REVIEW N° 7 | YEAR 2010 / 1
EDITORIAL
Anna Maria Nicolò
In this issue, “Sufferance of links and their transformation in psychoanalysis with couples and families”, the journal publishes a selection of papers that were presented in the Association’s International conference that was held in Buenos Aires in July 28-31, 2010
The theme of the “link” continues to pose us questions and divide itself into its various sections. We can also find evidence among many authors who have gone before such examples. For example, Bion spoke about the existence of links L, H and K and in “Cogitations” (1992) he had, in a certain sense, underlined the autonomous existence of the link between the analyst and patient, beyond that of the transference, stating, “the patient’s relationship is, weakly, with the analyst in so much as the analyst is with the couple in the room, any couple, but the most obvious couple is that of the analyst and patient […]. The relationship is […] with the couple in so much that it is made up of two objects that are linked together. The predominant element is […] the aspect of the relationship that is formed with the link between two objects” (Bion, 1992, p.94). Another author who made significant contributions regarding this was Ogden (1994, 1997, 2001), with his concept of the third analytical, which is based on the idea that a third subject of analysis exists besides the analyst and patient, defined as the third inter-subjective analytical whose construction comes from both partners of the analytic couple even though it is in asymmetric amounts.
Winnicott (1965) is certainly the most creative precursor from this point of view. He was the first to hypothesise the existence of an intermediate space in the relationship between “me and the other”. The nature of such space has been the object of discussion for a long time and its importance as an intermediate space that the couple creates from inside the married couple or as a space between the “me and not me”, for each of us, is by now, an undeniable discovery that is taken for granted.
“The third intermediate area of a human being is located in the potential space between the individual and his environment”. This is the space that initially and at the same time unites and separates the mother and child” (Tonnesmann, 1992, p.12).
Starting from the 1930s, the theory of object relationships was the most useful model for working on a subject’s internal relationships and was used, for example, by the English authors to describe the existing fantasmatic functioning in relationships between the married analytic couple. This model allowed them to describe the corresponding defences that were used, thus, defining a kind of “policy of functioning of the individual mind”. The work of Dicks and the English school arose from this. They used the word “collusion” to define the unconscious reciprocal game that occurred in such a couple and that arose from reciprocal, crossing over identifications. Many authors worked on these aspects for a considerable period of time. Meltzer and Harris (1983) in their book “The educative role of the family” studied the family as a learning context of emotional and fantasmatic ways. They applied the theory of object relationships and illustrated various types of family functioning that they distinguished, based on the type of defence used. They described families in projective pathological identification, others in adhesion identification and so on.
Even reiterating the usefulness of the “objectual” relationship theory, in my opinion, the theory of links is presented as an additional instrument that permits us to understand what happens in the space between two subjects and it also provides us with a technique for intervening, a theory that describes what Bollas called, “The subjectsubject relationships between two individuals who influence each other at an unconscious level, they have a reciprocal affective relationship with direct working through effects upon each other and also an unconscious state towards each other” (Molino, 1997, p.50). Thus, we are speaking from a point of view of looking at not only “objectual” relationships but also at relationships between subject and subject, those that I have suggested be called “subjectual relationships” (Nicolò, 2004). From this point of view the object of the relationship is not only the object of projection but is also “the term of a process of psychic exchange, and so it is like another subject, another subject that insists and resists because he is the other” (Kaës, 1994, p. 27). The link, even being constructed by the two partners in the interaction, forms a third element that is able to influence and modify both participants. Today, a huge mass of studies and research are visible in this field, in particular, work of analysts with couples and families. Sometimes we find ourselves in front of innovative working through, instead, other times situations seen in the past but re-described with new words, classical discoveries of psychoanalysis. This may cause certain confusion and useless waste of effort. I think that it would be far better for every author who begins to write in a new field to recognise his gratitude towards the others who have gone before and have taught him many important points along the way. Regarding clinical material, the last word rests with the checking and effectiveness of new discoveries.
This issue of the journal takes advantage of the contribution from important researchers who have worked long hours on this theme, and so, we leave it to them to shed some light upon the lesser known areas that still exist.
Bibliography
Bion W.R. (1974), Seminari Brasiliani, in W.R. Bion, Il cambiamento catastrofico, Loescher, Torino, 1981.
Davis M., Wallbridge D.C. (1981), Introduzione all’opera di D.W. Winnicott, Martinelli, Firenze, 1984.
Kaës R. (1993), Introduction au concept de transmission psychique dans la pensée de Freud, in R. Kaës et al. (a cura di), Transmission de la vie psichique entre générations, Dunod, Paris.
Kennedy R. (2000), Becoming a Subject: Some Theoretical and Clinical Issues, Int. J. of Psychoanal., vol. 81, part 5, 875-889 (tr. it. in Interazioni).
Meltzer D., Harris M. (1983), Il ruolo educativo della famiglia, Centro Scientifico Torinese, Torino, 1986.
Molino A. (a cura di) (1997), Intervista a Christopher Bollas, in Liberamente associati, Astrolabio, Roma, 1999, 11-51.
Nicolò A.M. (2004), Interpretare il legame nella coppia analitica, in G. Berti Ceroni (a cura di), Come cura la psicoanalisi?, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino (in corso di stampa).
Tonnesmann M. (1992), The Third Area of Experience in
Psychoanalysis, Winnicott Studies, 8, 1993.
Winnicott D.W. (1965), Sviluppo affettivo e ambiente, Armando, Roma, 1970.