most recent contributions related to intersubjectivity in technology (Beebe, Lachmann, 2002). We believe it is important to pay special attention to the procedural aspects, that is, to work on the structure of exchanges and on the sequences during the session.
Regarding interpretation, this implies that the therapist does not place himself in the position of the one who proposes the putting into form of the meanings that emerged during the session, but rather in that of the catalyst of the field of intersubjectivity and the negotiation of intersubjectivity ( Pizer, Pizer, 2005).
Bibliography
- Berenstein, I. Becoming Other with other(s). Alienness, presence, interference . Paidós Editorial. 2004. Buenos Aires. Argentina.
- Berenstein, I. From being to doing . Course on linkage . Paidós Editorial. 2007. Buenos Aires. Argentina.
- Krakov, H. Again as a couple. New links, old <
- Krakov, H. “The elaboration process in the psychoanalytic couple device. Historicizing function and subjective change.
- Family Psychoanalysis. Updates in link psychoanalysis. Class No. 5 of the APdeBA Virtual Campus.. 2007. Buenos Aires. Argentina.
- Moreno, J. Human being. 2002. Zorzal Books. Buenos Aires. Argentina.
- Moguillansky, R and Seiguer, G. “On conflict and the clinic of bonding consultation.” Family Psychoanalysis. The work of the psychoanalyst. Online class No. 6 of the APdeBA Virtual Campus.. 2007. Buenos Aires. Argentina.
- Moguillansky, R and Seiguer, G. “The construction of clinical “data.” From theory to observable” Family Psychoanalysis. Updates in link psychoanalysis. Class No.7 of the APdeBA Virtual Campus. 2007. Buenos Aires. Argentina.
- Puget, J. “Intersubjectivity. “Crisis of representation”. Family Psychoanalysis. Updates in link psychoanalysis. Class No.3 of the APdeBA Virtual Campus. 2007. Buenos Aires. Argentina.
- Puget, J. “The figures of presentation in the clinic.” Family Psychoanalysis. Updates in link psychoanalysis. Class No.4 of the APdeBA Virtual Campus..2007. Buenos Aires. Argentina.
- Tortorelli, A. “<>. Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze. Two conferences from the Thinking with the Philosophers cycle. Couple and Family Department of APdeBA. 2005. Buenos Aires. Argentina