Construction and subjectivity of fantasy

Abstract

De Robertis D, Tricoli ML. Construction and Subjectivity of Fantasy. Int Forum Psychoanal 1997;6: 167-174. Stockholm, ISSN 0803-706X.

The authors point out that in Freud's thought fantasy surpasses ontogeny, becoming history of phylogeny through collective and prehistoric Oedipus. Unlike Freud, who followed a positivistic epistemology, the authors emphasize the individual meanings of fantasy, according to the present constructionistic epistemology.

First, an outline of this point of view is presented. Secondly, a theoretical approach between fantasy and repression-in the light of the concept of “compulsion to know”-is suggested. A clinical vignette follows to illustrate the above mentioned principles.     

Solving the problems of duality: the third and self-consciousness

Locating the concept of the third in the debate about countertransference that began in the 1950s, the authors maintain that it originated to solve problems stemming from the recognition that the analytic encounter takes place between two individual subjects. This recognition can lead to discomfort for the analyst, once objective criteria to interpret reality have been lost due to adhesion to a dialectical constructionist perspective; it also implies a deeper involvement arising from the abandonment of neutrality. The concept of the third is often invoked to help avoid these risks. However, the authors maintain that only the human subject itself can grasp the self reflexively; this view has a referent in the Hegelian concept of self-consciousness and is also supported by the findings of infant research.     

The Analyst's Participation in the Process

Using a clinical vignette, in which self-disclosure appears as a starting point, the authors investigate the connection between method and techniques. As the recent literature on the subject generally maintains, the classical analysts' neutral position can no longer be accepted. Analysts are always fully engaged in the intersubjective relationship and pass their values on to their patients through their professional roles - which can be understood as self-disclosure in a wider meaning. However, self-disclosure, and in more general terms the analyst's participation in the process, need technical criteria of reference. By deepening the relationship between method and techniques, established by Rapaport, the authors maintain that method is determined by theory and in turn gives meaning to techniques. As a consequence, techniques play a minor role with regard to theory and method. The opening of psychoanalysis to the relational perspective is bringing about the decrease of technique as an absolute value in favour of a greater self-awareness of the analyst who, following the method related to his/her theory will be able to better cope with techniques.