Is psychoanalysis a matter of subjectivation?

We are not born subject but become one, in a two‐and‐fro process between what is played out on the intrapsychic stage and the field of intersubjectivation. The author proposes to examine two of the main movements of psychic life brought into play in this process. In the domain of the ‘subjectivating link’, becoming a subject depends on the relationship with another, authentically taken into account as a desiring subject and not simply as an object for oneself. In the course of history, this intersubjectivation is only internalized as a lasting preconscious predisposition if sufficient trust is established in the possibility of mutual recognition. When this perspective recedes, the subject tends to fall back on narcissistic positions, in search of an end to lack. Such a narcissistic tendency drives the subject to constitute himself by subjugating his objects, striving to rob them of their otherness. A plurality of subject positions will be recognized in every analytic encounter. Psychoanalytic work can allow for a lasting change insofar as it modifies the equilibrium between diverse psychic trends. The multiplicity of the issues at stake in subjectivation allows us to integrate theoretical pluralism while encouraging us to reflect on the diversification of our practices.     

Psychoanalytical teamwork in a day hospital: Revisiting some preconditions for patients' subjective appropriation

Psychoanalytical 'teamwork' may be recommended for dealing with a particular kind of transference that characteristically occurs during the institutional treatment of young patients presenting psychotic or behavioural symptoms. In such cases, the degree of alienation is such that repetition is usually induced in other people (the therapists), fi lling in for fantasy construction that seems to be lacking in the patient's psyche. A case like that of 'Angel' can give some idea of this phenomenon, wherein several caregivers have to harbour fragmented and incompatible elements of the case's particular history, which are in need of more mental representation. Any subjective restitution and appropriation of these elements by the patient would require a sort of detour (often a trying one!) by way of the psychical space of caregivers whose initial task will be to 'work it through' among themselves.     

Postponing trauma: The dangers of telling

Surviving a major historical trauma has consequences that are difficult to live with. Survivors who remain silent are often condemned to a desiccated existence, a dried‐out life, a death in life. Survivors who speak out run an even greater risk. Telling their ghastly tale may trigger somatic consequences, psychotic episodes, or even suicide. As to the psychoanalytic cure, the free association it requires carries its own danger: negative therapeutic reaction in sometimes extreme forms. Avoidance of horror may turn into avoidance of life itself. Awful as it may seem, this avoidance of life may represent a victory over a menacing chaos. Should we as analysts accept the risk of endangering such a victory, no matter how unsatisfactory? The psychoanalytical injunction to speak out may trigger an upsurge of shame and terror. Is subjectivation always possible? This paper is about what happens when denial and splitting strategies are suspended, when ‘crypts’ are opened. Is there an analytic ‘poros’ allowing for a controlled return of affects? Is there a therapeutic solution to the problem of telling a wreckage without being caught in it? The dangers of ‘telling’ will be discussed in regard to new analytic strategies and new interpretive registers. When the ‘silent psychic sharing’ proves insufficient, some analysts go so far as to take part in the shame, share the grief, ‘lend their own psyche’, become a ‘double’ of the analysand, accept the existence of ‘sanctuaries’. To what effect?     

I play doh: The art of plasticine in the process of adolescent subjectivation

Pre‐adolescents' difficulty in portraying and communicating the internal turmoil to which puberty subjects them, both through the immaturity of their psychic functions and through the conflict between display and secrecy, presents a constant challenge to the analyst. A technical solution for making the process of subjectivation more pleasant may be found in modelling with Play Doh, a game/non‐game which is not age‐specific, an expressive form capable of evoking in the analytic field fantasies and representations that are otherwise only accessible with difficulty. This paper aims to present some reflections on the characteristic features of the Play Doh game in the session, with particular regard to work with patients between 10 and 14 years old who are in the midst of the process of adolescent subjectivation. The paper examines the clinical history of a young adopted boy who was able to develop the ability to dream his own experience and to portray internal experiences which had previously been unrepresentable.